Sitting of 22 October 1990

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

    Private Bill Procedure
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the proposed reform of private Bill procedure in so far as it affects his Department.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): We have received nearly 100 representations so far in response to the consultation paper that was published on 21 June. Most of those who have offered views have supported the principle of the Government's proposals for establishing new procedures for authorising the majority of rail, light rapid transit and harbour works projects.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware, however, that, contrary to an EC directive, the new Humber port is to go ahead without an environmental impact study having been done, and that, as a result, 10 million tonnes of coal will be travelling to and from Nottinghamshire power stations, causing an environmental blitz on villages along the route? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Nottinghamshire community charge payers should not be left to pick up the bill for the
    2
    resulting road damage, as happened at the end of the miners' strike? Should not the proposals to which my right hon. Friend referred be made to apply retrospectively to all Bills passed in 1990?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the House is quite properly suspicious of retrospective legislation, and the point that he made was considered by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. I am sure that he knows, too, that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee that an environmental assessment study should accompany future private Bills.
    Mr. Skinner: Surely, what is being requested is not retrospective at all. Are not we merely calling upon the Government to do the decent thing and ensure that an environmental impact study is undertaken by the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, in respect of these massive changes, which would result in up to 30 million tonnes of coal being brought into the British coalfields and in our miners being displaced? If that study were made, and if the proper planning requirements were adhered to, the Humber port and the other associated ports would not go ahead.
    Mr. Parkinson: The whole point of the new procedures is to widen the discussion and give more people a chance to register their objections, while preventing unreasonable objections and preventing small minorities of hon. Members from blocking Bills. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made was considered by the Select Committee and the argument was rejected. The Committee felt qualified to reach its decision without an environmental assessment and the House approved the Committee's thinking when it gave the Bill its Third Reading.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an unfairness inherent in the private Bill procedure and that, in the drafting of the King's Cross Railways Bill, which presumed a rail link from the channel tunnel to central London, there was no mention whatever of the

    3
    alignment of that route, which denied to those who might be affected, by implication, the opportunity of making any representations? Was not British Rail's draftmanship too clever by half?
    Mr. Parkinson: I think that the whole House recognises that our present arrangements for approving major infrastructure projects by the private Bill procedure are unsatisfactory. That is why we came forward with a consultation paper. That is why we shall consider carefully the points made to us and I suspect—although I cannot commit the Government—that we shall come forward with primary legislation in due course.

    M66
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress towards the construction of the M66 from Denton to Middleton.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I expect work on the first construction contract at the northern end of the scheme to commence early in 1992, subject to the successful outcome of the remaining statutory procedures.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that my constituents are extremely concerned about the traffic congestion at the Denton end of the existing piece of motorway and are keen that he should publish as soon as possible the side road orders in connection with the proposed link from Denton to Middleton because they fear that the whole process is being delayed by the proposals of North West Water to develop a business park at Kingswater? We should like an assurance that the Department will not delay in getting the motorway link in place, because it is essential to the safety of my constituents.
    Mr. Chope: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to see the project completed as soon as possible. I can assure him that the Kingswater park scheme will not be allowed to interfere with that very important motorway project. If the Kingswater park scheme cannot be implemented at the same time, it will have to wait until after the M66 has been completed. That important scheme will cost about £250 million and we are proud to have it in our roads programme.
    Mr. Sumberg: When the motorway is completed, will my hon. Friend the Minister bear it in mind that it will relieve some of the congestion on the M62 and will therefore make unnecessary the unloved and unwelcome extension to the M62, which would seriously damage and decimate parts of my constituency? That extension is totally opposed by every constituent whom I have met and know, including many who met my hon. Friend the Minister when he was kind enough to come and see the site for himself during the recess.
    Mr. Chope: As my hon. Friend recognises, I went to have a look at the proposed site and to listen to some representations about it. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what proposals might be made later and only at that stage can I go into the merits of the scheme.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to respond to the proposals contained in the draft European Community directive for investment to provide high-speed rail links between Scotland and the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The draft directive for a high-speed European rail network makes no such proposals, but a full electric service between Edinburgh and London is expected to start next year, and British Rail's plans for the channel tunnel include services between Scotland and the continent.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister explain why the European Transport Commissioner is more concerned with fast rail links to Scotland and the continent than is the Department of Transport? How did the Secretary of State for Transport have the brass neck to announce at the Tory party conference some £2,500 million of additional rail spending in London while the Edinburgh-Aberdeen line has not been supported for electrification? The Government are not running a transport policy; they are running a regional and political policy directed to the south of England where they want to spend their way to the next election.
    Mr. Freeman: I do not accept that for one moment. The hon. Gentleman knows that British Rail's investment programme totals £3·7 billion over the next three years, and that includes the completion of electrification to Edinburgh involving £450 million for an excellent service up the east coast main line.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any of the costs of the improvement to high-speed rail links between Scotland and the south-east of England will have to be borne by British Rail out of its operating revenue, including all or any costs for environmental work? Will he further confirm that any environmental roadworks between Scotland, the south-east and the channel tunnel will all be funded by the taxpayer? Why do we have double standards between road and rail for environmental protection?
    Mr. Freeman: In response to my hon. Friend's question about British Rail having to finance its investment programme out of its operating revenues, that is not the case. British Rail's investment programme of £3·7 billion over the next three years is financed through the receipt of grants from the taxpayer, the receipt of proceeds from the sale of surplus land and borrowing from the taxpayer. With regard to the difference between road and rail appraisal, I should be glad to meet my hon. Friend, to go into the details and explain how British Rail appraises its projects.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the demand for a fast rail link between Scotland and the channel tunnel has increased since last week? Is he further aware that one of the two links between Northern Ireland and Great Britain—the Belfast-Liverpool ferry—was closed down last week and that the remaining link between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom is the Northern Ireland-Scottish link between Larne and Stranraer? Will the Minister take into account the new

    5
    circumstances and accept that everyone in Northern Ireland fully supports the demand by Scotland for fast rail links between Scotland and the channel tunnel?
    Mr. Freeman: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall pass on his comments to British Rail. It plans investment and it runs the railway. In respect of high-speed rail links, the first priority must be the line from Folkestone to London. British Rail is presently evaluating alternative routes into London. When it has completed that appraisal—I hope in the spring of next year—it will then, in due course, come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with specific proposals for a new high-speed rail link, which the Government accept is needed.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that my constituency attaches considerable importance to the King's Cross project. There was much dismay there when the private Bill procedure was delayed by the absence of Labour Members, which made the Committee inquorate. Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that when British Rail makes use of the impressive investment that he referred to, some of the money goes to places such as Lancaster to give us a good freight and passenger service?
    Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend. She may have read in the press a very misleading account of an alleged postponement or nigh cancellation of west coast main line improvements. That is absolutely untrue. The west coast main line investment, which will be substantial—about £750 million, I understand—is still in British Rail's plans. Improvements cannot be built overnight. When British Rail comes forward with a specific investment proposal, that is a matter for it. [Interruption.] I am sure that it is as interested as the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape), and we are interested in looking at such a proposal. When it comes forward we shall give it sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Prescott: Is not the Minister aware of the despair that is felt by British Rail management that they have to postpone plans for the north-west high-speed rail link because of the inadequacies of the corporate plan of which we warned last December? Will the Minister and the Secretary of State now review that decision, come to the House and give us a further statement on the, changes before any further damage is done to our inadequate and deteriorating railway system?
    Mr. Freeman: I find the hon. Gentleman's question difficult to comprehend. In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to say following the autumn statement and the updating of the external financing limits both for British Rail and for London Regional Transport, I am sure that British Rail will come forward with updated plans and proposals not only for the next three years but for the next decade. It is right that it should look beyond the three-year public expenditure survey planning period. One cannot build major railway lines within the three-year PES planning period. We look forward very much indeed to positive proposals from British Rail.

    Accidents, London
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest available statistics for traffic accidents involving (a) vehicles and pedestrians and (b) vehicles and cycles for Greater London.
    Mr. Chope: In 1989 there were 12,148 personal injury accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians, and 4,986 personal injury accidents involving vehicles and pedal cyclists.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that one of the great problems in London is the lack of transport planning because of the abolition of the Greater London council? The Government are calmly presiding over a massive increase in the number of commuter cars in central London, which increases the number of accidents involving cyclists—they went up by nearly 30 per cent. in 1988–89—and the serious number of accidents involving pedestrians. Does not the Minister agree that the time has come to control the growth in commuter car motoring in London, to increase the grants available to public transport, and, in planning red routes and other routes, instead of being obsessed with increasing the number of cars, actually to make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists? Under present plans there is no proposal for cycle routes on major road junctions. We need safety first for pedestrians and cyclists, not an increase in the number of cars.
    Mr. Chope: The fact is that there has actually been a reduction in the number of cars commuting into London. There has been an increase in the number of cyclists, and I welcome that. The Government are investing a lot of money in road safety and transport supplementary grant, and we have given local authorities substantial sums to spend on road safety schemes. If the hon. Gentleman encouraged more people to pay the community charge, instead of discouraging them, there would be more money to spend on road safety.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many accidents involving pedestrians are caused by rat running and that the welcome news about red routes will go some way to deterring that? Does he further agree that we also need road humps and restricted road widths, and that that should be encouraged by local government? Finally, does he agree that far too many bicycle accidents are caused by cyclists travelling without lights at night?
    Mr. Chope: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. The borough that he is fortunate enough to represent has set a good example and has shown what can be done to improve traffic flow on the roads and road safety and to ensure that there is less rat running.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware of the early-day motion that I tabled about six months ago about the horrifyingly high number of deaths and injuries on pedestrian crossings? That early-day motion, which was signed by many hon. Members, called on the Department of Transport to take action to try to reduce the number of deaths and injuries. However, we have heard nothing from his Department and very little from the police about prosecuting the motorists who cause those deaths and injuries. When are we going to get some action?
    Mr. Chope: There is plenty of action, but there is a limit to what the Government can do because safety depends on pedestrians, cyclists and other road users using their common sense and applying the rules that they should know about. However, we are spending £1·5 million to promote child safety this year and we have encouraged the private sector to contribute £8·5 million towards that same campaign. The Government are not complacent about that, but we look to people such as the hon. Gentleman to support us.

    London Underground
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment in London Underground this year and in 1984–85.
    Mr. Parkinson: London Underground alone plans to invest approximately £400 million in 1990–91. In real terms, that is two and a half times the future for 1984–85, the last year that the Labour Greater London council set funding levels for London Transport.
    Mr. Marshall: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be warmly welcomed by commuters in London who deeply deplore the attempts of certain Opposition Members to use the private Bill procedure as a means of frustrating improvements to London's transport? Will my right hon. Friend spend substantial sums to improve existing routes such as the Northern line, on which the trains are all to often graffiti-ridden and irregular and where the standard of service is not what it ought to be?
    Mr. Parkinson: London Underground plans to invest about £1,700 million in the next three years, £1,200 million of which will be spent on the existing underground. The Northern line will, in due course, come forward for modernisation, and the Central line modernisation is already under way. In addition, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we can put the Opposition's commitment to improving London Underground's system to the test by asking them to support us both with the London Underground Bill and the Heathrow Express Railway Bill, which deal with the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that people south of the river feel that, over the years, investment has been made disproportionately north of the river? Will the right hon. Gentleman affirm that the key immediate tests of the commitment of both the Government and London Underground to transport south of the river are their commitment to the stations that he already knows about, such as Southwark and Bermondsey on the Jubilee line, a commitment to the south extension of the east London line, and their commitment to improvements on the Northern and Bakerloo lines, because we shall then begin to feel that we are at least getting fair treatment?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one attraction of the Jubilee line is that it brings south London more favourably into the underground system. He should also remember that we are planning to take the Jubilee line to the Greenwich peninsula, which will bring that part of south London into the system. We accept the hon.
    8
    Gentleman's complaint that south London has not had its fair share of public transport investment, but we are doing our best to make up for that.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Northern line, which serves much of my constituency, celebrates its centenary in a couple of weeks, which I believe, makes it the oldest tube system in the world. Will my right hon. Friend give the line, which, unfortunately, has been dubbed the "misery line", some really good news to celebrate on its centenary?
    Mr. Parkinson: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), a substantial programme for improving the existing lines is in hand. The Central line is at present in the middle of a £750 million modernisation programme and, as it is completed, the Northern line will be the next to get the treatment.
    Ms. Ruddock: Given what the Secretary of State said about investment, will he tell the House why he believes that ridership on the underground is falling when, in its annual business plan, London Underground predicted a 4 per cent. increase in the current year? Does he intend to bail out London Underground's £40 million deficit or to inflict further pain upon the travelling public in London?
    Mr. Parkinson: I wish that the deficit on London's underground was only £40 million. The loss that London Underground expects to make this year is £120 million, so its investment programme will be funded virtually entirely by the taxpayer through a grant of more than £434 million to the Underground. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that over the next three years London Underground will receive another £1·75 billion. That is how it will pay for the rest of its capital programme.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are currently being considered by his Department to help reduce traffic congestion in London and other large cities.
    Mr. Parkinson: We are tackling urban traffic congestion with a range of measures, including better public transport, road improvements and better management of the road network.
    In and around London, Network SouthEast and London Regional Transport are investing £3·4 billion during this and the next two years in public transport, and I have just announced the £1·4 billion east-west crossrail project, which is in addition to that.
    I have also announced a major series of measures to overhaul traffic and parking controls in London.
    Mr. Evans: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate him on his imaginative and bold schemes—schemes that this country can afford, thanks to the prosperity achieved under the Government? Is not that in stark contrast to the crackpot spending schemes of the Labour party, which would quickly find itself bankrupt as it bankrupted the country in the late 1970s, just like a certain building in the Walworth road and the unions are bankrupt? In other words, no money and no ideas.
    Mr. Parkinson: It is a fact that, in spite of all the claims of Labour Members, when the Labour party was in government it ran the country's economy into the ground

    9
    and the result was a huge cut in every capital programme. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we have record investment in the underground, the railways and Network SouthEast and we have plans for clearing space on our roads to get better use out of them. All that we hear from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his colleagues is whingeing and wild promises.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that at least some of the traffic congestion in Hackney is caused by the fact that we are the only borough in London without a tube station? Is he aware of how much some of us in Hackney have pinned our hopes on the Chelsea-Hackney line? Can he give us some assurances about the future of that scheme?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Lady knows, we had to make a choice between east-west crossrail and Chelsea-Hackney. We concluded that London simply could not stand the simultaneous construction of two major lines. It would bring the capital to a grinding halt, a fact that the newspapers now appear to be getting hold of. Therefore, we have approved the plan for east-west crossrail and we have kept the option of Chelsea-Hackney open by protecting the line at an initial cost of £15 million.
    Mr. Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one way to reduce congestion is to encourage the use of bicycles by people who commute in the inner cities? As one who bicycles to and from the House fairly frequently, I find that one of the problems is the state of the road surface. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the Government are doing to encourage the public utilities, which usually cause the problems with the road surface by digging it up one after the other and leaving it in a poor state, to return road surfaces to the standard that we have every right to expect?
    Mr. Parkinson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his courage in cycling around central London and daily to Westminster. The good news is that, all being well, we hope to present a Bill in the next Session giving us much more control over public utilities and their activities in digging up roads and setting higher standards for resurfacing repaired roads. We shall probably also include a power to charge and penalise such utilities if they do the job badly.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that traffic congestion in London will not be improved if the new Networker trains from Kent and south-east London do not come in as planned at the end of 1991? As these are to operate on some of the most crowded routes in Europe and British Rail accepts that the present service is below an acceptable standard, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that those trains will come in on time?
    Mr. Parkinson: The order was placed in September last year, the new trains are due for delivery in September next year and they are scheduled to come into full service in January of the following year. It is now in the hands of the manufacturers. Resignalling is under way and the necessary work on the stations is to begin.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Southampton is becoming known as the city of a thousand traffic lights? The eastern docks road, to which we looked forward for many years, is extremely dangerous—
    10
    narrowing from four lanes to two every few hundred yards. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a private. Bill—the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill—will increase congestion? That railway will start and end in the city centre and all the motorists will have to converge on the city centre. Does my right hon. Friend propose in future to leave it entirely to local authorities to control these great areas of congestion or will he send people from the Department to investigate as soon as possible all the problems of traffic safety in Southampton?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Transport owns 4 per cent. of the roads—the motorways and national trunk roads—while the other 96 per cent. are owned and controlled by local authorities. Southampton has taken a fairly major step in the right direction as a result of the recent reshuffle. We now have in the Department a Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—who is determined to make sure that the problems there are properly addressed.
    Mr. Rooker: May I remind the Secretary of State that not all Britain's transport problems are in London? One clear way to reduce congestion is through the use of mass transit and light rail networks. Can the right hon. Gentleman cite even one instance in which the Department has offered concrete, solid financial assistance to any of the proposed light rail systems? When will Birmingham get the benefit of the electrified north-south route that he announced during the Mid-Staffordshire by-election?
    Mr. Parkinson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes—the Manchester Metrolink is being backed by substantial Government funds. I was in that area a couple of weeks ago and good progress is being made on what looks like an interesting scheme. Other schemes are being considered.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about electrification. We wish to get ahead with that as quickly as possible because we think that the cross-Birmingham route from Redditch to Lichfield, which will use the new rolling stock that has been ordered and approved by my Department, will be a major boon to Birmingham. There are a variety of answers to the problems of our different cities. Some will have light rail and some will have improved electrification of existing lines. Both systems are under way.

    London Underground
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve the Central line of London Underground.
    Mr. Freeman: The Central line is currently undergoing modernisation costing more than £700 million and involving 85 new trains and complete resignalling. The first of the new trains is expected to run in early 1992 and the whole programme is scheduled for completion by 1995.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for outlining those welcome improvement programmes. In the meantime, is he aware that for many of my constituents the Central line has become the new misery line? There is gross staff rudeness, graffiti all over the place, unpunctual trains and trains turned around without the people waiting

    11
    for them being told. Other failures relate to the use of public address systems. Will my hon. Friend address himself to those problems and do something about them?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's comments on to London Underground, which tries hard to meet quality targets. The east-west crossrail will bring substantial benefit to the Central line between Paddington and Liverpool street stations at the end of the decade, when it is completed. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in inaugurating, in Ealing, the new anti-graffiti paint that London Underground is shortly to introduce. The end of graffiti man is at hand.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister seen the recent speculation in the press that due to a squeeze on London Transport, particularly as a result of the fall in the price in land, it will not be able to proceed with the Central line upgrading or the crossrail? Will he give an absolute assurance that both the improvements to the central line and those to Stratford railway station will go ahead?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give that assurance. The fall in property receipts, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers, applies not only to London Underground but to British Rail. However, it will not affect progress on the Central line or on the east-west crossrail which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, will be financed in the conventional way, largely by Government grant.

    Suburban Railways
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on investment to increase the use of suburban railway lines.
    Mr. Parkinson: I am always ready to approve investments in local rail services that are financially sound or can be justified by cost-benefit criteria.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention to the lines that run from Severn Beach to central Bristol, through Avonmouth and Shirehampton in my constituency? Does not study of that line show that what the area needs is not so much investment as a willingness by British Rail to publicise the existence of the line and protect the frequency of services, which could do so much to get people to their work on Severnside and in central Bristol without using the roads?
    Mr. Parkinson: The problem with the line in question is that it is using out-of-date, worn-out rolling stock because of late deliveries from manufacturers, running up to two years late, of new stock which would replace the old and unreliable stock. One of the reasons why the service is not marketed actively is that British Rail regards it as unreliable and is determined to get a better service before it starts encouraging people to use the line.
    Mr. Doran: This is the fifth successive question dealing with transport in the south of England. People in the north-east of Scotland react with a hollow laugh—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other suburban railways in Scotland.
    Mr. Doran: I had always assumed that Bristol was in the south.
    12
    People in the north-east of Scotland react with a hollow laugh when we hear all these discussions about transport problems in the south and promises from the Secretary of State of huge sums of money to improve them. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a genuine fear, particularly in the Grampian region, that we shall become isolated because of our transport problems? British Airways has refused to give us a shuttle service, British Rail has refused to invest a meagre £80 million in electrifying the east coast line, and all the 17 miles of single carriageway between Aberdeen and Rome are located between Aberdeen and Dundee. When will there be a real direction in transport policy to help not just the south but the rest of the country?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, roads north of the border are the province of the Scottish Office. However, I can deal with his point about the railways. We shall be completing the electrification of the east coast main line through to Edinburgh. The new 158 services were introduced between Glasgow and Edinburgh, the first of those services using air conditioned, modern diesel units. ScotRail has had at least its share—most people south of the border would say more than its share—of investment. As to the roads connecting Scotland——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about railways.
    Mr. Parkinson: I will just make this last point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that the A1 is to be upgraded to motorway standards.
    Sir David Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome for his announcement that British Rail will have the go ahead to put new rolling stock and new trains on the services from Exeter, Salisbury and Andover to Waterloo? Does he accept that that announcement is long overdue and that British Rail should have brought proposals forward much earlier?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased about the announcement. He has led the charge for that investment. I am pleased to tell him that as the new trains come forward for delivery, and as the 18-month gap is closed, we expect to see some of the regions with more new stock and a great improvement in the service.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that, whatever he says publicly, the reality of travel on Britain's suburban railways is a saga of delays, cancellations, overcrowding and high fares? None of his speeches, plans and promises have made any difference to that. Does he accept that after the Government's 11 years in nominal charge of British Rail and nearly five years in charge of the London Underground system, none of us is surprised that he did not get a standing ovation at the Tory party conference? If he does not put up some money instead of just wind and talk, he will be lucky to get a clap next year.
    Mr. Parkinson: As one compliment deserves another, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on not being elected Opposition Chief Whip. The figures may disappoint him, but I should like him to listen to them. Since we took over in 1979, £6,000 million has been invested in British Rail. A further £4,000 million is to be invested in the next three years, so cheer up—good news is on the way, the service will get better and the hon. Gentleman will become redundant.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Bolton
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit Bolton.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have it in mind to visit Bolton next year, but no plans have been drawn up at present.
    Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. Friend visits Bolton, will he meet the villagers of Affetside? They would be pleased if details of any future local government boundary changes were pinned up in the pub so that they might know about them.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend will be aware that my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster do not extend to the Boundary Commission for England. I understand that the commission has made a proposal which would involve 600 people being transferred from my hon. Friend's constituency of Bolton, North-East to the constituency of Bury, North. As is usual in these matters, strong feelings are aroused. I am sure that the commission will take note of the local reactions to its proposals and the reasons for them, both historical and practical. I would hope that any changes will be taken only after careful consideration and widespread consultation.
    Dr. Cunningham: When the Chancellor next goes to the north-west, will he apologise to the head teachers of independent schools and to the parents of children on assisted places schemes for inviting the head teachers, in a letter from Conservative central office, to break a confidence and identify, for the use of the Conservative party, the names and addresses of parents who have children on assisted places schemes? Is not that a flagrant breach of the confidentiality associated with these matters and should not he withdraw the letter now?
    Mr. Baker: What I have done is within the powers of any person to do. I wanted to highlight for the parents who send their children to private schools the fact that the Labour Opposition wish to withdraw the assisted places scheme, which benefits about 27,000 pupils. That would be extremely damaging. The Labour party wants to withdraw help from those pupils who deserve it most and to undermine private schools altogether. It wishes to restrict choice by abolishing grant-maintained schools and city technology schools. That is the negative education policy of the Labour party.

    Official Transport
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by his office on his official transport in the current financial year.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: In the current financial year my office has spent £21,060 on official transport.
    Mr. Banks: The Chancellor will know that in the past year he spent £34,000 on official transport. How can he possibly justify that expenditure when he has said that he spends about a quarter of his time on official Duchy business? Is not this an example of the taxpayer subsidising the right hon. Gentleman's increasingly ineffective activities as chairman of the Conservative party? Would
    14
    not it be better for Conservative central office to reimburse the money that has been taken? Finally, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to continue using his official car as chairman of the Conservative party, may I suggest that he has a commode inserted in the back seat?
    Mr. Baker: All my Conservative party engagements around the country are paid for by Conservative central office. An official car is provided for my official business as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and as a member of the Cabinet. There is no greater expert on official transport than the hon. Gentleman, who is a former chairman of the Greater London Council and had an official car which I am sure he did not use for party purposes.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend devote as much official time as possible during the next year to visiting schools and warning those parents currently taking advantage of the assisted places scheme about the Opposition's intentions?
    Mr. Baker: I should be delighted to do so, not only in my capacity as a Cabinet Minister, but as chairman of the Conservative party. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) raised the issue at all, as it exposes how negative the Opposition's education policy is and how damaging it will be. They talk about choice for parents, but all that they believe in is reducing choice for parents.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he proposes to visit north-east Lancashire to discuss the appointment of magistrates.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I recently discussed the matter at a meeting of the south Sefton advisory committee on Merseyside. I have no plans to visit at present.
    Mr. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the growing concern of many people in Lancashire and the north-west that magistrates benches are increasingly less representative of the communities that they serve? Is not it time that they were made more representative of local communities?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many magistrates are becoming increasingly concerned about having to apply the poll tax legislation and liability orders against people in the north-west who they know cannot afford to pay the poll tax?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's first point raised a serious matter. I am concerned that there should be proper representation on the magistrates bench, covering all parties and all strata of society. My advisers and I are anxious to ensure that that happens.
    With regard to payment of the community charge and the role of the magistracy, I remind the hon. Gentleman that according to a survey last week by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, district councils received payment from 87 per cent. of those required to pay the community charge. The figure would be higher if some Labour Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and councillors would also pay up. I understand that five Labour councillors in Burnley are refusing to pay, and that only last week a Member of the European Parliament had to be ordered by Accrington

    15
    magistrates to pay his fair share towards the cost of local services. Many people in Burnley are paid a great deal less than a Member of the European Parliament, yet they have to subsidise his non-payment.
    As for Labour Members of Parliament who joined the poll tax demonstration in London last Saturday, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) claims that there is no support in the Labour party for non-payment campaigns, so which is the true voice of the Labour party—the empty rhetoric of the Opposition Front Bench or the rabble-rousing activities of Labour Members of Parliament on Saturday?

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Commission Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next expects the Public Accounts Commission to meet.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of the Commission, but I expect that it will take place in December.
    Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous work of Nottinghamshire county council in attracting industry and other bodies, including the Inland Revenue, English Heritage and Toray, to relocate to its area? At the next meeting of the Public Accounts Commission, will the hon. Gentleman discuss the possibility of the National Audit Office also seeking to relocate in the Nottinghamshire county council area?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has it in mind to move some of the functions of the National Audit Office to regional offices. I understand that he is planning to do so to some considerable extent to the north of England, and also to the west country, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman as to whether any relocation will be to Nottinghamshire.
    Mr. Latham: When considering salaries paid at the National Audit Office, will my hon. Friend and the commission bear in mind that it is probably the only branch of the public service that makes a profit for the taxpayer by identifying instances of waste and inefficiency in other Departments?
    Mr. Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. The National Audit Office has to recruit from the market generally and cannot be tied to a rigid salary structure imposed by anyone, even the Government.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I recognise the right of journalists to publish any material that comes their way if they believe publication to be in the public interest, but will the Public Accounts Commission nevertheless wholeheartedly condemn the activities of hon. Members and others who leak the reports of Select Committees and undermine the work of those Committees?
    Mr. Hordern: So far as I know, there has been no leak of any kind from the Public Accounts Commission. Perhaps our affairs are not considered sufficiently important or newsworthy. In any event, I think that this is probably a matter for the Committee of Privileges.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Written Questions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many written questions he has answered since he last answered questions in the Chamber.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Three, Sir.
    Mr. Winnick: That does not seem very many. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he appears to have become the Prime Minister's fall guy in all the Government's present difficulties? Is he happy with that role, or does he fear that it will not be long before Mr. Ingham starts a whispering campaign against him? Many of the right hon. Gentleman's former Cabinet colleagues know full well how Mr. Ingham works in this regard.
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am very happy in my work, and that I intend to preside over a campaign in which he will lose his seat in Walsall, North just as he lost his seat in Croydon, North.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Bicycle Mileage Allowance
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for a bicycle mileage allowance for Members.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Government have no such plans at the moment. However, both logic and common sense give some support to the idea. I shall therefore arrange for it to be examined.
    Mr. Tony Banks: That is an excellent idea. In view of the cost of the Chancellor of the Duchy's car, perhaps the Lord President should suggest that he take up bicycling—although, knowing his right hon. Friend, it would probably be a tandem with a member of the working class struggling to pedal at the front.
    I am grateful to the Lord President for his answer. He must be aware that civil servants receive the allowance, so it is surely appropriate that Members of Parliament should receive it as well. Bicycling is both health-giving and environmentally friendly. I can see the Lord President now, cycling around London like the clappers with his clips and tin helmet. It will, indeed, be a good thing for Members of Parliament to receive this allowance.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is deploying his rhetoric against an open door. I have noted that civil servants enjoy the allowance and that to grant it to Members of Parliament would be an environmentally-friendly gesture. Only a handful of our colleagues currently take advantage of the two-wheeled vehicle, but no doubt more will follow their example if I ensure that the matter is examined.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it possible that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has forgotten his days as chairman of the GLC, when he drove in a palatial car at the ratepayer's expense? Perhaps he now wants to pedal a cycle at the taxpayer's expense.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Perhaps it is as a consequence of being deprived of his former office that the hon. Gentleman has adopted a more modest means of transport.
    Dr. Cunningham: While we are discussing allowances, may I ask whether the Leader of the House saw yesterday's "Insight" articles about the avoidance of taxation—on a huge scale—by very wealthy members of society? As he is responsible for the legislative programme, will he at least hint that this loophole will be closed in the Queen's Speech?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would take a considerable stretch of the imagination to relate that question to the subject of mileage allowances for right hon. and hon. Members.

    New Parliamentary Building
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many offices, bathrooms, bedrooms, cloakrooms, shops and recreational facilities are expected to be available in the new parliamentary building; when phase I will be available to hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The main facilities in phase 1 will include offices for 60 right hon. and hon. Members and office space for 100 secretaries, a substantial part of the Library, catering facilities, and two small shops. Present forecasts suggest that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to move into phase 1 not later than the next summer recess. The House should before long have an opportunity to consider the initial design brief for phase 2. The New Building Sub-Committee is drawing up proposals, which it hopes to place before us during the forthcoming Session.
    Mr. Greenway: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what the two small shops are to sell? Will they include House of Commons goods such as humbugs and fudge? As chairman of the parliamentary friends of cycling, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the absence of any recreational facilities as part of phase 1? If we cannot have an indoor hockey pitch, perhaps there could be squash courts, to keep right hon. and hon. Members fit for cycling—or is my right hon. and learned Friend afraid that that might lead to too many by-elections?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend always makes imaginative suggestions on these occasions. He will recollect that the gymnasium is being redeveloped, is to re-open in larger premises as a consequence of changes made during the Recess.
    As to the retail facilities, phase 1 will include a bookshop selling Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications and other items of parliamentary interest. That bookshop will be open to the public, as will two small shops in Bridge street. There will also be a kiosk and shop inside the phase 1 building selling light refreshments, groceries and other miscellaneous goods.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the new building will include suitable accommodation for the catering staff? It is disgraceful that the House of Commons, which makes laws about health
    18
    and safety, should itself increasingly neglect its own staff, who are not provided with suitable accommodation in which to change or take rest periods.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise the hon. Lady that phase 1 will address that particular problem The specifications were drawn up a number of years ago, and there is a limit to the flexibility that they can embody. I agree with the hon. Lady that phase 2 should take account of considerations such as those that she has mentioned. They and many similar propositions deserve more sympathetic and effective consideration in the management of this place. That is one reason why the Commission was pleased to order the Robin Ibbs review of the entire way we manage these premises.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that security in this building and in the whole Palace of Westminster is very poor? If we are to have shops and other amenities which will be open to the public, will he ensure that there are ample opportunities to screen everyone who uses them and everything that they take in and out with them? Only thus can we ensure that there is no repeat of the kind of recent incident whose victim was the subject of a memorial service that some of us attended earlier today.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is concerned about security matters, for very understandable reasons and you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that it is a topic that is never far from the minds of those of us who have responsibility for such matters. The shops that will be open to the public will not be part of these premises as such. The amenities that will be available to right hon. and hon. Members and to staff will be designed to satisfy a long and frequently expressed need to meet certain minimal requirements at all hours of the day and night. However, even in respect of those facilities, we shall take account of security considerations.

    Register of Members' Interests
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will propose new rules for the Register of Members' Interests; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I myself have no proposals to make at this stage.
    The Select Committee on Members' Interests has, however, undertaken to report in the near future on the resolutions agreed by the Defence Committee in relation to the declaration of interests of Chairmen and members of Select Committees; to conduct a broader review of registration and the declaration of interests; and to consider whether to define the requirements of the register more precisely, so that Members' interpretations of the rules would be more consistent and their entries more comprehensible.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the parliamentary register far weaker than that applying to local authority councillors? Is not it a scandal that, at a time when 19 Tory ex-Cabinet Ministers in the past 11 years have picked up 59 directorships between them, we do not have an appropriate register to deal with the matter? Surely it is time that we had not just a register but a system of full-time Members of Parliament with one job and one job only? It seems strange to many people outside the House

    19
    that Members of Parliament cannot get by on £26,000 per year when many old age pensioners and others do not have two ha'pennies to rub together.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As so often, the hon. Gentleman starts off by referring to a topic with which the House as a whole is concerned—the management and consideration of Members' interests, which is being considered in the ways that I have described—but goes on to destroy what began as a tolerable case by putting his points so intemperately as to lose any credibility whatever.

    Recycled Paper
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) of 16 July, Official Report, columns 430–31, if he will make a statement on the progress of the experiment in the use of recycled paper for House of Commons stationery.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: A selection of recycled stationery is now available from the Serjeant at Arms stores. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee will
    20
    be considering the results of this experiment in due course. My own view is that we should seek to proceed on the assumption that recycled paper will become the norm.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. I am sure that the decision to offer recycled paper has been widely welcomed in the country because it shows that the House is setting a good example. Will he give an assurance to both sides of the House that the stationery will be available in all sizes so that the experiment can be conducted properly? Can he give some indication of hon. Members' response to this initiative and can he say what initial demand appears to be?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. He will recollect that the decision taken by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee on 21 May this year was to proceed on an experimental basis along the lines that I have described. As I said in my original reply, I should like us to proceed to a more general basis than that, but we shall have to await the first report on the experiment. I shall take into account the matters that my hon. Friend has raised.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I have been in correspondence with you in your capacity as president of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association about the monitoring of the elections in Pakistan, which are due to be held on Wednesday this week. You also know that concern has been expressed about the way in which meetings and rallies of political parties in Pakistan, especially the Pakistan People's party, have been banned, and about the way in which the judicial process seems to be manipulated to hamper certain politicians and parties.
Would it be possible for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to prepare a report on the way in which the elections have been conducted, as I understand that British diplomats from Islamabad are monitoring the conduct of the elections? It is important that the House has access to full information. In your capacity as president of the CPA, would you agree to ask for a report to be prepared?
Mr. Speaker: When I received the hon. Member's letter about this matter, I got in touch with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure that the executive officers of the CPA will have taken note of what he has said.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it within your power to protect Members interests in the following respect?
Over the weekend I had occasion to intervene with the immigration authorities on behalf of a constituent who faced deportation. As you will remember, the rules have changed in recent years and some powers are given to officials rather than to Ministers or their private offices. However, for some time yesterday evening the appropriate duty officer was not available, he was taking a break—and of course people must have breaks. Later in the evening no contact could be made with the Minister's private office. Only as a result of the extremely helpful attitude of a senior immigration official was my constituent taken off the aeroplane, although there had been an entirely appropriate request—any hon. Member could have done the same—for intervention to allow consideration of the case for deportation.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, please alert the authorities and the Home Office to the concern that I think you would express on behalf of all hon. Members, that at all times there should be an immediately appropriate channel so that we may communicate and make representations, as we were assured that we should be able to do?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot see that that is a matter for me. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but I have never experienced any problem concerning my constituents with the new regulations. Apparently, contact was eventually made with the immigration officials in this case. I am sure that what has been said will have been noted by Ministers.

Orders of the Day
  Employment Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Employment Bill
    Clause 1

      REFUSAL OF EMPLOYMENT ON GROUNDS RELATED TO UNION MEMBERSHIP
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, after "employment" insert "of any description".
      3.35 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 9, 10 and 11.
      Mr. Forth: All the amendments that the House is to consider were approved by all sides in another place. It will, therefore, perhaps be for the convenience of hon. Members if I suggest that as all the amendments either follow from issues raised by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill in this House and in another place, or are otherwise entirely consequential or technical. they should be dealt with briefly. Unless Opposition Members or any of my hon. Friends ask me to do so, I do not propose to speak at length on them. The exception is Lords amendment No. 7. I should like to say a few words about the new clause. The House will want to hear a brief explanation of the background to that new clause and why I shall ask the House to support its inclusion in the Bill.
      I am conscious of the fact that I am taking up the excellent work done on the Bill by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), whose absence I regret., but I hope that we shall see him soon. I shall do my best to follow in their eminent footsteps and to do justice to all the work that they did on the Bill prior to this stage.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I place on record recognition of the debt that the House owes to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), who drew the Government's attention to the drafting defects? The Opposition accept these amendments. They were accepted, as the Minister pointed out, in another place as an improvement to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North agrees, so we do not intend to oppose them.
      Nevertheless, it is a shame—a fact that the Minister should take on board, new to his post though he is—that the amendment contains a major defect. The Government maintain that it confers equity between trade union and non-trade union members. However, because the Government have failed to act against the blacklisting of trade unionists, the protection offered to trade union members is severely weakened. Nevertheless, as I have already pointed out, the Opposition do not intend to resist these amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

    Clause 6

      RESPONSIBILITY OF TRADE UNION FOR ACTS OF OFFICIALS, &C.
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 7, line 19, leave out "six" and insert "three".
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: We welcome the fact that the Government were persuaded by the amendment moved by Labour peers, but the clause is probably one of the more obnoxious features of the Bill, as it operates against trade unions and, taken as a whole, their members. It must not be construed that, because we are happy with the amendment, we are happy with the clause. However, the amendment is an improvement because at least the Government have recognised the need to move from six months to the more acceptable period of three months.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      CALLING OF INDUSTRIAL ACTION WITH SUPPORT OF BALLOT
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 8, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert
      "ballot ceases to be effective in accordance with section (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective) below."
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 16.
      Mr. Forth: This is the matter on which the House should dwell briefly, and, as it is a new development since the Bill was in another place, I should place its background on record.
      During debates in this House, and in another place, the Government always made clear our willingness to consider changes to the law on union industrial action ballots which could allow a union, in certain circumstances, to make its first call for industrial action more than four weeks after the date of a ballot. We recognised the concerns that had been expressed about the way in which court proceedings, or an injunction which was eventually lifted, might create a situation in which it might be reasonable not to expect a union, as a matter of course, to re-ballot its members even though its first call for industrial action would take place more than four weeks after a ballot.
      However, we also made it quite clear that the crucial principle to be preserved in such circumstances was that no such extension should be allowed if it could not be assumed that the ballot continued to represent the views of relevant members. While making such a change to the present law, the amendments also preserve this principle. To understand how they would work, it may be helpful if I describe their provisions in a little more detail.
      Amendment No. 6 is a technical requirement. It replaces a reference in clause 7(3)(b) with words stating that the call for action, and industrial action itself, must take place before the
      "ballot ceases to be effective in accordance with"
      the new clause proposed by amendment No. 7.
      24
      Amendment No. 7 sets out the provisions of new clause 8. That clause provides that a ballot will normally "cease to be effective" for relevant purposes at
      "the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the ballot".
      That means that if a ballot produces a majority in favour of industrial action, it will be assumed, as a matter of course, that the result continues to reflect members' views for up to four weeks after the date of the ballot.
      However, the remaining provisions of the new clause allow for the period of four weeks to be extended in certain circumstances. Those are where the calling or organising of industrial action is "prohibited" for the whole, or part, of the four-week period following the date of the ballot under a court order which subsequently lapses or is discharged, or by virtue of an undertaking given to a court from which the person concerned is subsequently released. In such a case, the trade union may apply to the court for an order providing that the period during which the prohibition has effect shall not count towards the four weeks.
      In other words, the new clause recognises that, in certain circumstances, there may be no need for a union to hold another ballot. In relevant circumstances, a union may have the "privilege" of first calling for industrial action to which a ballot relates more than four weeks after the date of the ballot without having to re-ballot its members.
      The new clause solves the difficulties that were highlighted in the other place and goes all the way to meeting the points that were made there. I hope that the House will see it in that way and therefore will support the amendments.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister bears no responsibility for this because he was not present in Committee or on Report. Clause 7 was passed on Report, and in reality there was little debate on this important new clause, the Government having failed to anticipate the need for it in Committee.
      Clause 7 as drafted is objectionable. It is unacceptable to the Opposition because it makes it extremely difficult for legitimate industrial action to take place. The Minister would be wrong to think that the fact that we accept the new clause as constituting an improvement means either that we endorse clause 7 generally or that we consider the present proposal to be the best available. The new clause has not been debated in this place, and I think that I am right in saying that it was not introduced in the other place until Report, so even there the debate was fairly limited.
      3.45 pm
      We should pay tribute to those in the other place who, on a number of occasions, sought to persuade the Government of the need to recognise the defects in the existing balloting procedures. The issue first arose when the Transport and General Workers Union found itself in difficulty during the docks strike. The union balloted its members properly and in accordance with existing statute. Its members voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action. Then, as a delaying tactic—it was no more than a tactic—the employers took the TGWU to court and sought to use tortuous legal processes and the court mechanism to frustrate the democratic will of the TGWU's members, itself enshrined in legislation introduced by the Government.

      25
      Once the court process had been gone through, the four-week period specified in the legislation was up and the original ballot was deemed no longer valid. The union was then forced to go to all the expense and inconvenience of consulting its members again. Anyone who has any experience of industrial relations, however peripheral, will realise that the trade union and its members were thus put at a serious disadvantage, and that had been the employers' intention in using the court process. To that extent, at least, they succeeded in frustrating the interests of the TGWU's members.
      Against that background, the new clause represents an improvement. It seeks to override the automaticity of the four-week period by putting an end to the validity of a ballot.
      I hope that the Minister will comment in detail, as this is the first opportunity that we have had to probe the Government's intentions. We welcome the fact that a ballot will no longer automatically be deemed invalid at the end of the four-week period, but, none the less, the new clause leaves considerable discretion out of the hands of the trade union members and with the unelected and undemocratic courts system and those who sit in judgment.
      I draw the Minister's attention in particular to subsection (4)(b) of the new clause, which lists the circumstances in which the court should not make an order allowing the original ballot to be considered a mandate for industrial action. Subsection (4) provides that the court shall not make such an order if it appears
      "that an event is likely to occur as a result of which those members would vote against industrial action if another ballot were to be held."
      On what basis can the unelected judges of the British courts divine what the members of the TGWU—or any other union—are likely to believe at any given time? Nothing inclines me to the view that the judges are in a position to make a decision about the likely voting intentions of the members of a trade union.
      This is not a trivial matter. Had the new clause come before the Committee, which took some time to examine the Bill, many of its provisions would have been subjected to considerable scrutiny. Because of the procedures that apply this evening, we are forced to consider the new clause en bloc. It is impossible for us to vote against it because it provides some benefits for trade union members. Its overriding benefit is that the four-week period will not apply automatically.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend said that automatic closure would not apply and that the matter would go to court. I take it that he is saying that, according to the new clause, the union would have to take the matter to court and spend a lot more money trying to get a further delay if that was possible. What would happen if the union ran into a judge like Justice Harman, who did not even know who Gazza was? What chance would the union have if it ran into a bloke like him rather than someone who knew something about trade unions? Someone is going to be stuck up there like Lord Almighty and he will have to adjudicate on a very important industrial matter. As a result of the new clause, a lot of money could be spent and at the end of the day the trade union might still face the same predicament as it faced before it went to court.
      Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Once court proceedings are under way, we are all aware who will be the ultimate beneficiaries: they will be the members of one of the more efficient trade unions in Britain, the national union of barristers and solicitors, who generally manage to make a fair amount out of court proceedings.
      There is considerable concern that trade union members would have to pay for the legal procedure. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the fact that there is no appeal against a court decision. If the judges, in their wisdom, decide that as working class judges they would have voted against industrial action and therefore members of the trade union would have felt the same way, there is no mechanism for an appeal against the court's decision. What the court says goes, and if the court says that the union has had its four weeks, that four weeks will have well and truly been had.
      Those concerns lie at the heart of the new clause. We must accept the new clause as a whole or reject it. Although it is defective, it is better than the former provision according to which after four weeks there was no possibility of a ballot maintaining its validity. Even with regard to cost, time and the overwhelming discretion of the court, the new clause offers something marginally better than the former provision.
      The Minister is new to his present post and I hope that he will consider my points. We are told that there are areas of employment law which the Secretary of State is still considering. He may feel that it is prudent to rattle a few skeletons, and the Bill was introduced to put the trade union movement on the defensive. The Government have failed to do that with this Bill. If there is to be another Employment Bill next Session, I hope that the Minister will dwell on the points that have been raised about this new clause with a view to taking remedial action to improve the provision.
      Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has raised an important point about subsection (4)(b) of the new clause, which refers to
      "an event … likely to occur as a result of which those members would vote against industrial action".
      Might such an event be the probable reinstatement of someone whose dismissal had caused the industrial action in the first place or, in the case of a wage demand, the announcement by an employer that it was willing to reconsider and increase the offer to the employees?
      Subsection (5) states:
      "No appeal lies from the decision of the court to make or refuse an order under this section."
      Does that include no appeal to the employment appeals tribunal, which is often seen and can be used as the last resort in industrial relations matters?
      Mr. James Wallace: Amendment No. 7 is the most substantive amendment that was carried in another place. Although I certainly would not wish to vote against the amendment, it underlines the fact that, in trying to bring more and more legalism into this aspect of the law, in an effort to take the sting out of unofficial disputes, more problems will be created than solved. In some circumstances, the amendment could lead to unofficial disputes becoming official, and being supported by a ballot to try to get out of some of the legal difficulties that are now being put in the way. Much trust

      27
      has been put into the speed of the judicial process. Subsection (6) of the new clause makes it clear that, unless an application is dealt with within 12 weeks, even after 12 weeks, regardless of what the subsection or the court may say, the ballot ceases to be effective.
      Assuming that a union is not able to get its application in until, say, the seventh week after the date of the ballot, one hopes that the courts will be up to it to make sure that the application is heard as quickly as possible so that the application is not defeated by the expiration of time.
      My next point was dealt with at some length by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and was referred to by the hon. Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It relates to the necessity for a union to apply to the court. The circumstances set out in the amendment will allow the court not to make an order allowing an extension of time. One wonders why it would not have been possible, after the order which was prohibiting the union from calling for industrial action, for the time to be added automatically. Expense will be incurred through having to go to court.
      It is important also to concentrate on the fact that the court will be allowed not to make an order
      "if it appears to the court—

      (a) that the result of the ballot no longer represents the views of the union members concerned, or

      (b) that an event is likely to occur as a result of which those members would vote against industrial action if another ballot were to be held."

      I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West that some clear event might have taken place—for example, that the original demands promoting the call for industrial action had actually been met. That would be obvious. Hon. Members would accept that many other factors can come into play that are not quite as obvious in their impact on union members as that factor would be. That seems to be committing a great deal to judicial knowledge.
      As the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, it would appear that a member of Her Majesty's judiciary was not aware of who Paul-Gazza-Gascoigne is. During my own student days, a judge once asked, "Who are the Beatles?" In difficult aspects of industrial relations, it is too much to expect so much to be within judicial knowledge, or for judges, even if they have the benefit of statements by barristers or advocates appearing before them, to interpret them and make decisions upon them.
      In matters of procedure, will information be made available to the court through ex parte statements on behalf of the union and employers, or will there be scope for evidence to be led with regard to what the current views of union members are or what they are likely to be, or what events are likely to occur in the next few days? As the amendment improves the Bill, I shall not vote against it.
      4 pm
      Mr. John Bowis: I do not wish to delay the House, but I should like clarification on a couple of queries. Broadly speaking, amendment No. 7 is a sensible change which, I am sure, will be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. I shall concentrate on the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and by Opposition Members. Clearly, circumstances can change and it is right
      28
      that the court should be able to take any change into account. The court is probably as good a judge of that as anybody, as long as the information is presented sensibly.
      To avoid endless legal arguments in the future, I seek clarification on the words "is likely to occur". Presumably they incorporate something that is occurring when the court is sitting, and not just a future change. What will happen if what is deemed "likely to occur" does not occur? Is there some way back to enable the status quo ante to be re-enacted?
      I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister if this next point was raised earlier. It relates to the introductory section of the new clause, which was part of the old clause. I am referring to the phrase
      "at the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the ballot."
      Perhaps my hon. Friend would clarify that, so that we can ensure that it does not provide scope for endless litigation or for endless lawyers' fees. Is the date of the ballot the date when the ballot starts or the date by which the last ballot paper must be received, because in practice ballots often take place on more than one date?
      Mr. Skinner: This is really a debate about class in our society. Here we are, once again, discussing in the last stages of our consideration of this Bill the way in which trade unions and their members are being treated by the Tory Government and the way in which the law is being used against them despite the fact that on most occasions the people in the City of London and the establishment do not have to put up with such laws.
      From the new clause it appears that the Government have decided that even in the courts it might be better if a little leeway were given. I am worried about the fact that, when a case gets to court, those who are running the outfit—85 per cent. of whom are from public schools and Oxbridge—will have a completely different view of trade unions and how they work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has said, although the net result will be a marginal improvement—I have to agree with that, because that will probably be the case—we must wait and see what happens when a case goes to court. My chief worry is that if the first decision was set against a trade union in respect of the four weeks, and if it was decided that the ballot was all right and would have to stand, notwithstanding that there had been some difficulties, that might set a precedent for many other unions that might want to extend the time so that they would not have to hold another ballot. In such cases, the victory would be with the other side.
      Does the Minister believe that any further representations to a court would be varied as a result of the setting of such a precedent? We know that when a matter goes to court judges look back at what happened previously and use that as a pattern.
      In any case, I am disturbed by the way in which trade unions are always being attacked by the Government. The other day I was reading about Maxwell. Apparently, there was a discussion and ballot at the Derby County football club in which only two people spoke and voted in favour of Maxwell continuing at Derby because they said that he had his fingers in other pies, such as Tottenham. However, nothing happened. Apparently, somebody with a lot of money came along and put a stop to it, so that was the end of that. That is one side of business, but the people who are the wealth creators—the trade unionists—are continually

      29
      being told, "You must have a ballot for this, that and the other." They are dictated to by the Tory Government and their henchmen and women in the media, with the result that, once a result is found to be inadequate or only partly adequate to the Tories, they propose different provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, in this case they are not too sure about whether they can sustain it in view of what has happened previously.
      I am also worried that, as my hon. Friend said, there is no appeal procedure against these decisions. It will be a tidy state of affairs if someone says to the courts, "We are making representations under the new clause passed at the last minute by people in the House of Lords and then verified in the House of Commons" but is told, "We are awfully sorry, but if you lose you cannot appeal." Why cannot trade unionists have a proper appeal procedure to enable them to challenge a decision?
      There are laws for trade unionists and laws for other people. Sir Jack Lyons is a current good example. He admitted, among all the other things, writing to the Prime Minister and God knows what else in the Guinness affair. He said that he had made £3 million out of that scandal. What was he fined?—£3 million. So it was not a bad day's work for Sir Jack Lyons. That will not apply to people taking part in industrial action, for example, trying to obtain more than 7 or 8 per cent. against the Government when the going rate is 10·9 per cent. Who knows, in a short time we may have inflation of more than 11 per cent. That is what the ballots are all about in the main. They are not about £3 million, as in the case of Sir Jack Lyons. They are usually about someone on £150 a week or less who is trying to keep up with the rate of inflation but is being hammered by the Government.
      The Government say that they have no incomes policy, but the incomes policy is contained in this legislation. Over the past 11 years, to hamper trade unionists in their attempts to keep up with inflation, the Government have introduced trade union laws backed by a massive dole queue. The dole queue is even greater now than it was in the early years when the Government brought in the most punitive legislation to force through their form of incomes policy. Today we are discussing the Government's latest attempts at an incomes policy. There will probably be another attempt in the next Session of Parliament.
      There have been 11 years of dirty work against the wealth creators of Britain—the people who work for a living, as opposed to those who do not. Those who do not are represented by the Establishment and all those people on the other side of the fence, in the Tory party—all the 200 Back Benchers who have outside jobs. They do not have any problems with ballots. All the jobs were itemised in The Observer magazine. Unfortunately, all the information is not in the Register of Members' Interests. Conservative Members are not subjected to ballots. They do not have to appear before judges. They will not be subject to new clauses or further legislation. These people can make money on the side by moonlighting. But woe betide someone working in a factory, school or some office somewhere trying to keep up with the rate of inflation, which the Government are supposedly trying to control.
      Mr. Wallace: What is the hon. Gentleman's view of his party's policy review, which does not seem to want to undo much of the so-called "dirty work" of the past 11 years?
      Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening on previous occasions, he would know that I believe that all the dirty work of the past 11 years should be undone by a Labour Government. He would also know that I believe that there is only one freedom at work. It is the freedom collectively to organise together to stop the bosses from exploiting, in this case, trade union members and would-be trade union members. It is as simple as that.
      In Labour's proposed new legislation there are some new rights, they tell me. I am not knocking new rights but merely saying that I want to see undone all the work that the Tory Government have done. When we get a Labour Government I shall remember what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has said. There is half a chance—no more than that—that he will be returned. We might win the seat. If he comes back as a Liberal, or whatever may be the current name of his party, I shall call upon him to support in the Lobby those of us who want to overturn Tory legislation. The hon. Gentleman can have a word with his gaffer chap, Paddy Backdown, to see whether they will do that. The Liberals are handy at giving the impression that they are on everybody's side. In view of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, is the parrot twitching on trade union legislation? Has the Liberal party extended its great history of liberalism and freedom to the fact that there is only one freedom at work—the freedom for people to band together in trade unions and collectively organise? That is the great natural freedom from which I and every Labour Member have sprung.
      Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Skinner: I give way to the bookie's runner.
      Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a person feels strongly enough about it, it is his right not to belong to a trade union and not to be blackballed from a firm because he wants to be an individual and not a member of a trade union? Would an individual have that right under your future Labour Government?
      Mr. Skinner: Not "your" Government. You mean the hon. Member for Bolsover. I know that you find some difficulty getting it out, and that applies to many hon. Members. There is a way of doing it and you should listen closely to the way that I deal with the matter. The hon. Member from up north, who represents Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) —
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is not from up north.
      Mr. Skinner: That is right. He is a southerner who got a seat up north, but he will be replaced by a Labour Member at the next election. Somebody who is prepared to take an 8, 10, or 12 per cent. pay increase that has been gained by collective action should expect to be part of the organisation that won that increase. If he wants to be a freeloader and imagine that he is doing it on his own, he should have to pay any price arising from that action. He has the freedom to do what he wants, but he should be smart enough to understand that he will not get such an increase on his own. There are plenty of examples.
      Mass unemployment has been deliberately engineered by the Government to reduce the will of those who are engaged in collective action. The Tory Government brag about there not being many strikes. They purposely

      31
      created a dole queue of 3 million or more to try to reduce the number of strikes and the ability of people to organise. In 1989, unemployment dropped slightly and in one or two areas people manged to get a little bit above the odds. That applies to the National and Local Government Officers Association. Even the BBC got an extra 2 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh is pleased about that.
      The Government are now pushing up unemployment and introducing other employment measures. That is what they have been about from the beginning. That is why I have opposed such Bills and why I call upon the next Labour Government to undo all this dirty work so that we may give freedom, which is limited, to the wealth creators collectively to organise to improve their lot. They have a hell of a long way to go before they catch up with the 19 ex-Tory Ministers who have lined their pockets with 59 directorships in the past 11 years. They will also have a big job to catch up with all the Tory Back Benchers who are making money on the side.
      I support the efforts of the wealth creators. This legislation is designed to stop their freedom and that is why we have opposed it from the beginning. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford says that the new clause is a marginal improvement. I am worried that when the matter reaches the courts and the judges examine it they may set a precedent that will hamper us even more. I am pleased that the issue has been raised in this way because it gives us an opportunity to state a few things that will be important in the next five years when we have a Labour Government.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This is a useful debate, not just because it gives my hon. Friend the Minister an opportunity to explain what this clause means but because it gives us a chance to note something about the Labour party. Over the years that I have been in the House, it has made great play of the fact that it elects its party chairman and has claimed that that gives it an infinitely more representative chairman that has the Conservative party, which has an appointed chairman. It is valuable that a recent chairman of the Labour party, who was so clearly representative of the Labour party, has given us an exposition of his view that all the industrial and employment legislation of the past 11 years should be undone. I am sure that the public will be extremely reassured to know that that is the policy of the Labour party.
      Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) gave a qualified acceptance of Lords amendment No. 7 because, he said, it is an improvement on the original. It says that a court may find
      "that the result of the ballot no longer represents the views of the union members concerned".
      How will a court determine this? The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mocked my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but the Labour movement has elections and the one thing that the Conservative party seems most reluctant to have is elections. The chairman of the Conservative party is certainly not elected and there is no balloting over
      32
      company contributions to that party. The board simply donates money and notifies the shareholders of what has happened—just like that.
      What worries me is that even when the Government pass legislation on balloting, and the processes set out in that legislation are followed, employers still have the whiphand in the workplace. I can give a demonstration of that and the Under-Secretary may wish to check with his officials about the letter that I wrote in August about a company in my constituency—John Stanley in Willenhall.
      In this company, several ballots were held in accordance with Government legislation. There was no doubt that they were carried out according to the law of the land. There were resounding majorities in favour of action being taken by the employees over a wage claim. As a result of those ballots a large number of people were dismissed and the dispute continues. I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him how he could possibly explain to the workers why, after they had observed the requirements of the legislation, they were treated in this way. The trade union official concerned, in Wolverhampton, which is near to my constituency, wrote to ask whether the Secretary of State or any of the Ministers in the Department of Employment could explain in person to the workers why they had been dismissed in this way, but the Secretary of State did not take up the invitation.
      There is a contradiction between the way in which the Government handle trade unions and their attitude to employers. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to say that there is inbuilt prejudice against trade unions. I can give an example of this. A Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is not present—I am not saying anything about the Whip who is here—has been quoted in the local press as saying that he would rather see his factories closed than accept trade unions. That is one illustration of a member of the Government who has a strong prejudice against trade unions. Are we to believe that the Minister who is to reply is not hostile towards trade unions? We remember him as a Back Bencher, when he mocked and baited trade unions on numerous occasions. Can he be regarded as impartial and as someone who wants to see fair play between employers and employees? Of course not. The Minister is on the side of the employers. He probably does not believe that it is right that trade unions should exist in the first place. He is certainly not in favour of trade unions being able to organise industrial action.
      Perhaps I speak for myself, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will disagree with me, but I do not want to see industrial action at every opportunity when there are difficulties. I believe that it should be used as a weapon of last resort. If the right of industrial action is taken from the work force, however, a fundamental freedom is removed from it. It is interesting to bear in mind some of the first actions that have been taken in eastern Europe. The countries concerned have been doing away with the Communist dictatorships and introducing free speech and free Parliaments. One of their first actions was to permit free trade unions to be formed that would have the right to take industrial action. My right hon. and hon. Friends have been trying to maintain freedoms which were established over many years, which the Tory Government have undoubtedly undermined to a large extent.

      33
      There is so much hypocrisy surrounding these matters. Yesterday, The Sunday Times supplied us with information about the way in which the very rich try to evade their income tax liability. We read about offshore tax havens. I do not know whether there are any Conservative Members present now in the Chamber who take advantage of those loopholes, but one or two Conservative Members were named in The Sunday Times. The Government talk about the rule of law and fair play and say that trade union officials should not encourage their members to ask for too much in wage claims. The same Government tolerate loopholes that give the rich extra money. The rich have done so well out of the Government, yet, despite pressure from the Inland Revenue, it seems that over the past two or three years the Treasury has refused to take action to close such loopholes that they know exist. There is a contradiction when the Government talk about fair play yet allow loopholes to remain open for the rich. At the same time the Government try to undermine in every conceivable way the right of working people to organise effectively and to take industrial action.
      I have given an example of the way in which a group of employees in my constituency have been treated badly. Having listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and for Bolsover, I also take the view that there is not much purpose in voting against this provision. We must be under no illusion, however; the Government are dedicated to supporting only one part of society. Time and again they have helped the rich and the near-rich. Even their natural supporters, such as those at Eastbourne, have decided that enough is enough. They are fed up with the Government, as are millions of others who voted for the Conservative party at the general election. They have come to the conclusion that the Government do not represent ordinary people. Instead, they represent the rich or the well off. They will do everything possible for a small minority. That is why the Government have lost so much support in the past few years. I have referred to Eastbourne, but in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election the swing against the Government was even greater. That was in the region of which I represent part—the west midlands—and so I am pleased about that. It is clear—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who is making idiotic comments while sitting behind the Minister, will undoubtedly lose his seat at the next general election.
      Mr. Holt: I had no intention of contributing to the debate, but, having listened to some of the cant and nonsense from Labour Members, I find it necessary to intervene.
      I represent many working people. Most of the Conservative voters in my constituency are working people. Most of them would find much to resent in the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who I believe has never done a day's work and dirtied his hands. He is a Member of Parliament who has been thrown out on one occasion, and I think that he will be thrown out again.
      Reference was made to my antecedents. I think that the reference was prompted by the Opposition Whip. As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not get his facts right. I was not born in the north of England, but I was educated there. My opponent during the general election was not born in the north of England either. He was born in India. I do not think that that
      34
      should necessarily disbar anyone from becoming a Member of Parliament. If candidates must live, work and have been born in the area, the Labour party's national executive committee will have great difficulty selecting a candidate for Eastbourne at the general election. It threw out its good local man because he did not conform to the Mandelson image. Of course, Mr. Mandelson—the man who really runs the Labour party, with the puppet Kinnock up front—is seeking a seat in the north of England. He has been selected as a candidate for an area that he had never previously visited. He is fighting a good local Conservative candidate who was born and raised in the area. He will beat Mr. Mandelson at the next general election——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that such matters have been mentioned, but the debate is about a ballot ceasing to be effective in accordance with the relevant subsection. I know that general elections are about ballots, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks more closely to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Holt: I am just coming to the connection that you are seeking, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing ballots. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to the dock strike at Tees and Hartlepool. It was, "All out boys, all out", but it was not very long before it was, "All back boys, all back." The union leader said that the strike would last for six months and would break the port employers, but in fact it lasted for about six days and almost broke the union. It is the workers from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority who will elect the Conservative candidate, Mr. Graham Robb, to this House rather than Mr. Mandelson, the carpetbagger from the south of England.
      Mr. Forth: I have at long last achieved one of my life's ambitions, which is to be acknowledged by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as a member of the Establishment. It is something that I have always wanted to be, and now I have it from the most impeccable authority in the House, if I may refer to the hon. Gentleman thus, that I am a fully fledged, bona fide member of the Establishment. I thank him for that because it has made my day.
      The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) implied that the matter had not been fully and properly debated, but that is not strictly true. The principles underlying this important clause were debated throughout the Bill's proceedings both in this House and in another place. Although the exact clause had not been debated here, it was debated at length in Committee and on Report in another place and was widely welcomed on all sides. It had a fair amount of coverage.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could conceive of or suggest any events that would meet the requirements of clause 7(4)(b). Almost immediately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) gave examples of two such events—first, the possible reinstatement of an employee whose dismissal had given rise to the balloted action, and secondly, a new pay offer being made during the proceedings. Those are two obvious circumstances which could give rise to the requirements under the clause. It is not as unlikely or as obscure as the hon. Member for Stretford suggested.
      Mr. James Wallace: Although those are relevant circumstances, if they were likely to arise

      35
      the union probably would not have returned to the court on an application. The sting would have been taken out of the potential dispute. It is more likely that the circumstances will be much greyer and less obvious to define than the clear circumstances suggested by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), which would probably result in the union not wanting to make an application.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may well be right. However, the thrust of this late change to the Bill comes in response to points raised—quite legitimately—in the other place. They were considered very carefully, and were prompted largely by the events involving the Transport and General Workers Union which were outlined by the hon. Member for Stretford. We intend to prevent a recurrence of those events.
      4.30 pm
      I shall not attempt to envisage in detail the circumstances that may arise; I feel, however, that the clause provides a mechanism that will allow the unions to prevent a recurrence of the TGWU problem by going back to court. I shall say more about that in a moment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West asked whether an appeal to the employment appeals tribunal would be possible. As a division of the High Court, it hears appeals from the industrial tribunals, so it would not be possible in this instance. Besides, we feel that allowing for such appeals would introduce yet more potential for delay and uncertainty. I should add that employers have no chance to appeal either; to that extent, the position remains evenly balanced.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) queried the ability of the judicial process to respond quickly enough to the events that we are discussing. I can give him two assurances—one quite serious, the other entirely serious. Given the dramatic fall in the incidence of industrial action that we have observed over the past few years, the number of occasions on which this machinery will be needed have also been dramatically reduced; it will therefore be invoked in only a few cases. I am confident that a quick enough response will be possible, although, if I am proved wrong, we shall re-examine the position as a matter of urgency.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked whether the term "likely to occur" related to the future. If something is happening or has already happened, the court can already take it into account under subsection (4A); subsection (4B) would not be applicable. I do not believe that his fears are well grounded, but, if he is not satisfied with my reply, we can consider the matter again if necessary. My hon. Friend also asked what was the applicable date of the ballot. The applicable date is the last date on which voting can take place.
      It is remarkable that the hon. Member for Bolsover should still criticise the Government over the level of unemployment. Of course, any level of unemployment—even the present level, much reduced though it is—is unacceptable. Is not it significant, however, that our current rate of about 5·5 per cent. is below the rate in socialist France and socialist Spain, below the rate in
      36
      Germany—that much-vaunted example of industrial efficiency—and, certainly, below the rate in many other countries that allege to have socialist Governments?
      Presumably the hon. Gentleman still claims to be a socialist. I do not know whether that can now be said of any other member of the Labour party, but I suspect that, if there is one party member who still wishes to regard himself as a socialist, it is the hon. Gentleman. Given that that is the case, it is remarkable that he should criticise the present Government for the level of unemployment that an unacceptable number of people are still suffering: even his friends in the Socialist International—no doubt he, too is an active member, although he does not possess a passport—would consider that unfair. I hope that he will think again.
      The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members expressed suspicions about the courts. I regret that, because, although those of us who do not participate in court proceedings may find them difficult to divine from time to time, by and large it is a fair and impartial system. We should accept it as such, and we shall not make any progress by constantly criticising court procedure and those who dedicate their lives to this country's system of justice.
      Mr. Skinner: The system of justice in this country is bent. I believe that the judges, by and large, mirror the views of the Establishment. When a Tory Government are in power, the judges, by and large, support that Government's views. There may be odd little exceptions, where the judiciary throw a sprat to catch a mackerel, but I do not believe that they act independently. A good example of that is the way that judges came back from their holidays and opened up the courts on Saturdays and Sundays to imprison miners. They do not do the same in the case of people from the City. Cameron-Webb and Dixon got away to America with £40 million without even having their collars felt.
      When the judges were nearly tackled by the present Government two years ago, the judges threatened to go on strike and to have a big march down the Strand. As a result, the Prime Minister—the so-called lady who is not for turning—caved in, because the judges were her friends and she did not want to strike at them. I am sorry that the judges did not strike, because I had already made a placard and intended to join them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has just answered the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who complained about the judiciary's lack of speedy response. The hon. Member for Bolsover offered the best example that anyone could of the judiciary's speed of response. I wish that I had thought of it myself.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland queried whether the courts could respond quickly enough when unions referred a matter to them under the terms of the clause. The court will already be dealing with the matter, so such a request would only be an extension of existing proceedings rather than anything new. Therefore, there is no reason why any obstacle should be placed in the way of a union in that respect.
      I will not deal in detail at the Dispatch Box today with the specific case raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I undertake to study again the

      37
      correspondence that passed between him and my Department. If there have been any significant or relevant changes in the circumstances, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise me. However, that case does not change the substance of the amendment and the clause.
      Mr. Winnick: I thank the Minister for agreeing to review the correspondence. I think that he will find that a rather useful exercise.
      As the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) would not give way earlier, may I ask him now whether he agrees that it would be more useful to proceed by argument and not by smears? Apart from two years' national service and a further two years in higher education, I have been in paid employment of one form or another since the age of 15. To say that I have not worked is a Tory lie. I have worked all my life. Despite the wishes of the Tories, I hope that I shall have an opportunity to work for many more years to come. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh should acknowledge that he told a lie, and withdraw it.
      Mr. Forth: I do not want to pursue those matters, but I hope that I have replied adequately to the substantive points made during our useful debate.
      Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I may point out that in response to the claim by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that only people who get their hands dirty are workers——
      Mr. Skinner: I did not say that.
      Mr. Holt: He did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In response to that remark, I said that the hon. Member for Walsall, North had never done a day's hard work. I stick by that.
      Mr. Winnick: What work has the hon. Gentleman ever done? Acting?
      Mr. Skinner: Bookies' runner?
      Mr. Holt: It is not a question of what I have done but of what work those two hon. Gentlemen have done.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of this has much to do with employment.
      Mr. Forth: I ask the House to support the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11 agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      FURTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 17, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: By way of clarification, will the Minister be good enough to confirm that subsection (5), which has been deleted as a result of the Lords amendment, was unnecessary in the first place? Will he place it on the record that health service employers, and those working within the health service, are covered by other sections of the schedule, and that, therefore, there is no question of their not being given the benefits of this legislation?
      Mr. Forth: Yes, I confirm that what the hon. Gentleman said is correct.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16 agreed to.

  Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
  Lords amendment considered.
  Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
    Clause 1

      LICENSED PREMISES: APPLICATION OF LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954, PART II
      Lords amendment: In page 1, line 18, at end insert
      "and section 24(3)(b) of the 1954 Act (which, in certain cases, preserves the effect of a notice to quit given in respect of a tenancy which becomes one to which Part II of the 1954 Act applies) shall not have effect in the case of a tenancy which becomes one to which that Part applies by virtue of this subsection."
      4.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, as amended in 1969, will offer more protection to tenants of licensed premises if the Bill is passed. I know many people will welcome the amendment. I believe it is common ground with the Opposition that the extension of protection offered by this legislation will be beneficial to the tenants to whom it will apply and I welcome their support for the measure.
      The amendment has arisen out of consultations during the passage of the legislation. We believe that it represents a further improvement in the protection which the legislation will afford to affected tenancies. As the words of the amendment show, it disapplies a section of the 1954 Act, which could otherwise call into doubt protection for tenants where notice to quit might already have been served—something that the National Licensed Victuallers Association, among others, is worried about. I hope that the Opposition will agree that this amendment is welcome and strengthens the protection that the Bill offers.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: The Opposition have reservations about the Bill, but we support the amendment, as was made clear by the noble Lord Williams in another place, and I repeat our support on this occasion.
      I commend the National Licensed Victuallers Association, which has been extremely diligent and meticulous both in this matter and in assisting politicians throughout the passage of the Bill. It was due only to that diligence that we were able to modify the wording on this subject so that the Bill could achieve the common ends agreed between the Government and the Opposition.
      The amendment provides further minor protection for a tenant. However, I regret that the Government, during the preparation of the amendment in another place, were unable to incorporate a commitment given in both Houses on compensation, which is also relevant when a tenant may be forced out of a tenancy. I refer the House to the original commitment given by the Minister in response to a probing speech from a Conservative Back Bencher when the matter was considered in Committee. The Minister said:
      "I shall re-read what has been said by hon. Members on compensation and give it further thought".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 January 1990; c. 71.]
      40
      I am pleased to be able to acknowledge that further thought was given to the matter by the Government, and when it was considered in another place the noble Lord Trefgarne gave a further commitment when he said:
      "I can announce that after further consideration the Government intend to bring forward an amendment which will recognise that special arrangements for compensation should apply during the period of adjustment to a more open market. The amendment will provide that for a transitional period additional and separate compensation will be payable to tenants of un-licensed premises to which the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II will apply because of the Bill, and where the landlord wishes to use them as on-licensed premises himself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1990; Vol. 517, c. 413.]
      That commitment was welcomed by all those participating in the debate in another place. It was with some amazement that the Labour party spokesman on trade and industry in another place reported to me that, following discussions which had taken place with the noble Lord Trefgarne, it was found impossible to amend the Bill in a way that would accomplish what had been agreed.
      In another debate in another place on the same issue on Report on 17 July this year, the report was accepted only with the proviso that there was regret that it had not included mention of compensation although the Government entered into a commitment in Committee in the House, which had been reinforced by a further commitment given on two occasions in another place.
      I wish that the Government had given more careful scrutiny to the Bill when they were preparing the title and drew up the clauses. A crucial part of the Bill was found not to be in order by the House of Lords. It means that the protection that Members on both sides of the House want is not in the Bill.
      The Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No. 2) Bill is in another place, and it covers this ground. It has been supported by the spokesman of the Labour party and the Government in another place. I understand that procedurally it will not be possible for that Bill to come before the House, which would enable it to have an opportunity to become law during this Session.
      While agreeing to support the amendment, I ask the Minister how he intends to proceed with the question of compensation, which the industry agrees is desirable and which the House has acknowledged all hon. Members would like to achieve.
      There was virtual unanimity among all those who took part in the debate in another place. Although there are timetabling problems, the issue will not go away. The Minister ought to tell the House how the Government propose to honour their commitment. Are they prepared to consider introducing a short Bill next Session on lines similar to those in the No. 2 Bill that was introduced in another place? Alternatively, would it be possible for the Government to table an amendment for inclusion in other miscellaneous legislation to cover the important question of compensation?
      Mr. Stan Crowther: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) pointed out, the Opposition accept the amendment. It is needed to close a small loophole in the Bill. I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association which drew the Government's attention to a loophole that they had

      41
      overlooked. I, too, praise the NLVA for spotting this error in the original drafting of the Bill. I am pleased that the Government have acted upon the association's advice.
      However, it is tragic that this is the only amendment to come to us from another place. Important though it is, the amendment does not implement the solemn undertaking that was given by Lord Trefgarne on behalf of the Government on Second Reading in another place. He said that the Bill would be amended to provide better compensation for tenant licensees whose houses are taken back by the brewers for management in the transitional period before the full protection of the Bill becomes available to them. Many tenants are already affected, partly because of the Government's other legislation on the matter, which has resulted in many of the large brewery companies taking back houses for management in order to reduce the number of tenanted properties. Many licensees will, I fear, be denied the protection that Lord Trefgarne tried to promise them.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the beer orders that the Government pushed through the House will result in a significant number of tenanted houses being taken back for management or being put on the open market. Why did not the hon. Gentleman at that time join me in the Lobby to oppose those two orders?
      Mr. Crowther: I shall not attempt to answer that question. If I did, we should be straying a long way from the business before the House. It would not be sensible to reopen a debate that has long since gone. I am concerned with the position as it is now and as it will be in the near future.
      I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the point put to him a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. Licensees were given to believe that an amendment would be tabled on the lines to which I have referred, but it has not arrived. Lord Trefgarne gave that undertaking in the other place on Second Reading. I do not blame him for the fact that he was unable to table the amendment that he had promised. It appears that the Government's advisers on procedure, whoever they may be, had failed to detect that the Clerks in the other place would rule that such an amendment would be out of order.
      Lord Trefgarne was therefore placed in the embarrassing position of having to tell their Lordships that he could not implement the promise that he had made. In Committee, however, on 23 April, he said:
      "I undertake to consider very carefully what has been said during the debate and to do my best to resolve the matter between now and the next stage."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 23 April 1990, Vol. 518, c. 354.]
      Exactly three months later, at Third Reading on 23 July, he had still failed to resolve it, although other suggestions had been put to him—for example, a short No. 2 Bill to take care of the matter. Why Lord Trefgarne did not do that no one seems to know.
      Lord Williams of Elvel showed the way that it could be done by introducing his own Bill which would have implemented the Government's promise, if only the House of Lords had had time to do so. If that Bill had been introduced by the Government in April when Lord Trefgarne found that he was unable to amend the first Bill, everything would have been taken care of and the
      42
      protection that had been offered to tenant licensees would be about to be implemented. It is tragic that that has not happened.
      The amendment is important. It improves the Bill. However, it remains a modest little measure which falls a long way short of the high hopes that were raised at the time of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's original recommendations, which would have improved the protection given to tenants.
      I do not intend to comment on the other matters in t he MMC's report. They are not before the House. I am concerned only with the MMC's recommendations for the protection of tenants. They have not been implemented in full, although Lord Young said originally that he intended to implement them in full. It is a tragedy that that has not happened. Consequently, we end up with half a loaf which is, no doubt, better than no bread at all. I hope, however, for better things in the next Session. I suppose that we have to be thankful for small mercies, but time will tell just how small this one is.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I had not intended to speak in the debate until, when I was sitting in the Tea Room, I saw the Bill's title on the Annunciator. It struck me that the Bill was relevant to a case in the county of Cumbria which I decided to bring to the attention of Parliament at some stage.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we are debating not the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill but a specific and particular Lords amendment thereto.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is precisely that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the position of a particular licensed tenant and the lack of protection for his interests during an argument that he had with the brewery. I understood that when the Bill was discussed in the other place it would lead to an amendment that would safeguard his position.
      There is a pub in the county of Cumbria which some eight years ago was turning over approximately £35 a week—a very small sum indeed. A well-known brewery in the north of England owned the pub. It removed the tenant and a new tenant was brought in who increased the turnover of that pub from that small sum to more than £300,000 a year. The brewery developed the business, the barrelage and a food business to go with the sale of drink.
      The pub has become well known in Cumbria. Some months ago the brewery informed its tenant that it wished to take the property for itself and, in effect, to evict him. That is what it means in practice. The brewery informed the tenant that it intended to install one of its own managers. It wanted to do that because it was rationalising its estate. That company, which is a reputable local company, wishes to secure the highest possible return for its shareholders and for its internal investment in its brewery operations. Therefore, it felt that it needed a turnover injection of that scale to help to improve its profitability.
      The tenant felt most aggrieved and looked to Parliament and the law for a means by which he could be properly compensated—that is what we are considering in the amendment—either by the state, which was not really his priority, or by the brewery. Having taken legal advice, he discovered that he had no rights in law. The only thing

      43
      that supported his position was a code of conduct that had been drawn up by the breweries and with which they are expected to comply.
      5 pm
      The result was that an argument broke out about the compensation that should be paid to that tenant, who was about to be evicted. I am unaware of the final settlement, but I know that it runs into very few thousands of pounds. We must take into account that, over a period of seven years, that man and his wife had built up the business until it had a turnover of £300,000. One would expect them to receive compensation in excess of £100,000 to enable them to purchase another public house.
      I expect that, in future, the Bill will protect people in that position and enable them, if a brewery must take a commercial decision based on the need to rationalise, to acquire another public house so that they can rebuild their business. I do not see how, in natural justice, a principle can be reasoned or defended by which a man's livelihood can, in effect, be terminated because a brewery wishes to rationalise.
      If the Minister checks his facts, he will find that that matter has been referred to by a Member of Parliament for Cumbria, but I do not intend to identify the pub or constituency. The Minister should reply directly to the point that I have made. No doubt that publican will see the Minister's reply reported in the newspaper, and in so far as it directly relates to the substance of the amendment, and indeed the substance of the Bill, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity of replying.
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for offering the Opposition's support for the amendment. We all agree that it is a welcome improvement in the protection afforded to tenants under this legislation.
      I express gratitude to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and echo his words, because the National Licensed Victuallers Association has been helpful to me and to other hon. Members during the passage of the Bill. It found something that needed improving and the Government responded. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the dialogue between us was useful.
      I said in Committee that we would carefully consider compensation to see whether there are ways of improving it further. I gave a cautious pledge to improve it further because I well knew that there were many technical and other problems barring the way to achieving a better compensation regime to which I needed to give further thought. My noble Friend in the other place thought that those obstacles had been cleared and that he could see a way of drafting something that would meet the requirement. He offered that in good faith, and he and the Government are sorry that it was not in order in the other place. This House understands the rules of procedure, which are not a matter for the Government. Like the Opposition, the Government should live within the rules of order and accept all the judgments of the proper authorities. Unfortunately, this matter was not in order and so we were not able to make progress in the way that my noble Friend had thought possible when he made his
      44
      pledge. He apologised for that in the other place, and I echo his apologies on behalf of the Government. We are sorry that it was not possible, but that is how the procedure had to work, given the nature of the short title of the Bill.
      The Bill already contains compensation provisions which are important to the industry. The Government believe that it is important that the Bill should go through in a timely way to make that protection available.
      Mr. Crowther: We all accept that Lord Trefgarne gave in good faith an undertaking which he was unable to implement. I do not understand—and I should like the Minister to try to explain this—why the Government did not adopt one of the other options open to them of introducing a short Bill on the lines of the Bill introduced much later by my noble Friend Lord Williams of Elvel. If they had done so, there would have been ample parliamentary time for it to go through both Houses and to meet, in a different way, the undertaking given by Lord Trefgarne.
      Mr. Redwood: Lord Trefgarne gave his undertaking on the basis that he would be able to amend this Bill, which would have been the shortest and simplest way of proceeding had it been in order. When the Government considered the other possibility we realised that new legislation would have required substantial allocations of new parliamentary time and we did not feel that that would be possible within the limited time available. We felt that it was important not to jeopardise the substantial protection that the legislation offers.
      Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister confirm that the Opposition offered a clear run through the other place and through this House if the Government were prepared to introduce a short Bill?
      Mr. Redwood: The Opposition said that they would help, but such a Bill must go through all due procedures and at each stage there would need to be scrutiny of the drafting. No one can foresee whether legislation will cause problems or not.
      As to the No. 2 Bill, although the Government stated that they would welcome a further strengthening of the compensation provisions, we indicated that goodwill was not the right way to achieve that. There are all sorts of problems with defining and calculating goodwill in businesses, and the reasons behind those complexities led to the dropping of the goodwill basis for compensation in the 1954 legislation, as reaffirmed by the 1969 legislation. That is the problem that the Government have had with the method chosen for the No. 2 Bill. That Bill, because of its drafting, offers protection to few people and that, too, is a technical problem.
      I accept what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about his constituency case. It does not sound like a terribly nice situation for him or the licensee, but the purpose of the Bill is to improve tenants' protection and to offer compensation to those eligible under the Bill. We believe that that is a substantial move in the right direction, and it is all that we can do within the time available to the House. I urge the House to accept the amendment and, on the wider issue, to accept the Bill as a welcome step in the right direction.
      Question put and agreed to.

European Company Statute
5.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8404/89 on the proposal for a European Company Statute; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that if there is to be a European Company Statute, it should contain a minimum of regulation consistent with the aim of providing adequate protection for those who may be involved with a company formed under the statute.
An extensive inquiry has been conducted in the other place into the draft regulation and the draft directive for a European company statute. It has produced a good report, which I hope hon. Members who are interested in the subject have had a chance to read.
The report makes it clear that in their Lordships' view a fundamental revision of the proposal will be required before it produces something worth while. The Lords also support the Government's view that the voting base chosen by the Commission in its draft proposal is not the correct one, and I shall expand on the reasons for that.
The United Kingdom Government are negotiating—and will continue to negotiate—in good faith on the general issue of whether it is possible to find a form of European company which would transcend national laws in some respects and which might be useful for businesses thinking of operating across the borders of the 12 European Community member states.
There are several problems with the present proposal and they may well account for the fact that the negotiations with our partners have taken so long. The first proposal was introduced as long ago as 1970. There was another proposal in 1975 and there has been extensive reworking and discussion since then. The Commission's original drafts have been replaced with the present proposal, which is more modest in scope and extent. Even though the proposals have been changed in many respects and even though their authors have tried to make them less ambitious—and thus find more agreement among the member states—we have found considerable difficulties standing in our way at each stage in our attempts to reach agreement on them.
The Government do not believe that the adoption of the proposal is now imminent. We have brought it before the House on a take-note motion so that we can have a good debate because we believe that negotiations will get under way again and that they may pick up speed. As the Minister likely to handle the negotiations, it is most important to me to have in my mind the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House and to have the Government's attitude to the proposal tested in the House.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Most of the House is not here.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. and learned Friend says that most of the House is not here. In a democracy, one can only offer people an opportunity. One cannot force them to debate something, although I hope that others will join us so that we may be made aware of their views as the debate progresses.
The Government went out to consultation with a substantial number of those who are not fortunate enough to be Members of Parliament but who are in business and can therefore give us good counsel on this matter. Of the
46
41 bodies that responded to the consultation document—not itself a high figure—only three favoured the proposal with the attached worker participation directive as it stands. The overwhelming majority felt that the proposal was flawed both as a prospective piece of company law and particularly with respect to its employee participation provisions, which are not in sympathy with the style of employee involvement and the voluntary system that we have traditionally favoured in this country.
The employee participation provisions are one of the most important matters that we shall be debating today. The British system is based on voluntary agreement within companies. Many styles have been evolved and those adopted by some companies have provided much better results than have the statutory or mandatory system adopted by some of our continental fellow members. Some of the best examples are set out in the Department of Employment booklet "People and Companies". which refers to the United Kingdom's achievements in this respect, based on the voluntary principle.
In the negotiations, the United Kingdom Government will continue to press for that essential principle of voluntarism in all our work on employee participation. We do not believe that the Commission and the European Community should attempt to prescribe and enforce a style or styles of employee participation. We are reluctant to have potentially divisive issues dragged up under Commission proposals, especially now that we have a much better record on strikes and labour relations following legislation that the House has passed and following highly successful experiments with voluntary systems of participation chosen by companies in consultation with those whom they affect.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: My hon. Friend will recall our debate on non-executive directors. It was argued on that occasion that such a system might detract in some way from the unitary board principle and structure, which places equal responsibility in the members of a board. I suspect that the same concern and principle may be at stake in our reaction to the present proposal. Is there perhaps a middle way? There are, after all, a number of proposed models for employee participation. Could not we adopt and embrace the principle—and perhaps enshrine it, to a limited extent, in our company statute in an attempt to comply a little more with the spirit of the proposals—while ensuring that we do not destroy the unitary board structure, which is a matter of heritage and which has worked successfully in Britain?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right that there are already several options on offer and that not all of them make a frontal assault on the unitary board principle. We are worried not so much about the principle of the unitary, as opposed to the two-tier board, but about the principle of whether a particular form of participation should be mandatory or voluntary. As soon as a system is made mandatory, it has to be defined in legislation arid enforceable in the courts. The statutory imposition of a particular style of consultation or participation may force companies to create the necessary structures but it cannot force them to enter into the spirit of the thing.
To work a system, we need agreement. We need a system that works harmoniously because people want it to succeed. Our worry is that if we accept a mandatory

47
system, we shall lose that agreement and we shall not gain what the authors of the proposal want, which is improved participation in companies.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain his objection to the second model, under whose terms
"an employee representative body could be set up which would have rights to specific information, to require reports from the board and to be consulted before certain decisions … implemented."
Surely that would make for the better running of the company and would not interfere with the role of the board as the controller of the company.
Mr. Redwood: I have already explained my objection to the principle of making such participation mandatory. The British Government welcome various styles of participation in companies but we believe that companies are in the best position to judge what makes sense for them. If we impose arrangements on them from above, we may succeed in achieving the form of participation specified—by force of law—but we shall not necessarily engender the spirit of participation that we seek to achieve. A similar argument applies in respect of non-executive directors—the question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) referred. The Government welcome the strengthening of boards with non-executive directors and the work of audit committees and so on. We have not thought it right, however, to make provisions mandatory, because that would not necessarily guarantee the appointment of independent men and women of repute who would make the kind of contribution that I am sure my hon. Friends could make, were they offered such important work.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I am listening carefully to the Minister's explanation of what he is for and what he is against. He says that he does not want mandatory provisions because he does not believe that that would encourage the spirit of participation and co-operation that he seeks. The Minister is very proud of the self-regulatory system in the City, where we have a statutory framework and, within that framework, self-regulation, choice, variation and participation in many different forms. Such a structure would be in accordance with the directive and, judging by what the Minister has said, he would be happy to adopt it.
Mr. Redwood: There is a difference between imposing a regulatory system for the protection of investors—where, in extreme cases, one is worried about fraud and malpractice—and encouraging companies to adopt best practice in employee relations. The two are rather different matters and I do not accept the hon. Lady's analogy.
Mr. Lawrence: There is another important difference. In the case of the City, the British legal system, the British Government and the British Parliament have control. With a European statute operated from Brussels, we shall have minimal control.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point, which leads me to another question that is central to the debate. The proposal before us is not a proposal for a single European company—far from it. We have before us a proposal for 12 different types of
48
company. If the regulation and directive were passed unamended, a different type of European company would be formed in each member state, for the simple reason that there is not a big enough corpus of European law, compiled at EC level, for each of the companies to satisfy the legal requirements without reference to national law in the member states. In a few modest respects, a European company in Spain would be similar to a European company formed in the United Kingdom. However, in most other respects, the European company in Spain would be answerable under Spanish law and the European company set up in the United Kingdom would be answerable under United Kingdom law. It is not foreseeable for some time to come that we will have a sufficient body of European law to resolve that problem. In the foreseeable future there will always need to be recourse to national law to cover most of the issues that arise in any companies formed under a statute of this nature.
As it stands at the moment, we are worried that far from this proposal being a simplification for businesses trying to conduct business across frontiers among the 12 member states, it could become another major complication. Were some companies to decide to form a European company in one or more member states under such a proposal, there would be more legal complexities for their counterparties than if they had simply set up a company under a given national law and had taken advantage of the opportunities for open trading, passports in financial services and so forth which would enable them to trade across frontiers without needing to set up the separate form of incorporation suggested by this European company statute.
That point was borne out in our consultation. The companies that we asked told us that they did not see any great interest in forming such a company. They believe that their cross-border business can already be conducted taking advantage of the general corpus of international law and the national laws of individual countries. They can already form companies where they wish and can optimise their business arrangements by choosing the country for that company's formation which they think is most effective for their business purposes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said that he has not had a great response about this. Was there any response from some of the big American companies which carry out a great deal of business in several countries in Europe? I am thinking in particular of Hewlett-Packard which has a big factory in south Queensferry and has expressed concern about certain aspects of this very important matter. Has the Minister heard of any particular concerns expressed by American-based companies?
Mr. Redwood: I have not read of any complaints of that kind and I cannot remember any crossing my desk. However, I cannot speak for the whole Department. The overall impression in the consultation replies that I have seen is as I have described it; there is very little demand for such a company and I have been aware of no difference of concern in terms.of the nationality of those who responded. Of course we are most likely to have United Kingdom-based companies responding to our consultation documents, but, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow

49
(Mr. Dalyell) has said, the responses may also come from large American companies that have large United Kingdom interests and subsidiaries.
The European company statute includes a tax proposal and we believe that it is wrong to use company law proposals to try to introduce certain tax advantages for a European company by the back door when such matters should be discussed more generally under the proper unanimity provisions concerning taxation, and a sensible tax regime—if one is needed—should be achieved by agreement across the member states with regard to the measures that may be necessary to improve the company tax regime across border trading. A few welcome improvements in that regard have been made, but we do not believe that we need tax harmonisation or common rates across the Community to have a free and open market. It is more important that we all play by the same rules in any given market place within the member states. Other barriers got in the way in the past and those are being removed by the single market campaign.
The British Government have difficulties with the legal base proposed by the Commission. The mixture of article 100A and article 54 is quite incorrect. For example, the Commission seems to imply that this is a harmonising measure to further the single market. It is not. It attempts to set up a new entity outside the existing member states' national law and it should be treated differently.
Because the measures before us include both tax and employee participation provisions, we also believe that unanimity is a more appropriate way of proceeding than qualified majority voting. Therefore, the British Government would like to see the correct legal base which we believe must require unanimity and that is the legal base of article 235 or other measures rather than that for specific single market measures for which we have agreed to qualified majority voting to expedite their progress.
Other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I shall be brief. In summary, the British Government will continue to negotiate with our partners to discover whether a suitable vehicle can be found to meet the Commission's ambitions. We do not believe that this vehicle is currently in anything like the right shape. We believe that there should be changes with regard to the voting base, the introduction of taxation provisions and the form of employee participation included in the draft. There should also be some resolution of the difficulties inherent in creating 12 entirely different types of company which might well complicate and make business life more difficult in the Community instead of simplifying it. If hon. Members can propose a better way forward, the Government would be grateful to hear from them.
5.25 pm
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: As I rose to speak, I wondered whether the Minister would consider a better way forward in other policy areas. If he is looking for advice in that regard, I am sure that we can help him out in other areas. It was also interesting that the Minister thought it necessary to state that the Government were negotiating in good faith on this European company statute. He seemed to imply that some people might doubt whether the Government negotiated in good faith in Europe and that we would think that the Government
50
would do otherwise with regard to directives and regulations. However, we shall take the Minister's comments at face value.
We understand some of the difficulties that the Minister faces with the negotiations. We agree in principle with the European company statute. The directive and the regulation are important to the future of Europe. However, we take into account some of the worries and doubts that have been expressed about how the negotiations are taking place.
The negotiations have continued for a long time and, in an attempt to reach agreement, more and more host nation or country rules are coming into play. The Minister made the point that nation state rules are coming into play and that we shall have 12 different pieces of legislation or different forms of European companies and will end up with a statute that is not worth having. Therefore, the provision's final downfall is built into the way in which the Minister and others have approached it. That is unfortunate.
We are particularly worried about some of the host nation and national laws that will come into play because of varying standards between different European countries whether they be in relation to auditing, accounting or bankruptcy. I will leave the latter subject to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but those areas may cause us difficulty in future.
The Minister was slightly disingenuous when he talked about his concerns. From previous debates on this and other topics I guess that the Government are primarily opposed to the statute because of the element of worker participation. We have been told that there should be unanimity of voting on the issue and not a simple majority. We know that the Government are not happy with the worker participation element of this statute and it is clear that they will choose whatever channel possible to broaden the debate to make it look as if they are interested in other factors. The Government do not want workers in this country who work in a European-based company to have a basic right. We are not asking for something under the social charter which does not or would not exist in any other European country. We are asking for workers in a particular company to be informed and consulted about decisions. Our European colleagues do not find that a particularly demanding part of the statute. Only this Government find it so objectionable.
It would be useful if the Minister could clarify a point which occurs on page 5 about the proposals for a European company statute, tabled by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Minister that the Government are opposed to worker participation in the three forms that are being recommended in the company statute and that it is mandatory that one of the three forms will have to be taken. Page 5 of the Department of Trade and Industry's document on worker participation states:
"If no agreement"—
that is, no agreement on any of the three models—
"could be reached, or where the parties to the negotiations so decided, a national model would apply. This would have to provide for at lest the same information and consultation as would be required if a model were agreed by collective bargaining."
That document is saying that, if a company based in the United Kingdom has basic levels of information and consultation that most people would accept as reasonable, common sense and rational, the three mandatory models do not have to be adopted. It is not as though we are being

51
forced to have the German or French models of worker participation; all we are being asked is to have basic levels of informnation and consultation with the work force.
I do not wish to broaden the debate outside the auspices of the statute, but, when the Government call for wage restraint and are not prepared to talk to people and ask managers and others to have wage restraint, people will not respond. That may be a lesson for the Government to learn. The statute will help them to learn that, in relation to European companies, if we have a level of information and consultation, the problems that the Minister mentioned about the mandatory enforcement of one of three models would not exist. I should appreciate it if the Minister would clarify that point.
Mr. Redwood: There would still be mandatory enforcement of the standards of minimum levels which would have to be prescribed in statute and would mean that the law got involved in matters that we have left to individuals to decide. The Government are against that.
I should be grateful if, in turn, the hon. Lady would clarify a point. She says that she welcomes the European company statute and thinks that trying to get agreement by putting more and more national law into the solution is unhelpful because it destroys the principle. Is she saying that the Labour party would like to see a comprehensive company and insolvency law at European level, and, if so, how long does she think it might take to get it?
Ms. Mowlam: I shall respond with pleasure to the Minister's second point. As I pointed out, the difficulty is that we are now faced with host or national law regulation because we have been unable to get agreement on the European company statute. That position would not have been reached if the Government had been negotiating with a little more willingness. We ask why our colleagues in Europe have doubts about the Government. To answer the Minister's point head on, the reason why the Government went into the ERM was to gain political ground from the Labour party after our good conference. Also, they had no hope of going to the intergovernmental conference in November and convincing anybody that they could negotiate for the hard ecu when no one believes that they are committed to Europe in the first place.
On the Minister's point about national law, company insolvency and the length of time, the rest of Europe is quite clear on Labour's position. Labour Members have stated their position. The Conservative party is so badly divided that one of the difficulties that Europeans have when they sit around the table is that they do not know what position will be adopted, whether the Government will be able to deliver it, whether there is a commitment to the principle, or whether there is just a paper-thin view that could collapse halfway through the negotiations.
The Minister says that information and consultation would have to be mandatory. I do not see what difficulty the Government should have in setting a basic level, as we want to do with the minimum wage, of information and consultation. Working people in this country should not be denied the legally enforceable right to participation in the form of consultation and information. Clearly, the detail of that should be left to specific situations. We do
52
not disagree with that. Individual companies will want to do things differently, but it should be essential and correct to have a legally enforceable right.
Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Lady saying that the Labour party's official policy is that all United Kingdom company law should be replaced by a law harmonised with our partners who have rather different company law systems?
Ms. Mowlam: No. If negotiations had taken place differently—I gave an example of negotiations in other matters in which the Government are having difficulty—we would not be in this position years down the road and unable to get agreement because the Government are dragging their feet. Europe is left with no other option, as it has been with so many other directives and regulations, but to go to the lowest common denominator—in this case, national laws. As a result the ludicrousness of that option becomes clear. We do not have one set of regulations for European company statutes; we have 12, and we may have more in future. Again in answer to the Minister's point, it is a matter of negotiation and discussion. We would not have been in this position because we would not have had——
Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Mowlam: I have answered the Minister twice. I will not do his job any further. He has asked for advice on two pieces of legislation, and he has asked us for advice on where he goes forward because he has no ideas. I shall make progress because other hon. Members wish to participate.
The right to consultation and information to which workers in this country should be entitled should be a legal base. The difficulty is that the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Chartered Accountants seemingly object—in particular the CBI—for the same reasons that the Minister gave. The CBI's press release on this matter states that these proposals would be more a back-door attempt to introduce legislation on mandatory worker participation. Clearly the objection is of the same nature, but the point that we made this afternoon in line with Labour party policy would begin to answer it. Our position is very clear.
The Minister argued for unanimity and said that majority voting is the basis for this legislation. It would be interesting to see, if the legislation on worker participation was not perceived by the European commissioners as an essential part and that the two aspects had to travel in unison, whether the same objections on voting rights would still hold. Opposition Members doubt whether they would. We agree in principle—
Mr. Tim Smith:: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman has plenty of time in which to participate. I shall conclude my remarks. I shall come back later if the hon. Gentleman wants any particular points answered. [Interruption.] I have said that the hon. Gentleman can participate later in the debate.
If the Government's position on Europe had been clearer and the present confusion did not exist, their negotiating position would have been made much clearer and we would not face such difficulties with the statute.
5.37 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I regret the Government's attitude to workers. I do not think that that should be the real thrust against the proposal. I have participated in such debates in Strasbourg, and my views are well known. I should not like the people of Europe to think that the British working classes would not be in the same position as they would be in regard to their legitimate rights. After all, no United Kingdom person should be ashamed of the history of workers in this country and the fight that they put up for basic rights. It was a fight for basic liberties, and all parties agree that those liberties are inalienable rights. I regret that the Minister denied that by placing such great emphasis on his vigorous objection to worker participation. Those are not the grounds on which we should object to the proposal, because we should be concentrating on far more serious matters.
Both the Conservative and the Labour parties are in considerable difficulties over this matter. There was a time when the Labour party was very much opposed to Europe. When I was first elected a Member of the European Parliament, many Labour Members took the same view as I, whereas many Tory Members were more pro-European than the Tory party itself. I am glad that Tory Members now recognise Europe's threat to our sovereignty. We should consider that important matter, because the long arm of Europe could reach into our country and be effective in overruling the democracy of the House of Commons that has been won for the British people.
I am glad that the Government are not happy about the proposal, but regret that they are objecting to a matter on which we should be united. The best way forward for the British people is to show Europe—as we have shown Europe in the past—that, notwithstanding the European structures and Mr. Delors' mad schemes, we can give leadership, have unity in industry, and move forward in the way in which we should move forward. I nearly said "Ulster people" instead of "British people" because I am so used to addressing my own Province, as hon. Members well understand.
I therefore trust that the debate will not follow the line that has been taken up to now. I have no difficulty with the second model, under which
"an employee representative body could be set up which would have rights to specific information, to require reports from the board and to be consulted before certain decisions are implemented."
As that is what is happening in some companies today, we should not be seen in Europe to be resisting it. I should like to think that the United Kingdom's European opponents on this matter would recognise that far more important matters are at stake, some of which have already been mentioned.
Obviously, there are difficulties in terms of the laws of the 12 countries, many of which differ greatly. I cannot see how one European Act could straddle all the 12 countries. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) did not really tell the House how she proposes that that could be done. I think that she was in a little difficulty—in fact, a colossal difficulty. Far be it from me to diminish her wisdom in any way, but wiser minds than hers cannot find the answer to that question. It is right for the Government to ask, "How are you going to do it?" because I do not think that it can be done.
We need to look carefully at what is being proposed. We should not allow Europe, via this directive, to get its
54
hands on our tax system. The directive should not be the back door through which Europe can proceed to tax harmonisation. I think that this is one of the back doors that Delors wants to use for his own ends.
The House would do well to take the stance that it does not accept what has been proposed. We should say that we are opposed to it. I should not like anybody to think that the United Kingdom's opposition to this matter is on the ground of worker participation. That would be a bad message to come from the British House of Commons. It would look as though many of us were not prepared to ensure that the working class in our country has its full rights. Even we in this country have more rights than the people of some other European countries. Those rights have been hard fought for and achieved after immense struggles. They came before many of the rights accorded to workers in the rest of Europe.
Finally, there is something wrong with the way in which this material is presented. My copy of the report was a completely unreadable photostat. That is what is being presented to hon. Members, yet we are supposed to take an interest in it and to try to read it. I had to get the original because I was told that all the copies were the same. If I were suspicious, I would say that there was a dark conspiracy down in the bowels of the House and that a person in the pay of Mr. Delors was inking the copies as thoroughly as he could so that hon. Members could not read them. I notice that one of the Whips is a former Member of the famous Strasbourg Assembly. I hope that he will be an anti-Guy Fawkes investigator and will discover why hon. Members cannot be given decent copies before debating these important matters. Hon. Members are blamed for not reading things, but how can we read unreadable material and pass our comments on it?
5.46 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I, too, was a Member of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to as "the famous Strasbourg Assembly". I was also a member of the budget committee and the budget sub-committee of that famous Assembly, which were supposedly the equivalents of the Public Accounts Committee, and which looked into fraud and malpractice. In general, over those years, it was my considered opinion, when serving on those Committees under the chairmanship of Heinrich Aigner from Bavaria and his expert officials, that there was comparatively little fraud and malpractice in relation to the European funds. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) might agree that blanket criticisms of the Brussels bureaucracy are often ill-founded and ill-directed. In my experience, the European funds were used pretty honestly and the budget sub-committee found that, generally, there was little fraud and malpractice.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the hon. Gentleman's day, the European Parliament was not using its powers as strongly as it might. Budgetary control, for example, has been greatly tightened. However, the fact still remains that inspection is weak. Many things have happened to give the Community a bad name. If we had an international inspectorate, things would be much better because we obey the law. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers serving on committees in which the French and the Italians took the view that it did not matter which regulations were being considered because they had

55
no intention of observing them, whereas the Danes and the British wanted every i dotted and every t crossed because we wanted to observe the regulations. Inspection is the key to ensuring that there is no fraud.
Mr. Dalyell: My party decided—rightly, in my view—that Members of this House should no longer be Members of the Strasbourg Parliament. Therefore, as my experience is out of date and the hon. Lady's experience is far more up to date, I shall certainly not quarrel with her on this matter.
There are two sets of exceptions to article 24 and the other documents. The first relates to European companies' trade with Cambodia. I have been drawn first in Question Time on 31 October. I shall ask the Minister's Department about trade with Cambodia. Under the cloak of privilege—because law suits are flying and this is what House of Commons privilege is for—I shall ask about the Government's view of allegations made in front of millions of people by John Pilger about Anthony de Normann and Christopher MacKenzie Geidt on trading in arms and other materials with the Khmer Rouge and other people in Cambodia. I am entitled to ask that question in this debate because we are talking about fraud and malpractice. It is strictly in order. I am rather careful about these things.
I ask the Government directly to say what is their relationship, if any, with Anthony de Normann and Christopher MacKenzie Geidt and what they know about them. I am careful about bandying names around the Floor of the House of Commons, but those people have been named in front of millions of people. No answer has been forthcoming from Mr. Pilger. I talked to him both before and after the programme and he gave me the impression that it was extremely carefully researched. The programme was on television. Libel lawyers were involved. Therefore, I am entitled to ask the Government on the Floor of the House what they know about the matter.
I am also entitled to ask the Department of Trade and Industry whether it has had any dealings, either in the form of licences or end-user certificates——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and tried to reconcile his assertion that he is in order with the proposal before the House. The motion appears to be about the Commission's proposal to permit the creation of a legal structure for supranational companies. It is difficult for me to reconcile what the hon. Member says with that.
Mr. Dalyell: We are dealing with supranational companies, because the matter crosses international frontiers. I understand that European firms were involved. The Minister, not I, raised the question of fraud and malpractice. My question has been clearly put and I am sure that the Minister would like to answer.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We always await with huge enjoyment interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have the right to speak for the Chair.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We always await your interventions with huge enjoyment, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We await with even greater anticipation the hon. Gentleman's
56
interventions. Will he tell us why John Pilger should be looked upon as almost a holy grail of truth? Why is it that what such gentlemen say in all these programmes become facts? Why does the hon. Gentleman suddenly say that all the things that we hear on television are facts? Is not it possible—I know that it sounds entirely unlikely—that even the wonderful things that the television says are true are not always true? Why are this Government, or any Government, always wrong just because John Pilger and his crew say that it is so?
Mr. Dalyell: I am genuinely grateful for that intervention because it allows me to clarify a matter. I do not say that John Pilger is necessarily right. All that I say is that John Pilger has a track record of being sufficiently serious to entitle me to ask in the House of Commons what Her Majesty's Ministers know about the matter.
This is no trivial matter when one sees that sheer horror and destruction in Cambodia on film. It is a land—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The proposal that the House is required to consider is the establishment of a new legal structure. We are not debating whether a particular company or organisation is in breach of exisiting statutes or whether fraud has been committed under existing statutes. That is not a matter for this debate.
Mr. Dalyell: Clearly you want me to leave Cambodia and go on to safer ground. Therefore, I draw the attention of the Government to a report yesterday which said:
"Machinery for Iraqi defence factories was exported by British companies using loans guaranteed by the Government,"
I bring myself into order by quoting the people who have made those allegations. They are the state owned Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, an Italian firm which I shall call BNL for short. The report continues:
"They say that the beneficiaries included Technology and Development group (TDG), a London company controlled by Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialisation and the Coventry machine tool company, Matrix Churchill, bought by TDG in 1987.
BNL's Atlanta, Georgia, branch is at the centre of a scandal, over its provision, without authorisation from Milan, of $3 billion of export credits to Iraq. After its takeover by TDG, Matrix Churchill boosted its sales to Baghdad. Customs officers last week detained its managing director, Paul Henderson, for questioning on possible violations of UK controls on exports to Iraq in the Gulf war."—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain to me how relevant those matters are to the Commission's proposal to create a new legal structure for supranational companies within the Community.
Mr. Dalyell: It is simply an example of why we need a supranational structure with teeth. By referring to the Italian involvement and the involvement of the United States, I have shown that we are dealing with a supranational structure. As I said, it was the Minister who raised the question of malpractice. The debate is surely about malpractice.
The report continues:
"Although Britain officially banned the sale of lethal items to both sides in the Gulf war, there were no restrictions on the supply of machinery which would allow the Iraqis to manufacture conventional weaponry. And the Government helped Iraq secure the funds to place orders for such sales.

57
The first British line of credit to Iraq, worth £275 million, was agreed in 1983, and a further £1·1 billion has followed. The credits were arranged by UK banks and guaranteed by the ECGD, the government Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The credit lines were negotiated by the UK-Iraq Joint Commission, headed by the two states' Trade Ministers."
I want to know from the Department of Trade and Industry whether it participated in that, because if it did it has some explanation to give to the House of Commons. The report continues:
"The size of the credit lines, and the goods covered, were decided by officials from the Department of Trade, the ECGD, the Foreign Office and the Treasury.
Both the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade referred all questions to the ECGD, which said that its dealings were confidential. TDG and Matrix Churchill have also declined to comment."
You bet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they have declined to comment.
We are on extremely delicate ground. It is fair to ask on the Floor of the House of Commons whether all that is true. It is reported in reputable newspapers. Members largely depend on such information, but we do not necessarily swallow it hook, line and sinker. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who has left the Chamber, should note that. We should at least ask whether such information is true. I freely confess that until recently many people did not want to see Iraq defeated, at least not by the ayatollahs and the mullahs, and did not want the Khomeini regime to win outright in the middle east. However, we must be clear about exactly what has happened over the past two years in terms of British law.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not fall under the heading of the debate.
Mr. Dalyell: I shall not exasperate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made the points and other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that either in the debate or in writing we will get answers to the two questions that I have posed. One is about Anthony de Normann and Christopher MacKenzie Geidt and Astra in relation to Cambodia, and the other is about our exact relations in the export of arms and arms-related goods to the state of Iraq. Both questions are extremely significant and deserve an answer.
6 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) took us away from the rather narrow matters dealt with in the documents, but I am sure that what he has said is relevant. Even if it is not, I am always willing to forgive and show latitude to the hon. Gentleman because I shall never forget that as a result of his heroic actions some years ago we still have a United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is a great Member of Parliament.
This is an important debate and I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs for the clear way in which he explained the contents of the statute proposal and the directive on employee participation. Such issues are complex and technical, but constitute laws that have a direct impact on every employee, investor and creditor. In one way or another we shall all be affected by the form of company law which evolves in Europe and in Britain.
58
I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned about proposals for regulations rather than for directives. As I understand it, regulations apply immediately to all member states which must comply with their terms. However, directives simply mean that each member state has to pass legislation that is in line with them. Therefore, we should always scrutinise with great care any proposal for a regulation. The regulation before us has been debated for some years and there is no timetable for its remaining course. It is a radical proposal and we should be loth to give it the green light.
Many hon. Members will know that I am in the vanguard of those who would like to see greater unity and progress in the European Community. I applaud efforts that have been made on the monetary front and on many political fronts to bring about a single market and greater commonality of law in the Community. That does not mean that every proposal is automatically right. Those who find the idea of European unity abominable should occasionally give credit to some of the Community's achievements for Britain.
The proposal to establish a statute for a new societas Europaea that will be a parallel company structure within the Community seems to be fraught with problems. It seems rather curious that the Treasury is proposing a document for a parallel hard ecu to work alongside national currencies while the Department of Trade and Industry is reluctant to have a parallel hard European company structure alongside national structures. I do not mean to be jocular or difficult when I say that. It is dangerous to have a separate European company structure in any single country. Why do we have company law and set out in statute the subscriptions, the requirements placed on directors, and the nature of limited liability? It is not principally to help shareholders or to protect employees. Perhaps above all it is to protect creditors because the conferment of limited liability is a valuable privilege. It means that shareholders in a limited liability company, whether it is a plc or a societas Europaea, have their risks limited. Before that privilege is granted, it is right that many legislative requirements about disclosure and the discharge of responsibilities to shareholders and others should be made.
Britain has evolved just such a system of protection. Occasionally, it needs to be amended or improved in the face of change and pressures. Our limited liability companies and plcs form a valuable structure giving protection to those who offer credit, give cheques or lend money to such companies. Those people know where they are and can easily assess the risk on which they supply the money. If alongside that limited liability structure we introduce a wholly new structure, the societas Europaea proposal, yet another type of company will be operating in the United Kingdom and in all the other European countries. Will creditors of those companies be able to assume that they have the same protection? Will employees be able to assume that they will have the same rights to information? Will shareholders be sure that their criminal and civil liability is limited in the same way as it is under the existing plc and limited company structure? Those points are not clear. If they are exactly the same in each respect, why does one need to duplicate matters?
Surely one should arrive at one system of protection for all those who are involved in limited liability companies, and should seek to persuade through commonality—which is what I think my hon. Friend the Minister was

59
driving at—other European countries to adopt the same stringent and responsible standards as us. As soon as we are all on a standard basis and when the law on the protection of creditors is exactly the same in each country, we can call a plc an SE or something else. However, that change must take place through organic commonality rather than through imposed regulation. I see grave risks and great uncertainty and misunderstanding about the imposition of a regulation in this area.
Secondly, I noted with interest what my hon. Friend the Minister said in reply to my intervention about the directive on employee participation. In general, we need not be too afraid to import even into our national company law some greater employee participation rights. The directive contains three options, the first of which assumes a supervisory board structure. I can live quite happily with the second one which could easily be accommodated in a unitary board structure company system. As I understand it, the second option proposes the setting up of a body to represent employee interests and says that they shall have certain rights of information. It does not say that they will have control over decisions made by the board or that they will have to account to other bodies in a particular financial way. It merely says that a body representing the employees in a company shall have certain rights of information.
There may be an argument about the information that should be provided and the basis upon which it should be done, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would be the first to agree that any company worth its salt ought to be doing that sort of thing anyway. Most of the companies that do not are probably exactly the sort of companies for which a directive or law is necessary to make sure that they divulge information to employees. I am a loyal supporter of a party that, more than any other in our post-war history, has encouraged employee participation, promoted worker shareholdings and relished the success of companies such as the National Freight Consortium that have been enormously profitable, built up and expanded on the basis of privatisation and employee shareholdings. This need not be a matter of partisan difference. I am amazed to see the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) shake her head when I suggest that there should be agreement across the Floor of the House about the success of employee participation and of companies such as the NFC, built up on ownership by the people who work in the company.
Ms. Joyce Quin: If the Government are so keen on employee participation, why have they blocked all European initiatives on this subject?
Mr. Nelson: I am not aware that they have. As the record shows, the growth of employee participation has been faster in this country than in any other European state over the past 10 years, and that growth has been accompanied by a higher standard of take-home pay, and by an increase in proportion of worker participation in the companies from which they draw the fruits of their labour. That is wholly desirable. That is what the Conservative party believes in. We believe in private ownership and the responsibility attached to that. We view suspiciously the
60
corporatist ethics of either large institutions or of Governments who vest unto themselves more and more power. We believe in plurality. That is what we stand for.
Ms. Quin: Oh!
Mr. Nelson: That is right. That is why we should support this motion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) would agree that we should not oppose the directive on employee participation.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Perhaps my hon. Friend has spotted that there is a basic difference in the definition of participation in industry as given by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and the definition given by my hon. Friend the Minister. According to the Conservative party, participation means that each worker has a share in the company, and therefore a definable vote, and a right to receive financial information. According to the Labour party, participation in industry means that workers, rather than having shares in a company, should have imposed on them a trade union leader—a fat cat—who sits on the board. That gives workers no genuine participation.
Mr. Nelson: I could not have put it more eloquently. My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition believe in social demarcation. They have a vested interest in the continuation of a working class deprived of the fruits of its labour, kept in economic servitude, depressed and not made part of a capitalist sharing system under which, when they give something, they can take back something. They believe in the feudal patronage of company law, and we should have no part in that.
6.12 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and I are good Europeans and do not wish to oppose the motion out of a feeling that Europe has no part to play in the future of the United Kingdom. Quite the reverse—I should like to see set up either a European company or, as my hon. Friend said, a societas Europaea. I regret that now is not the time for that, for many good reasons.
I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It was interesting and we can all learn a great deal from some of the things that he said. His experience in Europe is second to none. I am reminded of the first day I came into the Chamber, some seven years ago, when I sat next to him. I was surprised to see him there and said, somewhat innocently, "I didn't realise that you were on our side." He said, "Never confuse sitting on your side with being on your side." The hon. Gentleman has shown us today that he is more on our side than is sometimes felt to be the case.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is, as has been said, a remarkable parliamentarian. His interesting speech was not so much supranational as supernatural, in that he mentioned items that are not part of this debate. He raised important matters, but the instrument that we are discussing is rather more mundane. Our debate is about whether we feel that it would help progress in Europe.if we had companies that could be called European companies—societas Europaea—or continue down our route of separate organisations such as plcs, ltds, ags, sas, and all the other letters and whether we

61
should have a company which trades as a European company in the new harmonised, free, single market Europe. We have all agreed that that would be desirable.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has said that the matters about which I asked are important, and I am sure that he means it. Would he like a letter from the Minister answering these questions? I have asked that we have an explanation. As the hon. Gentleman thinks the matter important, he might like such a letter.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman said that he has been fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity to ask, at the appointed time, the question that he asked the Minister today. I shall be waiting for the Minister's answer on that occasion, and I shall be looking forward to the answer to the question for which two weeks' notice has been granted. These issues are so important that a Minister who has come briefed for a debate on a European company should not have to think on his feet. Furthermore, the answers to these questions will reverberate for some time to come. I agree that this is an important issue, but I am sure that the hon. Member will not expect the Minister to deal with it now.
When Europe is a single trade entity and we have harmonised our direct and indirect taxes and our laws by the gradual process that has begun, we could have a European company. However, we should not impose a European company at this stage, for a number of cogent reasons. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, for which I am Parliamentary adviser, is opposed to the draft regulation because it is opposed to worker participation in industry. She mentioned the institute in the same breath as the CBI. I rebut the allegation that the Institute of Chartered Accountants is opposed to the instrument purely for that reason. It is not opposed to discussion of the matter, but it is opposed to worker participation being imposed on us. It would be wrong to create a European company and then to impose on it a range of social and fiscal matters. Such issues must be sorted out first, and the European company created afterwards.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ms. Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hanley: I am being bombarded in this exciting debate.
Mrs. Mowlam: I do not wish to mislead the House on the position of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. It is true that I mentioned the institute and the CBI in the same breath, but then I referred to the CBI's specific point about worker participation. I did not go further in taking up the response of the institute because its press release is so general. The only phrase that crystallises its position is that
"the Institute suggests that those dealing with the technical aspects of the law governing the European Company are likely to find daunting the possibility of a multiplicity of models from country to country."
The rest of the press release is not especially descriptive. That is why I left the matter as I did.
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I accept her good will, which she has made clear in explaining her position.
The institute's submission of February 1990 to the Department of Trade and Industry was its response to the DTI's consultative document of December 1989. The hon. Lady feels that the contents of the submission are not especially snappy, but I can assure the House that the document covers a great deal of ground.
The hon. Lady said that the only reason why the Government are opposed to the proposed legislation is that it includes provisions which bear on participation in industry. I suspect that the hon. Lady supports it because it includes those provisions. The institute has dealt with many other practical matters with which accountants have to deal in their professional work. Accountants are rather like the men who follow elephants around the circus ring: they have to use buckets and spades to clear up the messes caused by corporations, some of which are extremely large. The proposed legislation would introduce more complications and would lead to confusion in the minds of shareholders and creditors.
Since the previous consultation process, many submissions have been made to the Department of Trade and Industry and to the Department of Employment. The House will understand that both Departments share responsibilities for the proposed legislation. It is accepted in most of the submissions that there is some attractiveness in having a European company—a company which gives the impression to those who trade with it that it is a pan-European organisation. A company that chooses to set itself up as a European company must surely have in mind the objectives and ideals of Europe. That would be assumed by those who decided to deal with it. It would be thought that it must have a greater European experience if it chooses to be identified with the Community rather than with a single piece of national corporate law. There is no doubt that it would be an attractive vehicle. It might be thought that people would deal with it because its name and structure would suggest that it had greater experience and knowledge of trading in Europe than other organisations.
The proposed legislation tells us that it would be necessary only to form a group with two companies as part of it, with one in one country and one in another. That hardly means that the group would be pan-European. It means only that two separate companies which are under one holding company happen to choose to use the proposed structure. The group might appear to be European, but it might not necessarily be more European than any existing trading structure.
In its restrictions on the formation of the European company, societas Europaea, the proposed legislation contains a major problem. We are told that the structure which requires that a holding company has to be created will stop individual companies forming as a European company. I am not against companies wanting to be seen to be more European than perhaps they might be now, but I find artificial the strange structure of the holding company and the two subsidiaries. I should rather have a European company which does not necessarily need the particular formation of a holding company and two subsidiaries. I should like to see a European company as a genuine option when company law is far more closely aligned in the member states.

63
The cross-border merger issue is important. One of the stated objectives of the proposal before us is to give companies from different member states the option of combining their potential by means of inter-state mergers. It may be that the European company would be seen as a way to facilitate cross-border mergers. I am doubtful about that, however, and so is the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The institute has been much involved in the massive programme of mergers between companies and partnerships in the build-up to the single European market, and I doubt whether it has found the absence of a societas Europaea to be a major impediment. In other words, if the proposed legislation is introduced to try to help mergers throughout the European Community, why has there been such successful merger mania over the past 10 years?
Almost every large British company now trades in all of the European countries. These companies do not feel the need to have a societas Europaea. They trade as they have traded in the past but they take advantage of the single European market programme. To be opposed to this proposed legislation does not mean that we are bad Europeans. I remind the House that the United Kingdom is at the top of the list of member states when it comes to adopting the directives for the single European market. We have only nine still to achieve, so we have done far better than any other European country. Italy still has 50 to achieve. That demonstrates that Britain is a good European in terms of trade.
Worker participation has been mentioned by the majority of those who have contributed to the debate. The draft directive that accompanies the proposed legislation provides that there has to be the involvement of employees in the
"supervision and strategic development"
of a European company. We are told that there is a choice of four models for worker participation. The first is the
"election of at least one third and not more than one half of the members of the administrative or supervisory board by employees."
Secondly, there is
"co-option to the boards, with the right of general meetings of shareholders and of employee representatives to object to any particular appointment subject to a procedure for declaring an objection inadmissible."
That is rather complicated.
Thirdly, there is the
"establishment of an employee representative body with rights to information and reports from the board."
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, what opposition has anyone to that proposal? I thoroughly agree with him. There is no good company in the United Kingdom that does not take into account fully the rights and futures of its employees. It is a truism that any company that rides roughshod over its employees will not survive in the climate of the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Major companies now give far more information to their employees, including specially created employee accounts. These accounts are not necessarily less sophisticated than others, but they are easily understood. They are designed so that employees will understand important information that is specific to them. I feel that companies care about their employees. Employees have rights as pension earners and as shareholders, and the atmosphere has never been better.
64
The fourth model in the directive is an
"agreement between the boards of the founder companies and their employees or representatives to a model which would provide the latter with rights to specific information and to be informed and consulted on the matters laid down in the Regulation."
In other words, the two parts of the holding company, the two subsidiaries, would have a special structure that would give rights of access to employees by law.
In a memorandum way back in March 1984, the institute expressed the view that there was no reasonable justification for the imposition on member states of
"complicated and proscriptive provisions to attain an object whose desirability is not generally accepted either by employees or management."
In other words, the principle has not been demanded by employees; it has been demanded by employee representatives and by trade unions, which view it as an additional power. No one had convinced me that the worker participation suggested in the Vredeling proposals, and which is dreamed of by the Opposition, would give more democracy and more information to individual employees—rather, it would give that to employee representatives, and we know what democracy is about at that level.
I do not believe that the movement towards worker participation in industry is greatly enhanced by being enforced by statute. I should prefer that the argument about worker participation be discussed separately and fully and, when it has been resolved, that the European company be imposed on top of that. It would be a disservice to such an important matter if the European corporate structure imposed worker participation in a roughshod manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, referred to another matter. He and I served on the Standing Committee of the Companies Bill. We spent many happy moments discussing the subject of non-executive directors. We remembered the excellent work of Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams, a late Member of the House, who every year for 16 years introduced a Bill whose aim was to impose non-executive directors on the boards of major companies. He was a remarkable man and I was honoured to support him on five of those Bills. He was a legend in company law. It was said that many people looked forward to his company law Bill each Session—and in general few would admit to looking forward to company law legislation. Someone once said that company law was to an accountant what haemorrhoids were to a general practitioner; it is a rather unattractive end of the market, but it pays. Brandon was the expert in what, for most people, is an end of the market that they would rather ignore.
I can remember seeing in north Kensington one item of graffiti against Brandon—a large slogan, "Abandon Sir Brandon." I am sure that that most beautifully written graffiti had nothing to do with the Government's opposition to his Bills each year. It is worth remembering that, for the first time, the House passed his Bill—the 16th—and sent it to another place, yet the very day their Lordships rejected it was the day that he died. Happily, he did not know that his Bill was to be rejected. It was a sad end for a gallant man.
Even Brandon would not have accepted that the creation of a European company should be the medium through which non-executive directors could be imposed upon United Kingdom companies. He believed that they should be there as a form of audit committee. Again, the

65
argument should not be whether this statute should impose important requirements by way of a sideline; it is too important a matter to he imposed through this legislation.
Article 66 provides that the executive members of a one-tier board, if that is the choice of the company, should be fewer in number than the other members of the board. To put it in the terms of the CB, single-tier boards—which must have more non-executive than executive directors, with at least one third of the directors being appointed by employees—would be an alternative model. Those arguments will rage, but for many companies they are a matter of practice. Many large companies have non-executive directors, but no single company is identical to any other single company. 'The needs of one company are not necessarily the needs of another company. How does the regulation that exactly one third of the board should be non-executive members advance the cause of democracy within a company? Companies should have expertise, and if that must be non-executive, so be it. The board of directors must answer to its shareholders. The non-executive directors that many companies have used successfully for many years must properly earn their keep. To impose non-executive directors through legislation would be a back-door measure.
Mr. Derek Conway: I am sure that the House recognises my hon. Friend's great expertise in this subject. Being able to share his views tonight is an educative experience. He is making a powerful case about back-door bureaucracy, which the EEC is trying to impose on nation states. Is he aware of companies such as Airbus Industrie—a supranational organisation that I was fortunate to visit during the recess as a member of the Industry and Parliament Trust? It is based at Toulouse and comprises a French-based company—sadly nationalised—a German company, British Aerospace and a Spanish company. They have come together to make the airbus. That happened before the United Kingdom even joined the European Community, so the concept of a supranational organisation not only works and, for this organisation, is extremely effective, but it does not necessarily have to involve all this European bureaucracy. That is the point that my hon. Friend is impressing on the House.
Mr. Hanley: I recently spoke to some of the directors of the airbus project, and they said that the highlight of recent months was my hon. Friend's visit. He has made a powerful case for the continuation of a structure that has so successfully traded among European countries. However, my hon. Friend might not agree with my view that there is nothing wrong with having a European company, although I hope to show why now is not the time for that.
Let us consider some of the more detailed points, which have nothing to do with worker participation or non-executive directors, but are to do with accounting requirements. The Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales knows them better than most. The accounting requirements by which companies are regulated are among the most important regulations in company law. Successive Companies Acts have tightened those requirements. A judge once said that publicity was
66
the most potent safeguard against fraud. What companies must produce in their accounts reduces the propensity for fraud; it is the accountability aspect of the company.
It is essential that the directors of the company produce and present accounts to the shareholders and that they are registered at Companies house so that everyone can see them. The regulations before us would apply to a European company the requirements of the fourth and seventh directives, which deal with both individual and consolidated accounts. However, they would retain the options within those directives. That is important because the options mean that if one registers a societas Europaea in Great Britain, the company would be required to disclose less information than that upon which we insist in our domestic legislation. In other words, there are so many areas in the accounting requirements of a societas Europaea, as set out in the regulation, that I fear that entrepreneurs will make a list of those items of information that they are required to publish under the societas system and those items that they are required to publish under domestic company law. It would be very wrong if the requirements of the House, as imposed on public limited companies, were circumvented by easier legislation.
Recent legislative requirements, such as the widening of the definition of a subsidiary—aimed at preventing off-balance-sheet financing—could effectively be avoided by means of the vehicle of the societas Europaea. A number of other requirements of United Kingdom company law are not even mentioned in the societas—for instance, analysis of directors' remuneration, and detailed information about transactions involving directors.
The House considers it right for the income of directors to be set out properly in published accounts. The House believes that, if directors have loans or use credit cards on the company, the information should be shown, again in published accounts. The House has agreed to that, and has incorporated it in successive items of legislation. This regulation, however, does not insist on the publication of directors' remuneration or interests, or on the publication of information relating to political and charitable donations. I am sure that the hon. Member for Redcar, who fought so hard for political and charitable contributions to be split in the Companies Act 1989, would hate to think that, under this legislation, political donations would not even be mentioned in the published accounts of the European company.
Ms. Mowlam: I do not wish to hold up the debate, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I was not the woman member of that Committee; I know that after a while we all look alike, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). Let me add—although I was not there—that, if the hon. Gentleman had looked al the amendments on employee share ownership plans that we tabled to the Companies Bill, he would know that we supported wider share ownership and the disclosure of information.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady protests too much. The clause to which I was referring returned to the Floor of the House on Report, having been defeated in Committee. If she was following her party Whip, I am certain that the hon. Lady would have traipsed through the appropriate Lobby like any other faithful soul. It was, in fact, a Lords

67
amendment that was discussed here. I am sorry if the hon. Lady was not present; I had forgotten that her knowledge of company law was so recent—on her own admission.
We fear that the cumulative effect of the relaxations relating to disclosure might lead a person who was not acting in full good faith to choose a particular vehicle merely because it was easier on him. That goes for taxation as well. Article 133 of the regulation provides that, where a societas Europaea has one or more permanent establishments in a member state or a non-member state and the aggregation of the profits and losses for tax purposes of all such establishments results in a net loss, that loss may be set against the profits of the societas in the state where it is resident for tax purposes. That is fine; the only trouble is that in every member state there are different calculations relating to profit, and to the taxation of that profit.
That means that yet another industry will be created, or rather built on: the industry that produces taxation information for corporate clients. In this instance, the companies will ask their advisers, "Do we want to set up this new body? If we do, we shall receive better tax treatment than we receive if we trade in individual countries." I am convinced that progress towards the harmonisation of income tax, corporation tax and value added tax should come first. Only then should the European company be imposed on a Europe in which fiscal harmonisation is a reality and not merely a pipe dream. If we cannot even achieve fiscal harmonisation in relation to VAT, fiscal harmonisation in relation to corporate and individual taxation is bound to be even harder.
Although the regulation is drafted in very general terms—much more general than the terms to which we are used in this country—numerous aspects would give rise to litigation, because of the current differences between member states. The fact that some national law is applicable and the reliance placed on reference to other directives are, I think, likely to make it difficult for businesses to ascertain the overall nature of the provisions under which the societas Europaea operates. It would not, in fact, be imposing a separate set of company law rules; each company would be obeying its own domestic company rules, and that is likely to lead to confusion. United Kingdom company shareholders are already confused enough by our own company law. What will they say when they are shareholders of a company which may have to answer to the regulations of at least 12 sets of legislation in other countries? According to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,
"significant differences amongst Member States in those areas of national law that would apply to an SE, and in approaches to enforcement, would frustrate the objectives of the Regulation."
There is little doubt in my mind that the concept of the European company ought to benefit both Europe as a whole and the companies that choose to adopt it. I like to think that a company would decide to form an SE because it was a good European company, because it traded over all the national boundaries, because its staff were well versed in European matters—because it was indeed a genuine European company. I fear that, as the regulation is currently phrased, companies may choose to become European companies merely because of the odd little
68
advantage that they might obtain through the relaxation of one piece of legislation—perhaps on the presentation of accounts—or the gaining of more allowances for taxation purposes, rather than because of the merits of the concept.
It would be most unfortunate if the popularity of this idea stemmed wholly from the desire to operate under a less demanding regime. I must therefore oppose the regulation, albeit with reluctance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that we are not merely discussing worker participation; that is only a sideline. The most important issues are the fact that accounting regulations differ between member states; the publicity that directors must provide in the publication of accounts; and the need to achieve final harmony before we start talking about a societas Europaea.
6.47 pm
Mr. Donald Thompson: I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has already made most professionally and eloquently many of the points that I intended to make.
What we really want is deregulation, not more regulation. The annex to the document contains regulation after regulation. Many are worthy and necessary—the disclosure requirements and those relating to annual accounts, for instance—but surely the time has come for Europe to consider deregulation when introducing new directives.
It may seem at first that my two main points bear little relation to each other. I am a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, which many of the emerging states of eastern Europe are keen to join. Hungary joined at the last session. Those countries will, of course, want to become members of the EC quite soon. The word "pan-European" has been used. I use it to mean the whole of Europe, from the Urals to Madrid. It would be dangerous if such a regulation became a model for those emerging countries. It must be rejected as being unnecessary.
Firms in my constituency do not want the Commission telling them how they must set up a company before they can trade. They fear that it would not be long before societas Europaea status was a prerequisite of tendering for a contract, which would be ridiculous. Compulsory worker participation is not what this country needs, even if the Commission thinks that it is right in principle. The regulation must be rejected or altered drastically for the sake of those countries that are waiting to join the Community, and for those firms in my constituency that want to trade freely in a deregulated capitalist Europe.
6.50 pm
Mr. John Browne: The House has heard a fascinating and wide-ranging speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and I look forward to hearing the Government's answers. I enjoyed also the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who has exceptional knowledge of corporate law and of the taxation and financial sectors. I disagree with some of my hon. Friend's concepts, such as European monetary union. He may be right in the direction that he takes, but not in the timing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made an outstanding contribution, and I will

69
not waste the time of the House by reiterating my views on taxation and corporate law because they are very similar to those of my hon. Friend.
I must declare at the outset that I have financial interests that could be affected if the regulation were to become law.
I support the proposal in general terms as being part of the synergy of the European Community of 1992. It is designed to help companies governed by the laws of different member states to choose a structure for co-operation and restructuring that is suited to the dimensions of the larger market to be achieved in 1992. It aims at freeing companies from legal and practical constraints arising from the existence of 12 separate legal systems by offering them an optional structure based on Community law, and independent of national laws in so far as they have not been harrnonised.
That is great news from an EEC point of view, but the implications of such a proposal are worrying. Imposing by the back door and almost unnoticed practices that are at the heart of fundamental political issues that we in this House have fought over long and hard for decades cannot be right. Worker participation in particular, mentioned in several speeches, is among the most important of those fundamental issues and merits debate and legislation in its own right. It should not be slid through Parliament on the back of something else.
Ms. Mowlam: Does the hon. Gentleman seek specific legislation on worker participation? If the Government consider that so important, why have they blocked the fifth directive—the Vredeling document on consultation? That aspect has been divided into a directive and a regulation to meet the Government's opposition to worker participation over many years. The hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it.
Mr. Browne: I can only answer for my own view, which is that the regulation does not seem to cover that aspect adequately. My hon. Friend the Minister will explain the Government's viewpoint.
I have no objection to the principle of non-executive directors, but to impose them, and the percentage of a board for which they should account, is wrong. Again, that aspect merits its own debate rather than be included as part of a broader regulation.
70
Some of the tax reforms envisaged might be advantageous to some EEC countries and could encourage improvements that my right hon. and hon. Friends and even Opposition Members may consider beneficial. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the regulation is the right vehicle for tackling the vastly complex subject of tax reform, which has huge political implications. I think not. It is far too complex a matter to be dealt with in a few paragraphs of a regulation.
The accounting procedures observed in this country are of a very high standard, and they put the markets of the United Kingdom well on a par with the finest in the world. The regulation would weaken that standard.
I welcome the acknowledgement given to smaller businesses by lowering the capital requirement from 250,000 to 100,000 ecu, which shows a move in the right direction within the EEC.
I support the general aim of the proposal, but when one examines it in more detail and discovers the plans for imposing worker participation and non-executive directors rather than offering them as an option, one is bound to conclude that the regulation should not have the support of the House tonight.
I have reservations also about the timing of the introduction of the regulation, which strikes at the heart of several serious issues that are to come before the House in the near future such as the exchange rate mechanism and European monetary union. One may agree with them all in principle, but how and when are they to be introduced? I accept that, after EMU, gold will become a truly international form of currency. It is a well-known numeraire, it is readily tradeable and has a store of value.
Paper money represents an economy. That is important because paper money is politically controlled. I fail to see that we can have a credible single European paper currency without a single European economy. At the moment we do not even have a single European market, let alone a single economy. I fail to see how we can look forward to creating a single European paper currency in such a short time before we have achieved a single market.
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Midland Metro Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Midland Metro Bill 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 not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, 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);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before 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 Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for presenting us with this chance to continue with the debate on a carry-over motion of this Bill to the next Session of Parliament.
I remind the House that the scheme was originally proposed by the West Midlands county council, after being proposed beforehand by the passenger transport authority of the West Midlands, of which I was the second chairman.
A previous Bill failed in 1984 as too much demolition was required, it had bad public relations and insufficient district council support. This Bill provides for lines 2 and 3. The Midland Metro Act 1989 will progress substantially public transportation in the west midlands. At the moment we are awaiting a Government announcement regarding funding of that Act.
Lines 2 and 3, which will run through Birmingham and in the Black Country, will have all-party support, apart from a small minority of hon. Members. The Bill was launched by the passenger executive in the west midlands in 1987—now known as Centro. The object of the Bill is to relieve congestion, to bring about economic regeneration, to ensure the increased use of public transport and to ensure an improvement to the environment.
Light rail transit is usually quiet, ecologically attractive and blends in well with the environment. In places where light rail transit systems are operating, for example in Grenoble, it has been heralded as a successful system by all who have seen it. The Grenoble system is the type that this
72
scheme will emulate. I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) was very impressed by the Grenoble system when he made a recent visit there and thought that it would make a great contribution to the cause of public transport. We are much obliged to him for those remarks because I know that he had some reservations about the project.
The trains will be between 28m and 30m long and as light as 26 tonnes. The overhead supports will not be higher than 18ft 6 in, and trains will carry about 75 people seated and 175 people standing. The train will increase people's mobility and will have a low floor level—almost parallel with the loading area—making it easy for people to alight. In modern parlance, it is environmentally friendly, fume-free and reliable, and compares favourably with other forms of transport, especially road transport, as it is safer, costs less and has less environmental impact.
Hon. Members who vote in favour of the carry-over motion today will remember that in many studies recently roads have not been proposed as the solution to the transport needs of urban areas. In the London area a vast road building programme was not chosen by the Secretary of State in favour of "a redline system" of alleviating traffic parking.
The system will cost less than heavy rail and will have less environmental impact. It will be more flexible and will share the roads with other traffic. There can be a greater penetration into the centre of cities. The trains will be more reliable than buses. They will be cleaner and fume-free. They will have a greater passenger capacity and will be faster. The light rail system has a more modern image, as up-market transport. Rightly or wrongly, buses do not enjoy the same image. The system has much to recommend it and the carry-over motion has much to commend it.
Line 2 will go from Birmingham Five Ways through the city centre to a vast new Heartlands development area of more than 2,000 acres in Bromford and then on to Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Arlington business park, the national exhibition centre—I am sorry if I sound a little like a conductor—Birmingham International railway station and Birmingham International airport, all of which are important destinations. The line will be 26 km long with 34 stops. The new underground section will serve the new international convention centre in the centre of Birmingham, making Birmingham one of Europe's most strategically placed cities, the town hall, New street and Corporation street. It will come to the surface in Birmingham's second university area—Aston university—and will cost £100 million.
Mr. Peter Snape: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. I wonder if he has been as persuasive with the Department of Transport as he has with the House. As he has come to the financing of this worthwhile project, can he tell us whether there is any likelihood of that Department coughing up some section 56 grant so that we can get the line built and stop talking about it?
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman is trying, in the nicest possible way, to put the cart before the horse. It is no use trying to get any pronouncements on financing unless there is a Bill to be financed. That is the motion before us tonight.
As I said earlier, we are awaiting an imminent decision on financing for line 1.

73
Line 3 will do a very important job, joining Wolverhampton and Dudley town centres, passing through Wednesfield, Walsall, Darlaston and Wednesbury. It will cross line 1 at the Sandwell 2000 development in Tipton and will be 26 km long with 32 stops. There will be 11 vehicles with a 10-minute frequency and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will be interested to know that it will cost about £136 million.
Feasibility studies were made to enable a route to be chosen, and high scoring corridors have been chosen. District councils selected the routes on the basis of minimal effect upon residential property, of potential ridership, of cost and of environment effect. Future development proposals were considered together with the practicability of construction.
All construction matters have been taken into account by the local authority. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East ought to be aware, if he is not already aware, though he seems to be celebrating his awareness with laughter and happiness, that all seven district councils, on every side of the political spectrum, are totally behind the project. I am told that the one Liberal councillor from Birmingham who is on the passenger transport authority is also in favour of it.
Intensive market research is being carried out. In July 1990 a ratio of 4:1 west midlands residents were in favour of the project. That is a new figure. The previous ratio was 3:1. It appears that 47 per cent. favour the project. Vast numbers of leaflets have been circulated. Numerous meetings have been held in all the affected areas. A huge public consultation exercise took place with many authorities, including Birmingham, Solihull, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley. Public consultation has not been skimped.
The public are rightly concerned about noise, but these trams will be almost noise free. They are nothing like the old Brummie or Blackpool trams that were operational in the 1940s and 1950s. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that the tracks will be bedded in rubberised compound and ballasted, wherever feasible. Furthermore, noise insulation grants should be payable under schemes similar to that operated for highways, in appropriate circumstances.
We are determined to increase the quality of life by improving public transport. The lines will be among the finest ever introduced anywhere in the world. They will be far safer than cars and there will be far fewer pedestrian accidents. As the vehicles will be on rails, they can be controlled far more easily than cars or buses. The driver, who will have to be trained to a high level, will not have to steer the vehicle. The system has been approved by the railways inspectorate, according to extraordinarily strict criteria. It will bring a completely new look to public transport.
In 1989 a scheme was introduced to purchase properties that are directly affected by the proposals, if the owners wish to sell. However, no residential property is affected by demolition on line 2. Only slum clearance property is affected on line 3. There is conclusive evidence, nevertheless, that in areas where light electric rail has been introduced property values have increased much faster than normal when new public transport infrastructure is provided. Under the scheme, 12 properties were purchased on line 2. There are no current applications on line 2.
74
There have been many references to the environmental effects. The lines allow for the introduction of much more pedestrianisation, especially as they will be accompanied by traffic management measures. They take up much less space than highways. Noise levels are much less intrusive than those connected with buses or trucks. Moreover, they are pollution free and are accompanied by extensive landscaping. They will therefore contribute to the greening of the areas that they will serve. They will result in economic and landscape regeneration.
The colours of the tie that I am wearing happen to be the colours of Centro, the body that is promoting the Bill. I hope that it reflects the fact that a substantial amount of green is included among the attractive blue. I hope that it will harmonise with the blue and result in an excellent turquoise-type environment.
The consultation exercise began in March. There was widespread publicity in the local press—the Birmingham Evening Mail and the Birmingham Express and Star. Leaflets were distributed in civic centres. Fares generally will react to market forces and may be slightly higher than bus fares, although we hope that they will be as low as possible. I introduced the travel card scheme when I was chairman of the authority. I hope that it will include the metro. I hope, too, that concessionary passes will be 'valid on the lines.
The area has a good record on concessionary passes. When I was a member of an all-party transport committee in the 1950s, we introduced free bus travel for pensioners. I was also able to introduce free travel for pensioners on the railways except at peak times. I hope that that good record will be continued.
The scheme is intended not to replace but to complement bus services. The operator will probably run feeder services and there will be park-and-ride facilities.
We trust that the private sector will be involved in the funding. We understand that the EEC is to provide about 30 per cent. of the cost. The United Kingdom will provide a similar figure. The local authority will also be involved in the funding, through its passenger transport authority. The passenger transport authority is likely to receive substantial funds if it goes ahead with other proposals that are currently before it. It will amount to many millions of pounds.
At 1990 prices, the cost amounts to £81 million for line 1. At 1989 prices, the cost is £273 million for line 2, for 26 km, and £136 million for line 3, again for 26 km. The cost of vehicles amounts to £30 million. It is interesting to compare these costs with equivalent road costs. Line 3, costing £136 million, can be compared with the Heartlands spine road, costing £85 million. As I have said, the length of line 3 is 26 km, whereas the Heartlands spine road is only 4·1 km in length. The cost of line 3 per kilometre is therefore £5·36 million, compared with a road cost of £20·66 million. It is about a quarter of the road cost. The maximum number of passengers who can be carried both ways per hour by the light railway is 30,000, whereas the maximum capacity of the Heartlands spine road is 14,500, so the light electric railway is equivalent to two dual carriageways.
The council has offered its unanimous support. Local groups have given substantial support, including Aston Villa football club, the Automobile Association, urban wild life groups and the west midlands CBI.
Mr. David Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I support the Bill and voted accordingly on 5 March. However, I have some constituency reservations, which I have set out and will not repeat tonight because there will be other opportunities to do so, such as on Report. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency the Bill is supported not only by the local authority and the majority of the people in the borough but in Willenhall? I do not think that there is any doubt about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will probably agree with me. In addition to the reservations that I mentioned on 5 March, some anxiety has been expressed about the memorial park. It is argued that only a small part of it will be used, but as we so desperately need green space one is obviously reluctant to see any of it sacrificed. If I did not support the Bill I would make my position clear, as I always do on the Floor of the House, but it is important that the promoters reconsider that aspect. If the Bill is to receive the support of my constituents, as the hon. Gentleman would wish, those reservations should be reconsidered. I am not satisfied that there are not alternatives.
Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for the point that he makes, for the support that he gave on Second Reading and for his implied support today. The promoters are determined to preserve as much as possible of the landscape and beauty of the areas through which the line will pass. I cannot speak to this specific matter, but it is a detail that is causing concern. Although a small part of that park might be used, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the green benefits of the line.
It is interesting to note public reaction in Grenoble, where originally only about 53 per cent. of its people were in favour of a tram system—slightly higher than the percentage of people who have expressed themselves in favour of the system in the west midlands. Two years after the system had been in operation, almost 94 per cent. of its population were in favour of it. I am certain that there will be a similar reaction from our citizens.
The Opposed Private Bill Committee spent 12 working days considering 35 objections in detail. Five objections were from a residents' group, four of which were rejected under the locus standi provisions, which do not encourage applications by corporate bodies other than individuals who might have a land holding interest. There were 27 commercial interests and British Rail, the Black Country development corporation and the university of Aston.
Only two petitioners attended the Committee. Centro objected to the residents' petitions and was aided by recommendations from the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure. That did not prevent residents' views from being put, as they have been forcefully put in debates in the House and through newspapers and other media.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Do those objections include the 2,000-signature petition centred around Belinda close?
Mr. Bevan: I am not sure whether that petition was included in the objections, but most of the petitions must have been considered. However, I shall try to clarify that point and answer the hon. Gentleman later.
76
Two petitions were heard. The Committee asked Centro to devise a new route avoiding the site of Foseco, which was an industrial complex in Nechells. That route will be the subject of an additional submission, which has been laid before the Committee today. There was a petition from Chelmsley Wood residents, who were represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. The Committee was not convinced by the arguments for changing the route, but it sought undertakings regarding landscaping and the resilience of the track, to which I have already referred.
There has been liaison with residents on operating details such as car parking provision and the design of stops. The promoters are happy to comply with those details. Although I am taking a long time to deal with this, it is important that the House knows that it has been considered meticulously.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Although detail is important, the motion before us is very narrow; it is only a procedural carry-over motion. The hon. Gentleman has gone into much detail. I remind him and other hon. Members that we are debating a narrow procedural motion.
Mr. Bevan: I take careful note of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I should not wish to detain the House with matters that might not be relevant to the motion.
It is important that the motion is carried, because refusing to do so could cost the community charge payers of the area concerned at least £1 million and add at least two years of procedural administration. It is my heart-felt wish, having held a long-term interest in the Bill, that it be carried.
I was born in a taxi. That was not an elitist decision by my mother but an accident of transport. Had I been born in a bus or even a light electric tram, I should have been much more highly delighted. In transport terms, I have been trying to catch up ever since. I hope that the House will pass the motion to carry over consideration of the Bill to the next Session.
7.28 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: I shall not detain the House long. As you have rightly reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a carry-over motion. Although I have not decided whether to oppose the motion, I seek a guarantee on behalf of my constituents that certain matters will be considered.
I should declare that I visited Grenoble to inspect its system, by which I was impressed. The trams are quiet and the design of the stops and shelters good and unobtrusive. Since then, I have received a guarantee that shared carriageways will not be a hazard—for example, in Moorend avenue, which is used by 5,000 vehicles a day or in Helmswood drive, which is used by about 1,800.
The first guarantee that I seek—before I decide my position on the carry-on motion—
Mr. Snape: Carry on!
Mr. Mills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing me such credit, although he will be aware that I meant "carry-over motion".
I seek a further guarantee that shared carriageways will not constitute a hazard in areas where there is a large

77
number of vehicles. The system apparently works in at least two cities in France, and elsewhere, but I seek guarantees, too, that existing light standards will be used as the supports for the power supplies to the metro.
It is important that the decisions of the Opposed Private Bill Committee should be enshrined in the Bill. They should be a matter of law, and not merely a matter of choice by Centro. The statements to which I refer are to be found on page 2 of the Opposed Private Bill Committee's decisions. The first is that the promoters should deploy resilient track, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for his assurances—I hope that they are guarantees—on that matter. The Committee also sought the undertaking that there would be liaison with local parties. To overcome my criticism of the consultation process I would further ask that a meeting be arranged shortly between CARE, Centro, the Solihull council working party and the other bodies, to discuss, detail by detail, the position of stops, the posts to carry the power supply, car parking and all the other matters outlined.
The Opposed Private Bill Committee further asked that there should be no less car parking space and that the metro stops should be
"of a similarly attractive design to the artist's impressions."
If the stops are as good as those in Grenoble, I shall be impressed; they will beat the bus shelters in Chelmsley Wood hands down. I would add to that list the requirement that our vehicles should be built to the same high standard of engineering as those in Grenoble.
I have brought these matters to the attention of the House to ensure that they are properly registered before I make up my mind whether to support the carry-over motion.
7.32 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Madam Deputy Speaker, you politely admonished the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for talking generally. I shall seek to avoid such admonition: I shall speak partly in general terms, if I may, but I shall also be specific, to meet any potential criticism from the Chair.
Why should we support the motion? Everyone—whether a student, at whatever level, of the British constitution, a journalist or whatever—is aware that if legislation is not passed in one Parliament, it lapses. The work done on it passes into history and, in most cases, is regarded as wasted. Given the effort that has been put into this Bill so far, a decision not to allow Parliament to make further decisions and not to allow the promoters to proceed further would mean that there had been an appalling waste of time of the House and its Committees. It would also have been an appalling waste of time for those in Centro and the West Midlands passenger transport authority who have put in so much effort. It would mean that there had been a total waste of effort by those who have conducted surveys into public opinion and by the local authorities, which have consulted and redrawn routes and have expended a huge amount of intellectual and physical effort in providing the necessary information.
If we decide that the House should not proceed with the Bill next Session, an enormous amount of money will have been wasted: I understand that it has already cost Centro £1 million to promote the Bill.
If the carry-over motion is defeated, the metro project will suffer a severe setback. There have been setbacks
78
before. We are all aware that the idea of the midland metro was first generated in the early 1980s. The proposals were stillborn and there was a delay of four or five years before they were reactivated. The present Bill has received an enormous amount of support. Should it suffer such a setback, a great deal of effort will have gone down the drain. I acknowledge the right of any Member of Parliament to oppose something to which he or his constituents object, but I hope that the majority of those who are here to listen to our proceedings will support the motion, and thus allow the promoters to continue, as well as giving some hope to those outside the House who look forward to the enactment of the Bill.
Of course, there have been objections. Even hon. Members who, like me, are very much in favour of the Bill and hope that work will soon commence, have had representations made to them by constituents. Some—very few—have expressed their absolute opposition. Most of those who object are in favour of the concept. but, for a variety of perfectly understandable reasons, would prefer the route not to run so close to their homes. But the great virtue of the metro is its accessibility. People should not have to walk one and a half miles to a railway station—or get a bus or taxi if it is raining—to pick up a light transit system. The route must be constructed to achieve a number of conflicting goals. It must not go so near to people's houses that it is detrimental to their environment, but it must be sufficiently close to allow them a degree of mobility that they do not enjoy at present. We have all received objections, but, although those objections are not marginal or insignificant, they have not been sufficient—in my constituency and in adjacent constituencies—to convince me that the midland metro is anything other than highly desirable.
We do not want the metro in 10 years' time; we want it tomorrow. The British are not renowned for their impetuosity. The decision-making process can be, and usually is, protracted, and more often than not the end product is wrong. In planning matters we have an almost obsessive attitude to consultation. The French do not suffer from the same hangups and I want to draw a parallel between the construction of Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris and the construction of London's third airport at Stansted. Many years ago I wrote my MA thesis on environmental pressure groups and one chapter was about the case for a third London airport which began in the late 1950s. I have now seen on television an advert announcing that after some slight delay—since the late 1950s—that airport is now operational. That is wonderful, but Charles de Gaulle airport is almost an historic construction in comparison.
We are obsessed with consultation and we do not want to proceed. We criticise the Japanese for their desire to reach a degree of homogeneity and support, but in some ways we share their attitude. The parliamentary process has imposed time constraints on those who want to use the Bill to create a light rail network in the midlands. That is perfectly correct. The process affords ample opportunity for individuals and groups to object and express their views. Any system, even a dictatorship, might in theory permit people to express views. However, under a democratic process if those views are expressed by enough people, they are acted upon. In fairness to the Bill's promoter, there has been an obsessive interest in consultation. I know that the Opposed Private Bill Committee rapped the promoter over the knuckles with

79
regard to inadequate consultation for one commercial enterprise, but it would be unfair to castigate the Bill's promoter for lack of consultation.
When people had reservations in my area, Councillor Warrell jumped on his bike within minutes and went to listen to the objections. He pored over maps with potential critics and he made constructive proposals which met many of the criticisms. Each local authority in the region embarked on a leafleting programme and a series of public consultations. No one can criticise the consultative process.
However, at the end of the day, we must accept the old utilitarian theory of political action expounded by John Stuart Mill and work on the principle of the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Some fundamental criticisms may remain unresolved and some people may not be placated because the promoter cannot provide adequate rerouting or environmental activities which would minimise the effects of the proposal. However, I understand that Centro has purchased 12 houses in advance of any legal requirement. The Committee has not yet published a report because it has yet to receive all objections. However, of 55 km of track there is dispute over only 150 m.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is not that precisely because the Committee was not allowed to hear objections from the residents?
Mr. George: If Centro had decided not to listen to certain objections, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) would have ample excuse for his criticism. However, it was a parliamentary body that decided that the groups in my hon. Friend's constituency did not fall within the rules which made it a responsibility of the Committee to hear those complaints.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill had taken the time to reread the speech that I made on 5 March in the same way that I have reread his, he would recall that I concluded by hoping that if the sponsors were successful, they would be magnanimous in victory. Even though my hon. Friend's constituents' objections were not heard by the appropriate Committee, I understand that they have had a continuing opportunity to express their views. If all the procedures are completed in this House this Session and next Session, I hope that every opportunity will be taken to meet those objections.
I have been informed that, had TRAM's objections in part of my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) been met, half the people would have received access to the route and the costs would have doubled. I hope that the Opposed Private Bill Committee will make recommendations that will meet the objections. Even though the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill were not able to make a formal presentation of their views, I hope that the sponsors will make a legitimate response and that some, if not all, of the objections can be met.
Mr. Terry Davis: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Official Report will show that he has not answered the point that I put to him. My constituents and other residents—although I am concerned only with my constituents—could not explain their case to the Committee. For my hon. Friend's information, that
80
decision was taken by the Court of Referees, not by the Opposed Private Bill Committee. The Court of Referees heard a technical and legal objection from Centro. I have read the previous speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) as he has read mine. When he reads the speech that he had made tonight and he looks again at my intervention, he will see that he has avoided my point and not very successfully. Obviously he has been told that there was some kind of consultation with my constituents subsequent to Second Reading. Perhaps he can outline that now.
Mr. George: I do not speak from direct experience about this, but I understand that there were exhibitions and a public meeting. My hon. Friend actually had meetings with Centro and many people wrote letters or telephoned. Centro has been willing to listen to the objections.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill will reread my speech again. I felt a certain lack of affinity with those who argued that, on technical grounds, objectors should not be permitted to present their case. However, it was up to the relevant parliamentary authority to decide on that. I do not, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill does not, decide on the rules. The rules were enforced and that might have caused my hon. Friend some anxiety. The decision was taken by the Court of Referees and we must accept that. However, I believe that objections should be heard. If the motion is successful, there will still be opportunities for the objectors to try to influence the eventual outcome.
The local authority in Walsall wants to negotiate with Centro about a number of criteria over the next few months. There is still an opportunity for those who object through the local authority to press Centro to make the requisite alterations and try to minimise what may be perceived as negative impacts on what is overall a small number of objectors.
Mr. Terry Davis: My hon. Friend must not try to evade the point—I am sure that he is doing it unwittingly. He referred to his speech on Second Reading. He is quite correct; he appealed for magnanimity—that was the word that he used—by Centro. What consultations took place after that speech, after his suggestion that there should be magnanimity, and after his plea that there be consultations with my constitutents? I ask him again, because everything that he mentioned took place before that speech: what was Centro's response to my hon. Friend's plea for magnanimity?
Mr. George: I do not speak with any authority on behalf of the sponsors, so I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will be able to respond to that question. I certainly reiterate what I said on 5 March. When legitimate objections can be met without sacrificing the overall objectives of the Bill, I very much hope that, even at this late but no means completed stage of the process, those objections will be met as far as humanly possible. I hope that, without jeopardising the process, my hon. Friend's constituents will be satisfied.
Mr. Winnick: I entirely endorsed the remarks that my hon. Friend made on 5 March. He may be aware that I also argued that there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility by Centro in this matter. It would be unfortunate if it came to the view that, because there is a

81
large parliamentary majority—like my hon. Friend, I am pleased that there is—in favour of what is proposed, there is no need for flexibility. It may be argued that some of the points that have been made by residents are unrealistic. I am not convinced, however, that some of the criticisms should be dismissed out of hand—they need to be looked at again from a narrow, constituency point of view. Some residents have a point. My hon. Friend may have heard my intervention about the memorial park in Willenhall with which he is familiar.
Mr. George: I am almost taking on the role of officially responding, and I am not authorised to do that. In Walsall there were 36,000 leaflets in three different versions. Eleven consultation meetings were organised, and were attended by Centro and council officers. There appeared to be a great opportunity for people to express their opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and I have made statements in the local press and written letters. I understand indirectly that TRAM was revealed at one stage to have 11 paid-up members. That was one reason why the appropriate parliamentary Committee did not allow it an opportunity to express its views directly to the Committee.
I also understand via second-hand sources that there has been no communication between TRAM and Centro over the past few months. It is perfectly acceptable that, at some stage, TRAM may wish further to express its views. Again, I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill. Objections must be met as far as possible, without prejudicing the overall concept. If, to placate a certain number of people, a new route is chosen at high cost, which would then make access to a larger group more difficult, one may regard the process of capitulating to pressure to be unfair and a folly.
I shall refer later to potential criticisms of proposals that Walsall council is making. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that there are still opportunities for objections to be made and to be met in Walsall.
Mr. Mills: Do I gather that the hon. Gentleman approves of the locus standi rule? Four out of five organisations in my constituency could not give any evidence at all and could put their case to Centro only at public meetings. The distribution of leaflets is fine provided that they reach the people concerned. Is not the hon. Gentleman in favour of something a bit more democratic than the locus standi rule?
Mr. George: Having been an hon. Member for 15 years, I am certainly aware that what is procedurally correct and what is democratic in the House are not always one and the same. I would certainly have wished for as wide a group of objectors as possible to be heard—indeed, not simply for them to be heard but, where possible, for views to be reconciled. The decision was neither mine nor Centro's, and it was taken according to parliamentary procedure and rule. Regrettably, opportunities were not afforded. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill have been strenuous in representing the views of those in their constituencies who are affected. Therefore, even though the objectors were not able directly to express their views before the Committee, Centro has been made more than aware of collective objections. In some cases, objections have been met.
Having listened to what I have been told about remarks in Committee, I gained the impression that not all the hon.
82
Gentleman's constituents' objections were considered to be valid. I was not at the Committee hearing, sot do not wish to elaborate on that matter. At the risk of incurring your rightful wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, I add my voice to those who say that, in the interests of efficiency and of justice, objections must still be met. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), one would have the impression that there is at least vociferous minority criticism about the route that has been taken. In fairness, I have not heard any criticism of the overall concept.
I understand that Centro uses a market research firm to conduct public opinion research into the attitudes in the west midlands as a whole. In listening to the views of a certain area, one must not forget the requirements of the region as a whole. One thousand people were consulted. We must bear in mind that public opinion pollsters reach a national opinion on political parties on the basis of smaller samples than that. Out of that sample of 1,000 people, support for the concept of the metro was 4:1, and in Walsall support was 8:1. That point must be borne in mind and set against those who may have objections for a specific area. Therefore, one should conclude that the metro is desired and required.
I shall now briefly recapitulate what was said about why the motion should be passed. It is to keep alive the supporters' idea that a system of transport will be provided for our region and will be commensurate to the needs of that region in the decades ahead. I spoke earlier of a national trait of the British. We are not usually forthcoming or impetuous in our decision making. Another national failing is our almost total inability to see beyond the end of our noses or to make decisions a year, month or week in advance. It is difficult for us to comprehend or to act upon decisions.
I am reluctant to use the word "visionary" when describing Centro because what it is doing in the west midlands has been done elsewhere by others who are quicker off the mark or who are working in conditions that are more conducive to swift decision making. Other authorities in other parts of the country are further ahead in the game or have reached a point that is parallel to that reached by Centro in the west midlands. I can hardly use the word "visionary" when describing something that is now almost commonplace. However, it is visionary in a regional context.
Centro is perfectly competent to do what it has to do because it is the authority which is responsible for bus transport. It has recognised that our region is progressively clogging up and, like us all, has recognised that the country has an inadequate transport policy. I am not fixing blame because I am seeking to be as non-partisan as possible. However, the failure to make decisions has resulted in what can be described either as a crisis now in our transport or as a state of affairs that will increasingly reach crisis proportions, and which will have enormous economic, political and social consequences.
Using the estimated figures for car ownership at the turn of the century, Centro has concluded that unless something substantial is done swiftly, our region will grind to a halt because the number of motor vehicles on our roads greatly exceeds the space available to them. That state of affairs will not inconvenience the casual motorist alone.
I attended a branch presentation by the Confederation of British Industry last week in Wolverhampton. A

83
well-documented report has highlighted the infrastructure weaknesses in the black country. Unless we have a proper road and rail network, we shall fail to capitalise on the opportunities that are potentially available to us. A rapid transit system such as is envisaged will not be only a marginal improvement for the transport and industrial development of the west midlands and the black country, it will be an imperative.
Last week's survey by the CBI concluded that a major problem was the lack of trained and qualified personnel in the area. That is not only the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment; it is partly a function of the transport infrastructure. An adequate transport system would mean that people who possess a motor vehicle would not only have the ability to move from the periphery into Birmingham but, thankfully as a result of line 3, for the first time such people would be able to move laterally from Wolverhampton to Walsall, Darlaston and to the western part of the black country and the west midlands.
The economic need for the route is of enormous consequence. It is imperative that we give the endorsement that the majority of people want and allow this Bill to carry over into the next Session.
We have become a nation much concerned with environmental problems. I have read the Government's response to the impending environmental crisis, but I shall not comment on it now. As someone once said, the desire to create a Jerusalem of economic growth in England's green and pleasant land has so far resulted in a conspicuous lack of both greenness and pleasantness. That is nowhere more apparent than in the general area that I represent.
I find it amusing that the word "black" is pejorative in the phrase "the black country" because, as the CBI pointed out, "black" is far from pejorative in the phrase "black forest gateaux". I hope that people who live in the black country will have a more positive perception of themselves in the future than they have now. Their self-perception is less than positive now. Although the CBI survey proved more positive, ironically that perception was less positive than external perceptions of the black country.
One way of trying to resolve that is to improve the environment. A major source of environmental pollution in the black country and the west midlands is the pollution that is caused by the motor vehicle, which is ironic because that is what we manufacture and process.
I do not wish to suggest that the metro will cause many people to scrap or abandon their cars entirely, or that it will provide the panacea for resolving the environmental crisis in the west midlands and the black country. However, if the aspirations of the promoters are realised and it is possible to entice people into using a form of public transport that is relatively swift, relatively cheap, convenient and environmentally sound, the line will go at least some way towards minimising the growing degradation of the environment as a result of the pollution that is generated by the motor vehicle.
That is why it is so important to support the carry-over motion. The metro is not only desirable, it is essential, because it will play a major role in regenerating a region
84
that is represented by many of the hon. Members now present in the Chamber. We have seen the west midlands slip from its position of industrial pre-eminence in the 1960s. I am not seeking to minimise or to be critical of the efforts made by the local authorities and the industrialists who are not seeking to reverse that decline. However, I believe that that process of economic regeneration will be greatly enhanced by improving the infrastructure. It is essential that the Government should cough up some money, but providing money for Centro will not relieve the Government from the obligation of improving other aspects of public transport in the region by improving our roads and providing a better rail network. However, I am not saying that, by itself, the metro will resolve all the critical problems or weaknesses of the region's transport system.
We must support the motion because the metro will help to relieve traffic congestion. It will be of enormous environmental advantage. It will considerably improve our infrastructure which, as we are all aware, is inadequate. I served on the Standing Committee considering the London Regional Transport Bill in 1984 when there was considerable agitation among Opposition Members who felt that by allegedly freeing public transport we would be permitting private operators to provide a service without the controls which, until then, had been effected by the traffic commissioners under the terms of the previous legislation. One area of anxiety was that private contractors would buy old buses which would be inaccessible to the disabled. We can all remember those old buses, some of which still run. It was virtually impossible to put a wheelchair on them. One of the great advantages of the metro is that the proposed vehicles have low access suitable for wheelchairs. Mobility should be provided for work purposes and recreation. The disabled should be given a mobility which hitherto they have lacked.
Mr. Mills: In view of the shortness of the hon. Gentleman's speech, has he considered going to Grenoble to see just how good the system is for the disabled? It is an excellent system for the disabled and perhaps he should go there.
Mr. George: The Whips are critical enough of my occasional visits abroad. I have no immediate intention of going to the Chief Whip and suggesting a trip to Grenoble. I was in Alsace-Lorraine a few weeks ago and that is the limit of my desire to travel to France. I have seen the video of the system in Grenoble and I have read virtually everything that has been written about it. Although people eulogise that system, it is hoped that the vehicles designed by whoever wins the contract to provide them will be almost a generation in advance of the vehicles currently operating in Grenoble.
There is a great demand for vehicles for the metro but it is less than one would have imagined. Other authorities will place orders in the future. According to contracting and purchasing policy, companies outside the United Kingdom will surely be given the opportunity to bid. So any British bids will have to be competitive. The vehicles will have to meet Centro's requirements that the vehicles be light, cheap and roomy. I hope that sufficient British companies, or at least one substantial British company,

85
can meet the high requirements of Centro and other authorities who seek bids in the years ahead. I very much hope that a British company will win the contract.
I mentioned earlier that my local authority in Walsall intends to make several proposals to Centro. The authority has been very supportive from the outset. It has been put to me that its proposals could be designated a shopping list of safeguards. They have been put forward and will be discussed in the months ahead. I shall not abuse Madam Deputy Speaker's already great tolerance by reading out the proposals. I simply wish to say—this will take only one minute—that the authority's proposals relate to open spaces, highways, safety, and the community impact. They also draw Centro's attention to several operational aspects including maintenance, drainage, pollution and alignment. If I sought to speak longer, my colleagues would believe that I was engaged in some form of obstructionism. I wish to make one point forcibly. The local authority supports the concept of the metro. Several matters relating to the route, the structure and the environmental impact remain to be resolved, but I am absolutely confident that such is the good will between Centro and the local authority that the authority's proposals will be met.
Although Walsall council perceives itself as being under an obligation to support the metro, it also has an obligation to meet other criteria where possible. Environmental impact is important, and I shall watch developments closely. If the motion is passed, as I hope that it will be, and if the legislation is reactivated next Session, hon. Members must continue to follow the negotiations and the progress to ensure that conflicting interests are properly reconciled.
I hope that you are under no illusions, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly support what is at hand. I hope that the House will say to the sponsors of the Bill, "Please carry on. We shall not scupper your proposals by refusing to endorse the measures this evening. However, in endorsing the measures we do not give you carte blanche to do exactly as you wish." In my experience of Centro, those remarks would be superfluous. It recognises the need not only to consult but to meet objections, not simply because it is a great democrat but because it recognises that it is more efficient to meet objections than to have to—I was about to say "railroad"——
Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend said that he would take only a minute.
Mr. George: My hon. Friend's timescale is more accurate than mine.
In conclusion, I hope that we shall endorse the proposals and that we can return on a future occasion to ensure that our wishes have been complied with.
8.16 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I intervene briefly in the debate because, as you rightly reminded us earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion is strictly procedural. I rise simply to advise the House of the Government's view. It is the tradition that the Government take a neutral stance on private Bills. This Bill is no exception to that rule. That was made clear by the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), the then Minister for Public Transport, gave on Second Reading in March. By
86
convention, he recommended that the House give the Bill a Second Reading so that the Bill could be considered in detail by the Opposed Private Bill Committee. It is consistent with that approach that the Government support the carry-over motion.
In principle the Bill is acceptable to the Department. Light rail schemes of the type promoted by the Bill remain a novelty in this country. The docklands light railway is a fully segregated system. It has shown the success which light rail can achieve in the right places. But the Manchester metro link is now being built with some £50 million of Government grant and revenue support. It will be the first modern street-running system of the type envisaged by the Bill.
I know that many towns and cities would like to emulate the Manchester example. We recognise that in the appropriate circumstances light rail can have an important role to play in reducing traffic congestion and helping to promote urban regeneration. We shall consider financial support for worthwhile proposals which are put to us. However, naturally we must always see whether there are cheaper ways of obtaining the same result with the resources available. It is too early to say whether the scheme proposed in the Bill would be eligible for grant. The Bill is presently being considered by the Opposed Private Bill Committee. It is right to allow the proceedings to continue and reach a conclusion on both the Bill and he detailed provisions therein.
If the motion is carried, the House and another place will have further opportunities to consider the arguments for and against. We have heard some of the arguments for it already this evening and I know that we shall hear more speeches later. It would be unfortunate not to agree to the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means and therefore I urge the House to allow the Bill to be carried over by accepting the motion.
8.19 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: As the Minister has said, such matters are not normally dealt with by Front-Bench speakers but are left for the House to decide. We are discussing a procedural motion and not the principle of the Bill, although I had some difficulty in realising that that was the case. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) who took us on a rattling ride through the suburbs of the west midlands. I felt queasy at one stage and thought that I had gone past my stop on at least two occasions. I was on the point of altering the hon. Gentleman's destination blind so that it read "depot only" so that he could be returned to the tram depot at a reasonable hour. He realised that, for those hon. Members for whom this new method of transport is welcome, a break was necessary.
The hon. Member for Yardley and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke about finance. We listened carefully as the Minister read from his brief, but, regrettably, he had little to say on that matter. He reminded us that the midland metro is being considered for section 56 grant. His speech, which was presumably drafted by his civil servants, contained the caveat that we must evaluate carefully the different modes of transport. I am not sure how much evaluation the Government need, but I strongly suspect that they desperately need to keep evaluating until the general election because I fear that it

87
is hardly likely that section 56 money will be found to fund this or the other two worthy metro projects in the west midlands.
For most Opposition Members representing west midlands constituencies, the sooner the project gets under way and is completed, the better. That applies to all our constituencies in Birmingham and throughout the black country and indeed in Wolverhampton. In a recent television programme there were claims that Wolverhampton was now in the black country while those in that great city said it was not.
Everyone in the west midlands suffers from the same problem of chronic traffic congestion and this modern variation on an old mode of transport is long overdue. The hon. Member for Yardley promoted previous Bills and is is charge of this one. I hope that he will be successful in persuading not just the Minister, but his two immediate bosses that all hon. Members, regardless of party, and all the district councils in the west midlands are as much in favour of the present motion as they were of the two previous motions. A little less talk from the Department and a little more cash would be greatly appreciated.
8.22 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I oppose the motion in view of the Bill's effects on my constituents who live in the Bromford and Firs estates and because of the way in which they have been treated by the West Midlands passenger transport authority which now calls itself Centro. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) argued that if the House refused to carry over the Bill to the next Session, it would be an appalling waste of time and effort for Centro and the Bill's supporters. However, I will argue that if the Bill is carried over, it will be regarded by my constituents as an appalling act of contempt towards them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South is right about the expense that has been incurred to date, but justice is expensive. It is the job of the House to ensure that justice is done, and an injustice has been done to my constituents.
My hon. Friend was certainly mistaken when he spoke at length about the concept of rapid transit, light rail, the metro, or whatever it is called. He spent much of his speech explaining the advantages of that form of transport compared with other forms. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) also followed that line.
The Bill is not about the concept of metro or rapid transit. It is about two specific routes, one of which I oppose. I make no comment on the route affecting Walsall and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. However, I am entitled to talk about its effect on my constituency and on my constituents and to oppose the Bill in the interests of my constituents who have a justifiable grievance about the way in which they have been treated by Centro.
I emphasise that the Bill is not about the concept of the metro. I did not oppose the previous Bill which became an Act. It was to build the metro from Birmingham to Wolverhampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) asked me to waive any objections that I had to that Bill. I told him that I had no objection to it. He asked me to refrain from
88
opposing the Bill, and I did. I told him that I did not object to the concept. My only concern was about the way in which it might affect my constituents.
The hon. Member for Yardley spoke about all-party suppport for the Bill. There is all-party opposition in my constituency to the route. It is opposed by all political parties there. The hon. Member for Yardley shakes his head. Why does he disagree that there is all-party opposition in my constituency? I challenge him to tell the House why he disagrees with that statement.
Mr. Bevan: I do not agree that there is all-party dissent about the route. That is not what I understand from the Conservative who will oppose the hon. Gentleman at the next general election. I would have liked to accept the invitation issued by the residents to see the route, which I have already seen. The letter was dated 15 September, the postmark was 19 October, and the letter did not reach me until yesterday. I do not know why the residents should deliberately ensure that a letter dated 15 September should be posted at such a late date. It is hardly the kind of invitation that is desirous of gaining all-party support.
Mr. Davis: I do not represent the residents association and I am not responsible for when it posts its letters. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says but remind him that it is not the first time that he has been invited by my constituents to visit the estate and meet the residents. He is sponsoring the Bill. Many months ago, the residents on the estate invited him to go there. The letter that he mentions is the latest that he has received, but there have been others inviting him to meet residents. The residents have written to many hon. Members, and I am glad to say that some have met them, have understood their concern and have expressed sympathy for their case.
I am interested to know that the prospective Conservative candidate in my constituency at the next general election supports this route. The last Liberal candidate in my constituency opposed the route. That is significant because that Liberal, like many others, has now become a Conservative. He was a Conservative candidate at the local elections in my constituency in May and had the temerity to attack local Labour councillors and me for not opposing the route vigorously enough. Apparently the Conservative party talks in different voices in different places. The Conservative candidate for a council seat in an area in which the route will run attacked the metro route and at an open air meeting tried to pretend that I had not opposed it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that that was a grotesque distortion of the truth, and I am glad to say that so did my constituents. The residents on that estate put out their own leaflet, which was nothing to do with me or the local Labour councillor, who had opposed the route from the beginning. That leaflet distributed by the residents poured scorn on the Conservatives for introducing party politics into the campaign against the metro route and condemned the attempts of the Conservative candidates to extract political advantage, something that neither I nor Labour councillors had tried to do.
There are nine councillors in my constituency. Eight of them are Labour, two of whom represent the ward affected by the route. The sole Conservative also represents that ward and at a public meeting he said that he agreed with what I was saying. Clearly there is all-party opposition, but it is also clear that the support for this route comes

89
from Conservative Members of Parliament and the aspiring Conservative Member of Parliament in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South made a much more thoughtful and considered speech. As I have explained, there is all-party opposition to the route in my constituency. My hon. Friend said that he thought that the opposition might come from a vociferous minority. He was talking generally, not specifically. The only statistics I have seen are those produced by the Birmingham city council and Centro from the survey that they did. The route was opposed by 90 pet cent. of the people who responded in that part of my constituency. Therefore, it is not fair to say that opposition comes simply from a vociferous minority. An overwhelming majority of the people who live in the Bromford estate are vigorously opposed to the route.
On Second Reading I explained the reasons for the opposition. I explained in some detail the fears and concerns of my constituents, so it is not necessary for me to go into so much detail this evening. However, nothing has changed. Centro has done nothing since the Second Reading debate in March to deal with my constituents' objections on the ground of the loss of amenity, bearing in mind that the route would run through the only open space in the estate, across a grassed area—the only one that my constituents have—a green ribbon between the houses and the motorway. The metro route would desecrate it. Other amenities affected are football pitches and playgrounds.
Secondly, people are concerned about the visual impact that the metro will have. It will run within 40 yards of some of the houses. Between these houses, which have big picture windows, and the metro will be a narrow estate road and their short front gardens. The people in them will look at the wires and see the vehicles going past every two and a half minutes. We are told that they have no grounds for objections. They have no locus standi to complain. They cannot present their case to Members of Parliament because they have been ruled out by the Court of Referees, on the initiative of Centro. We are told that it does not matter.
Mr. Bevan: It must have been made clear that these people would have had the right to object as individuals living in the area where the project is to be carried out. They could have individually appealed and attended the Committee. The locus standi ruling would not have pertained.
Mr. Davis: We have different views about that. People who live even closer to the route than those in the houses that I have just described, in a block of flats called Douglas house—those living closest to the route—signed individual letters explaining that they wanted to be represented by the local residents' association. That is not unreasonable. However, the association was not allowed to be heard. Therefore, the residents lost their right to have their views heard.
Residents are also concerned about the effect of noise. As is well known in Birmingham, noise is a major problem. These residents suffer from motorway, railway and air traffic noise. Even the chairman of the passenger transport authority has said that this is a horrendous situation. Naturally, the residents are concerned about anything that will add to that volume of noise. The environmental
90
services department of the city council, at my request and that of the local councillors, did a survey and said that, in its opinion, even on the inadequate criteria that we have now, 118 homes will be entitled to noise insulation if this route is used. Naturally, my constituents are extremely anxious.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South said that we need to balance the need to preserve accessibility against the need not to cause detriment to people's homes. He is right about that, but the case put unanimously by me, my constituents, local councillors of all parties and the local Member of the European Parliament is that that is not what has happened. We have all supported an alternative route which would run to the north of the M6 and would not affect my constituents or the constituents of any other Member of Parliament. It is not the case, as Mr. Michael Parker, the spokesman for Centro, has said, that my constituents are saying, "Not in my back yard" and want to move the route so that it affects somebody else's home. That is a slur on their moderate and reasonable attitude and a distortion of their point of view. They have consistently said that they do not want to save themselves at the expense of someone else. They have argued only that there is an alternative route that would not affect anybody else's home, and that route should be used.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that the metro would be environmentally beneficial and ecologically friendly and that the promoters want to preserve the landscape. Those words will be read with incredulity by my constituents because that is what will not happen for them if this route is used. It will not be beneficial to their environment, nor ecologically friendly, and it will certainly not preserve the landscape if it runs across the only open bit of land, the only grassed area that they have for recreation and their only facilities for play and recreation.
The hon. Member for Yardley keeps talking about Grenoble, but that is not relevant to the scheme promoted by the West Midlands passenger transport authority. Grenoble is a different city—it is not Birmingham.
Mr. Bevan: Has the hon. Member visited Grenoble and inspected the scheme there? He told me that he would do so but that he would prefer to do it on his own, although there was an opportunity for him to go with a group.
Mr. Davis: Yes, I went privately. I paid my expenses. Who paid the hon. Gentleman's fare?
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman may have gone, but he did not wish to say that he had. My fare was paid for by Centro, but that has no bearing on the case. The hon. Gentleman claims that the Grenoble system has no similarities with the Birmingham or black country schemes, but that is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman must agree that the Grenoble scheme is an example of our schemes. The midlands scheme is based upon the Grenoble example, and it will be like it. If the hon. Gentleman is honest, I am certain that he will say that he was mightily impressed with the Grenoble system as a means of light electric transport.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's final remark was out of order and out of place in this debate. I must also remind him that I am not responsible to the hon. Gentleman, the Government or the Conservative party. I make up my own mind. I went to Grenoble without fuss and I paid my own fare, unlike the hon. Gentleman. I went to Grenoble and

91
looked at the system for myself. I was not shown what others wanted to show me. I travelled the entire length of the tramway—that is what they call the system in Grenoble. I travelled along it twice and I walked a good part of it as well. I got off the tram at the stops, and I listened to the noise. I carried out a thorough examination. I do not need the hon. Gentleman to tell me how to do my job.
As I have said, I was not shown the system by others. I did not see only what others wanted to show me. I went to Grenoble with my wife, we talked to local people on and off the tramway. I think that I saw rather more than that which was shown to the hon. Gentleman. As I have explained, I went under my own auspices. I do not need Centro to pay my fare to enable me to do my job. I paid for myself.
I shall tell the House about Grenoble. Before I do that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are discussing a procedural motion and not the merits of a transport system in a foreign city. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the motion before the House.
Mr. Davis: I seek your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not introduce the merits of the Grenoble system. The hon. Member for Yardley said that it is a model for the route which would affect my constituency. I am seeking to explain why that is a misleading statement. I think that I should be allowed to explain why what the hon. Gentleman said in an intervention is grossly misleading.
As I have said, the system that is operating in Grenoble is called a tramway. We have been told that it is very quiet, but, in my opinion, the trams are as noisy as buses. In addition, there is the use of a bell in some places. It clangs like the noise that accompanied the song with the line "Clang, clang, clang went the trolley". There is a clang every time a tram sets off from a stop. If people have a tram stop near their home, they have the noise of a bus and the clang of a bell.
The Grenoble system is much shorter than the operation that is proposed for the west midlands. It is much shorter than the proposed route that is set out in this Bill.
It is also a route that would be different in character from that which is operating in Grenoble.
The hon. Member for Yardley may not like to hear these comments, but he introduced the Grenoble system into the debate.
I shall describe why the two routes are different in character. At Fontaine La Poya, the Grenoble system terminates in a sort of square near the town hall. It is not a residential area. I am not surprised because the left-wing council would not allow that to happen. The route does not enter an area in which people live. The public travel to the tramway by bus.
The west midlands system will pass through estates. In effect, there will be a big loop. The route will pass through the Bromford estate, the Firs estate and Chelmsley Wood and back along the Coventry road. It will pass through areas where people live, unlike the Grenoble system.
92
As I have said, the people of Grenoble travel to the Fontaine La Poya terminus by bus.
It is true that people do live in the centre of Grenoble, but they occupy flats which are above shops. The design of the system must be an environmental improvement for those living in the centre of Grenoble. It has replaced ordinary street traffic.
The tramway does pass through a residential area on its way to Alpexpo. Near the Arlequin stop, all the other traffic has been re-routed. Instead of having all the noise that is generated by cars, vans and lorries, there is only the noise that is produced by the tramway. The trams pass every few minutes, but the noise is much less than it was. Also, there is no residential property at ground floor level. That level is dedicated to garages and other services. No one has to look at the tramway from a ground floor flat. Above all, the street noise is much less than it was.
That is very different from the proposal that the west midlands scheme should pass through the Bromford estate. This system will not replace buses and other traffic. Instead, it will run through a grassed area in front of windows in living rooms. Residents on the Bromford estate look out at open land across which the metro system will run. No existing traffic will be replaced. That is very different from the situation in Grenoble. The hon. Member for Yardley may not have understood it, but that is the fact.
There is another difference. The mayor of Grenoble decided that one route should be introduced and not an entire network or system. I admire the way in which he approached the introduction of the tramway. There is only one route, which runs from Fontaine La Poya to Alpexpo. One route having been built, the mayor is extending the system so that it runs through the centre to the university. That is a sensible way to proceed. It is very different from the way in which the West Midlands passenger transport authority wants to proceed. The authority seeks to impose routes on people. I advised the authority years ago that the most effective way to gain public support for its ideas would be to construct one route so that residents could see it and hear it for themselves. Of course, the authority rejected that advice.
On Second Reading, I described the failure of Centro to consult my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has said that we in Britain are obsessed with consultation. That statement will be greeted with ridicule by my constituents. Indeed, the Select Committee criticised the lack of consultation. It was not allowed to criticise the lack of consultation with my constituents, however, because it was not allowed to hear them, but there was no prior consultation.
A letter has recently come to light which was written by Robert J. Tarr, who was at the time the secretary of the West Midlands passenger transport authority. Four years ago he sent the letter to a councillor in my constituency. That was at the time of the abandonment of the previous scheme. He told the councillor that a decision had been made to abandon the scheme, and then he wrote:
"The Authority has further resolved that any future scheme for Rapid Transit will be subject to full consultation."
As I said during our previous debate, that did not happen. I should add, however, that Centro has sought frequently to avoid the blame for lack of consultation. It shelters behind the skirts of Birmingham city council. When I asked the city council why it did not consult my constituents, it said that that was Centro's job and not its,

93
the council's, responsibility. Centro and the city council keep on passing the buck from one to the other. The fact is that neither of them sought to consult my constituents before the proposals were published.
A senior local government officer in the city council has told some of my hon. Friends who represent Birmingham constituencies—this was in my hearing—that in future the council will ensure that they are consulted on metro routes. After making that statement he turned to me and said, "You see, Mr. Davis, the council learns from experience." I am glad of that. The council will ensure that there is consultation in future, and it has decided that it cannot rely on Centro. It seems, however, that the lesson has been learnt at the expense of my constituents, who were not consulted.
In March, shortly before Second Reading, the hon. Member for Yardley arranged a meeting between himself, myself and Mr. Tarr, who is now the director general of the passenger transport authority. As a result of that, a meeting took place with representatives of local residents in the Bromford and Firs estates. I described the results of that meeting on Second Reading. The meeting discussed the wishes of my constituents, their objections to the present route, and their suggestion for an alternative route north of the M6 which would not affect anyone. That route is supported by me, by councillors of all parties, by the local Member of the European Parliament and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), through whose constituency the route would run.
The response to the alternative route was totally inadequate. Centro gave three reasons for rejecting it. First, it said that it was not physically possible because a spine road was planned for the northern side of the motorway, and it was impossible to find room for both a spine road and the metro. We knocked that argument on the head because both the chairman of Birmingham Heartlands and the city engineer's department said that it was possible. Secondly, Centro said that it would be too expensive as it would cost an additional £16·5 million, of which £12 million would be for a tunnel. Thirdly, Centro said that it would affect ridership figures because fewer people would use it if it was north of the motorway. That contradicts what the hon. Member for Yardley said earlier when he described how the route would link the airport, Birmingham international railway station and the national exhibition centre at one end to, at the other end, the international convention centre, Five Ways and the city centre. My constituents do not object to that link, but it should be routed along the other side of the motorway where it would not affect their homes.
Centro now says that the route is not about linking the national exhibition centre, the international convention centre, the airport and the railway station; it is about serving the people on the Bromford estate. It wants the metro to run in front of the windows of residents so that it can serve the residents. Centro claims that if the route were changed fewer people would use the metro. It says that if the line runs to the south of the motorway, it would carry between 1,900 and 2,200 passengers a day, but that if it ran to the north of the motorway, it would carry only 500 to 800 passengers a day.
We have held two more meetings with Centro since Second Reading, which is why I earlier asked hon. Members what they knew about the consultation that was supposed to take place.
94
Our actual discussions with Centro told a very different story from that told by the hon. Member for Yardley. He said that the metro is not intended to replace buses. He is wrong because Centro estimates that 75 per cent. of the ridership on the metro will be transferred from buses. It calculated the ridership by using a computer to work out how many passenger journeys on existing passenger transport would change to the metro if it were built where it wants it to be built. It estimated the number of people living within the radius of the route who would transfer from buses to the metro, and then added a third for new passengers and people transferring from cars. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Walsall. South has been told—it may have been only in the context of his route, but I doubt that—Centro told my constituents that the metro is intended to take passengers from buses, not from cars. The proportion is 75 per cent. from buses and only 10 per cent. from cars. It is well known that congestion is caused by cars, not buses. It is not true to say that the metro is not intended to replace buses. I asked Centro what the effect would be on bus routes, but it said that, because it used a general rule of thumb, it could not estimate the effect on individual bus routes, but it estimated that 75 per cent. of the estimated 1,900 to 2,200 passengers a day would have transferred from buses.
Again contrary to what has been said in the debate, those calculations were based on the fares on the metro being the same as the fares on buses. In fact, we have now been told that the fares on the metro will be slightly higher than those on buses, so all the calculations are brought into question. The estimates of ridership, with which Centro sought to impress and confuse us, are bogus.
Mr. Michael Parker, the head of communications for Centro, eventually told us in May that, at our request, Centro had again studied the costs and, instead of costing £16·5 million to put the metro on the other side of the motorway, it would cost only £12·5 million—a reduction of one quarter—mainly because the cost of a tunnel had been reduced from £12 million to £6 million. Its previous estimates were way out. That £12·5 million is not an additional cost, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Yardley in our previous debate. The estimated cost for the route that would affect my constituents is £2·7 million, so the additional cost is only £10 million.
Mr. Bevan: As questions about the cost of moving the route from one side of the M6 to the other are continually being posed, I can tell the House that should that happen, besides the fact that only one third of the number of passengers would use the metro than would use it if it were built on the proposed route, the cost would be £12·5 million as against £6 million for the existing route.
The arguments are quite extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman continually protests, so I must ask him whether he supports the principle of the metro, or whether he is rubbishing the whole idea. Does he agree with the view of the majority of his party and that of the House, which supports the metro? If so, why does he attack it on every point?
Mr. Davis: I shall run through the figures again, slowly, so that the hon. Gentleman understands them, but first I must tell him that it is a sign of weakness that the promoters of the Bill need to attack the motives of their opponents. I have said several times that both I and my constituents do not oppose the concept of a metro. The

95
residents' association has made it clear to me, to Centro and to everyone who will listen that it is not attacking the concept; it is simply arguing that Centro has the wrong route and that it should adopt a different route, which would serve all of its purposes without affecting my constituents' homes. I am sure that at least my hon. Friends recognise that view and will not join the hon. Member for Yardley in his incredible attack on our integrity. The hon. Gentleman makes such an attack only because he knows that he is losing the argument.
In a letter dated 14 May 1990, Mr. Michael Parker said that the cost of the alternative route would be £12·5 million—a significant reduction on the previous estimate. I have always been told that the cost of the southern route, which would affect my constituency, would be £2·7 million. The hon. Member for Yardley is shaking his head. In fact, he makes my case for me. It appears that Centro has given him more up-to-date figures, because he just said that the cost of the southern route would be £6 million. My case is even stronger than I thought. It is a pity that we had to elicit those figures in the course of the debate, rather than Centro making them readily available; but, as a result of the intervention of the hon. Member for Yardley, we now know that the cost of the northern route is £12·5 million and that of the southern route £6 million. The difference is £6·5 million: even the hon. Member for Yardley cannot argue with that arithmetic.
The original estimate of the cost was £224 million; the hon. Member for Yardley has told us this evening that that figure has now been increased to £273 million. My constituents want to protect their environment—they want an ecologically friendly route. They want Centro to increase the £273 million figure by £6·5 million. That sounds like a lot of money until we place it in context: we should consider not only the £273 million, but the amount that Centro is to pay for tunnels elsewhere on the route.
In Birmingham's city centre, it is to spend £100 million on tunnels to avoid the problems that might result from running the metro through the city centre.
It is also to spend £7·5 million on a tunnel to take the metro from my constituency to that of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills)—but it cannot afford £6·5 million for my constituents.
Centro also proposes to spend £12·5 million on tunnels to protect the environment in Solihull. It is not prepared to spend £6·5 million to protect the environment of my constituents. Naturally, my constituents want to know why their homes are less important than those of people living in Solihull, Meriden or the centre of Birmingham. They are entitled to an answer, but it has never been forthcoming. The constant refrain from Centro is that it cannot afford such an amount—but it can afford many times as much to carry out work elsewhere on the same route, and feels able to spend nearly twice as much to benefit the inhabitants of Solihull.
In fact, I suspect that the total cost of the alternative route is less than £12·5 million. In the last month, Centro has announced an amendment to its own route, part of which is being moved from the south to the north—as suggested by my constituents. Unfortunately, only part of the route is affected, and that part lies to the west of my constituency. In any event, the action is not being taken as a result of representations by my constituents, or out of
96
consideration for their interests; the aim is to take account of the difficulties caused by the new Heartlands spine road, and we do not know how much that amendment will cost. All that we know is that it is possible, suddenly and with ease, to move the route slightly northwards to benefit a new road, but impossible to move it slightly northwards further along to benefit the existing residents of the Bromford estate. Where there is a will there is a way; Centro will not change the route to benefit people.
I am sorry to refer so often to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, but he made a long and interesting speech. He spoke of the need for flexibility, and said that everything possible should be done to meet the objections of residents on all the metro routes. He and I see eye to eye in that regard; indeed, it is the central issue. The so-called consultation that has taken place since Second Reading is regarded by residents' representatives as a farce: to put it bluntly, the officers of Centro gave the impression that they were simply going through the motions. Following the two meetingts that have been held since Second Reading, my constituents are bitterly disappointed by the officers' attitude.
I wish to be fair: Mr. Tarr was not present, although he had set up the consultation, along with the hon. Member for Yardley. We never saw him again; he left the business to others to whom he delegated, and it is those others whom my constituents have criticised. But we cannot simply blame officers.
My constituents were also invited to "have a chat"—in his words—with the chairman of the Centro passenger transport authority, and they asked me to accompany them so that I could hear what was said. They told the chairman that they had not had much joy from his officers. It is with great regret that I must tell the House—this is very important in the light of what my hon. Friends have said—that the chairman told my constituents, in my hearing—I wrote down his words at the time—"We have drawn our battle plans and are absolutely entrenched." That is not a sign of flexibility or magnanimity. He went on to say, "There is no chance of rerouting—not since the Bill was put in Parliament." So much for magnanimity, flexibility, consultation, and a willingness to talk about the effects of the development.
Mr. George: If my hon. Friend were a student of military history, he might reach the conclusion that the most resolute statements are sometimes followed by a quite different course of action. Therefore, he should not take such a rebuff as necessarily a demonstration of intolerance. In a survey, the system that my hon. Friend himself paid to inspect had the support of 93 per cent. of the residents of Grenoble. So, although it may not have met his requirements, surely that indicates reasonable acceptance by the people of Grenoble of the system that they had the wisdom to establish.
Mr. Davis: Having visited that system, I would expect such a result. I am not sure that my hon. Friend has visited Grenoble, and it may not be necessary for him to do so. Nevertheless, I am not at all surprised that 93 per cent. of the residents there think that the system is a good thing—as I would do if I were a resident of Grenoble. I would be amazed if less than 93 per cent. of the people living along the route thought it a good thing. That would be a much tougher test, and I am only surprised that 7 per cent. of those polled did not think that it was a good thing.

97
The reason for that belief is that Grenoble has a very different kind of route. Where it runs along streets where people live, it has replaced city centre traffic—cars, buses, vans, lorries, and heavy goods vehicles. The local residents have witnessed a tremendous improvement in their environment. However, one cannot translate the Grenoble experience to the proposal for the route through my constituency. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South can find the time to visit the location, I believe that he will reach the same conclusion.
Where the route in Grenoble would have affected residents, it has been ended, and buses take passengers to the terminals. It is very impressive. That is done in the socialist part—the suburb across the river, which comes under a different local authority. Passengers on the trams told me that the system was an improvement on what they had before. Of course they would think that, because it has taken a great deal of traffic off the streets. That will not happen in the case of the metro route in my constituency because it will bring incremental nuisance to people's very doorsteps.
To refer again to my hon. Friend's mention of military history, I recall that the words, "They shall not pass" went unheeded, but it is clear to me that Centro will not concede any amendments unless they are forced to do so. Centro will not be flexible. Centro's own chairman said:
"The route will only change if the Bill comes out of the sausage machine."
By the sausage machine, he meant this House. It is our job to change the route, because Centro will not do that. Centro's chairman also said that there was no chance of negotiations because the Bill was already before Parliament.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South thinks that there is any flexibility or willingness to consult, negotiate and subsequently to amend or change the route on Centro's part, he has been misled and will be bitterly disappointed. It may be a different story in respect of route 3, but I can comment only on route 2—and then only in so far as it affects my constituents.
I turn to the shabbiest aspect of the whole affair—Centro's decision to challenge the locus standi of my constituents to petition against the Bill and thus their right to be heard by a Committee of this House. In the Second Reading debate, the hon. Member for Yardley said:
"Granting a Second Reading will merely allow the Bill to proceed to Committee where it will be fully examined".
Centro made sure that it was not fully examined.
The Minister for Public Transport told the House:
"there will be the opportunity to present objections to the Select Committee."—[Official Report, 5 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 642 and 650.]
There was no opportunity for my constituents to present their objections to the Select Committee.
Centro appealed to the Court of Referees. There were 35 petitions against the Bill from banks, property developers, businesses, education institutions, statutory undertakings of British Rail and many other organisations, including Foseco. Centro only objected to the five residents groups and it persisted in objecting to my constituents from the Bromford estate and the Firs estate. That decision by Centro was widely criticised during the Second Reading debate by supporters and opponents of the Bill. Centro's friends urged it to think again. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said:
98
"I am convinced of the relevance of some of their objections. However, to deny objectors the right to put a case before a Committee of the House is scarcely good public relations.
I am aware of the recommendations of the Select Committee, behind which Centro seeks to shield itself from criticism. It has nothing to fear from criticism and I wish that it had not taken the action that it took."—[Official Report, 5 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 652.]
He said later that the objectors should have been allowed to put their fears to the appropriate Committee of the House without being challenged.
Hon. Members who voted for the Bill urged Centro to drop its technical and legal objections, which would prevent ordinary people from being heard by the Committee and by Members of Parliament. I am sorry to have to tell the House that all those pleas fell on deaf ears. Centro refused to listen to their friends any more than to their opponents.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that 35 objections were considered by the Committee. He is wrong. I am sure that he did not intend to mislead the House, but 35 objections were not considered by the Committee. The objections from four residents groups—the most important as far as I am concerned being the petition from people in my constituency—were not considered by the Committee and could not be considered because of Centro's deliberate action.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that anyone with a land-holding interest can have his objections considered. A land-holding interest means that one owns the house, garden or land on which the route will run. That is not the case, as Centro will run a line not across gardens but just in front of houses and gardens belonging to my constituents and so they do not have a land-holding interest. Apparently, we have laws which protect land holders and owners, but we do not have laws to protect residents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South mentioned the Court of Referees, but it was called on to rule only because Centro appealed to it. If one discusses the issue with Centro, it blames Sherwood—the parliamentary agent—and says that it is in the hands of its parliamentary agent. Alternatively, Centro blames the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, and it refers to that Committee's recommendation that:
"Promoters should be encouraged to police the rules of locus standi, and private bill committees should not treat a reasonable but unsuccessful challenge as a point of prejudice."
That is quite true. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure recommended that promoters should be encouraged to police the rules of locus standi, but I doubt whether that Committee ever envisaged that someone would behave in the way that Centro has behaved by objecting to the right of people who are going to lose the benefits of their homes to be heard by a Select Committee of the House.
Since Centro is so fond of quoting the reports of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, I remind the House that one of the early recommendations of the Joint Committee was:
"Private bill committees should treat a wilful failure by any party to consult or negotiate as a point of prejudice."
Centro neglected to consult or negotiate. I am not surprised that it had to stop my constituents from saying so to the Select Committee which considered the Bill.

99
The representatives of my constituents say, and I believe them, that if they had been allowed to put their case to an independent body, a Committee of Members of Parliament, and to be subjected to questioning by the Committee and Centro, and that if the Committee had then found against them, they would have accepted the decision, even though they would have been very disappointed. They would have felt that they had had their opportunity to explain why they objected to the route and preferred a different one. However, they were denied that opportunity. They were denied that hearing by Centro, which used their poll tax and their rates to employ barristers and parliamentary agents to argue before the Court of Referees that they should be denied a hearing.
Centro blocked the right of my constituents to be heard. Their voices have been stifled. One is bound to ask, what was Centro afraid of? Why did it want to stop residents in my constituency and in other constituencies explaining their point of view? Is Centro scared that its case will not stand up to cross-examination by ordinary residents with their ordinary logic, feelings and skills? Centro knows that its case is weak, otherwise it would not have behaved so undemocratically.
If the carry-over motion does not succeed, we shall be telling Centro to go back and do its job properly by consulting people properly. We shall also be telling it that if people are dissatisfied they should be allowed to put their case to a Committee of Members of Parliament. In a democracy, people are surely entitled to nothing less.
9.16 pm
Mr. Dennis Turner: I shall seek to follow your edict, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the procedural nature of the motion.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) gave a historical account of the metro. As he said, it is supported by the seven authorities that make up the west midlands conurbation. The first Bill, in 1989, was unopposed. This Bill would empower the creation of two lines—the first from Birmingham to the international airport, the second from Wolverhampton to Walsall and then through the black country to Dudley.
I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government support the carry-over motion. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that the Government ought soon to make known their intentions regarding finance so that the metro lines can be developed. I hope that the autumn statement will contain a positive contribution to the scheme. The hon. Member for Yardley made it clear that the carry-over motion is needed so that advantage can be taken of Government finance. A clear Government commitment to the scheme is needed.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) said that he had considered various aspects of the project. On Second Reading he rightly made an impassioned plea on behalf of his constituents. We appreciate the fact that he has now taken a fresh look at the carry-over motion.
I shall try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gives us his support by responding to the questions that he asked. He wanted a guarantee that the shared carriageway would not be a hazard. I understand that Solihull's highways department, the custodian of highway safety, has already
100
given that guarantee. The hon. Gentleman said that the representations made by CARE and the recommendations of the Opposed Private Bill Committee should be honoured and enshrined in law. I understand that Centro is prepared to give that legal undertaking. Likewise, it is happy to give undertakings on traffic lights and stop locations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made an excellent and comprehensive speech. His positive remarks highlighted his belief in the light rail system and the contribution that it can make to our lives in the next century.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most inspiring features of today's debate has been that all of the seven authorities agree? We are here to represent those who represent the local people. If seven authorities agree, is it not better, instead of continuing to praise their worth, to show our worth by voting on the issue so that we can forward what those seven authorities—which are not all Labour, however unusual that may sometimes seem—think is right? May we vote on this matter to show that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we all agree with them? Is this not the time for action, not just for words?
Mr. Turner: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments; in so many of his comments, he shows wisdom. I endorse entirely what he says. The democratic process has been at work and it is of great importance that local authorities in the west midlands speak with one voice and say that they want this metro to proceed into the 21st century.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South succinctly mentioned how much investment has already been made in the project. If the motion were not passed, that money would be wasted and the opportunity that we have now for speedy development—we hope with Government finance—would be lost. My hon. Friend made several germane points and I appreciated his contribution to the debate.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) would agree that most of his speech tonight was from Second Reading. We expected that he would rehearse the arguments that he made on behalf of his constituency with integrity and tenacity. He has battled courageously on his constituents' behalf. The House should respect him for what he has done and his constituents should be proud of his contribution. I mean that sincerely although I am sad to say that, on this occasion, I disagree with him.
I understand the reasons why my hon. Friend has advanced such arguments. He has quoted what different people have said, but I am sure that he understands that what has happened goes back to the first principles of democratic accountability. Whatever my hon. Friend says, the fact remains that Birmingham city council has approved the line of route in accordance with the democratic process and the committee structure. My hon. Friend referred to a city officer saying, "We may have learnt the lesson." But the elected members of Birmingham city council—with the exception, as my hon. Friend rightly said, of his ward councillors—have taken a different view.
Mr. Terry Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but he is slightly mistaken. I was talking not only about the councillors in that ward but about all the councillors in my constituency—a far greater number.
Mr. Turner: I am sorry. I accept that a number of councillors in my hon. Friend's constituency oppose the line of route.
Mr. Davis: All of them.
Mr. Turner: I accept that my hon. Friend was talking about all of them, including the MEP.
I repeat, however, that, even before going out to consultation, the local authority had taken a democratic look at the proposals. My hon. Friend will accept that the starting point for the planning that went into that part of the route—like every other part—was set by the local authority and involved members and officers of that authority.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. He is absolutely right that officers of the city council and some city councillors considered routes in secrecy, behind closed doors. But they never discussed their proposals with the local councillors representing my ward or, indeed, nearby wards. The chief executive of the city council has told me that he regarded it as Centro's responsibility, rather than that of the city council, to consult the local people and local councillors. Centro says that it was regarded as the city council's responsibility. That is little comfort; I am not bothered about that. They are both to blame and they have learnt their lesson. The trouble is that they are not willing to repair the damage that they have done to my constituents.
Mr. Turner: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I rest my case. Wolverhampton, which dealt with the first phase and the original Bill, was certainly involved right from the outset. Elected representatives were fully involved in the process.
We know the arguments advanced by Centro and we know that my hon. Friend opposes them. The first concerns cost. We can reasonably accept the argument that there is a difference in cost between the route proposed by the residents and the route proposed in the Bill. The second concerns the movement of people, and the promoters' route would touch far more people than would the alternative FORCE proposal for a route further north of the M6. Strong arguments have been advanced, but not one of them has been accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill or, as he rightly says, by the residents of his area who feel that there is a preferable route available.
I understand my hon. Friend's argument about his constituency and those who are directly affected on that relatively small piece of track which is the bone of contention. However, when we consider that we are talking about 150 miles of track, it must be common sense that within the whole of that area some people will be unhappy and dissatisfied by the proposed route. Although I accept my hon. Friend's argument and that he is concerned about the route, we must decide in favour of this carry-over motion. I know that hon. Members are anxious to get into the Lobby and vote for this majestic concept.
The people in the black country and in Birmingham have had 200 years of industrial revolution. So far, before
102
today, we have failed to develop the proper links which should be developed between the black country, Birmingham and the west midlands. I want to share with hon. Members a homily and a simple truth about the black country. If a courting couple travel from Tividale to Bradley, people still come out of their homes to look at them. That is how our people have been divided for 200 years between the black country, Birmingham and the west midlands as a whole.
The canal network in the black country was designed for goods, not people. The local train service was demolished by Mr. Beeching. Now the buses churn out pollution. This new metro can take us into the 21st century. For social, environmental and transport developments, let us go metro tonight. Let us pass the motion and consider the Bill in the next Session. We can then give the people in our conurbation the kind of transport that they will need as we move into the 21st century.
9.32 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I understand some of the things which have been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). If there are changes, we experience the NIMBY principle—not in my bloody back yard, you don't—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is coarse language which is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not use it again.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I will not use it again. However, perhaps I should refer to the FLIMBY principle which I take to mean, "Not in my flipping back yard, you don't."
We all agree that there should be change. On occasions we all agree that a road is needed here, an airport or a railway there. I will not repeat what I said earlier because of your sensitivities, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when those needs arise people say, "Not in our flipping back yard, you don't." That is what change involves. Someone's flipping back yard is going to be affected.
It is a little like sacrifice. People often say that we must all make sacrifices. I agree with sacrifice, so long as it starts from the chap next door but one. The hon. Member for Hodge Hill rightly said that the proposal may well be good for greater Birmingham or the greater west midlands, but like the rest of us he is elected to represent his constituency. The hon. Gentleman must accept, however, that in our own individual patches unpleasant things sometimes have to happen for the greater good of our constituencies or our areas.
Mr. Terry Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman explain who would be adversely affected by the alternative route put forward by my constituents?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Somebody is always adversely affected by any change in anything.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has come into the debate late and has therefore not had the benefit of a full exposition of the matter. Will he now anwer the question that I put to him directly? He has accused my constituents of taking the NIMBY attitude. That has been said by Mr. Parker, the spokesman for Centro, but it has been denied

103
by my constituents many times. I am not seeking to move this into someone else's backyard—I am seeking to move it where there are no backyards.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Of course that point will be dealt with, as all such things are, by every so-called expert. I state a general principle. All hon. Members have seen such things happen. I saw it happen in Selly Oak with the Bristol rail. Somebody sometimes wants to widen one side instead of the other. One side says, "Great," and the other side says, "No."
As a general agreement has been obtained, can the House decide on the broad principle that nothing in this life will satisfy everyone? As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and others have said, we must make progress. If we do not make progress now, all progress will come to an end. I hope that the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will agree with that view.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 8.

Division No. 326]

[9.36 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, James

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dykes, Hugh

Aspinwall, Jack

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fearn, Ronald

Baldry, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fookes, Dame Janet

Beggs, Roy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beith, A. J.

Forth, Eric

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Foster, Derek

Benyon, W.

Freeman, Roger

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fry, Peter

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Galbraith, Sam

Body, Sir Richard

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

George, Bruce

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Goodlad, Alastair

Bowis, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gordon, Mildred

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

Grist, Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hague, William

Buckley, George J.

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Budgen, Nicholas

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

Burns, Simon

Harris, David

Burt, Alistair

Hayward, Robert

Butcher, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Butler, Chris

Holt, Richard

Butterfill, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

Carrington, Matthew

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Chapman, Sydney

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Chope, Christopher

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ingram, Adam

Conway, Derek

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jackson, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jessel, Toby

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cormack, Patrick

Key, Robert

Couchman, James

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Crowther, Stan

Kirkhope, Timothy

Cummings, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Dalyell, Tam

Knapman, Roger

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

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knox, David

Day, Stephen

Lambie, David

Devlin, Tim

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Dixon, Don

Lang, Ian

104

Lawrence, Ivan

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Leadbitter, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lightbown, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

McCartney, Ian

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shaw, David (Dover)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Maclean, David

Short, Clare

McLoughlin, Patrick

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

McNamara, Kevin

Snape, Peter

McWilliam, John

Speller, Tony

Major, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Malins, Humfrey

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Marek, Dr John

Stevens, Lewis

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stott, Roger

Maude, Hon Francis

Summerson, Hugo

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mellor, David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Michael, Alun

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thurnham, Peter

Morrison, Sir Charles

Trippier, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Richard

Vaz, Keith

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Page, Richard

Watts, John

Paice, James

Wheeler, Sir John

Patnick, Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Winnick, David

Patten, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Pike, Peter L.

Wood, Timothy

Porter, David (Waveney)

Yeo, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Redwood, John

Mrs. Maureen Hicks, and

Rhodes James, Robert

Mr. Roger King.

Riddick, Graham

NOES

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hardy, Peter

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered
That the Promoters of the Midland Metro Bill 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 not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, 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);
Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
Ordered,
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;
Ordered,
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;
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.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Richard Holt.
9.50 pm
Mr. Richard Holt rose—
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that last week the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill was withdrawn because of technical imperfections. Have the Clerks obtained from the Committee the minutes for the Bill that we are about to debate? Have they also obtained the record held by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office? I understand that there could be a discrepancy between the two and I should be grateful for your guidance. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members not taking part in the debate should leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.
Mr. Cryer: I am sorry about the interruption from the parliamentary agents to whom more discipline might be applied. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for curbing their activities. I want to know whether the minutes of the Committee and the record held by the Clerk to the Private Bill Office for this Bill are before you or the Clerk of the House so that we can seek guidance if necessary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the report of the Committee is available.
Mr. Cryer: I am asking whether the Clerks have it, because it is an important source of guidance to the House in debating the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that whatever documentation is relevant and necessary for our debate is available to hon. Members.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We heard that story last week on the Redbridge Bill and for about half an hour we were told that we were debating clause 6. After some hurried consultations we were told that clause 6 was not in the Bill. You were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member who was moving the Bill had to abandon it. We just want to make absolutely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) does not start to debate a part of the Bill that is not there for hon. Members to examine. The Redbridge Bill was introduced in the Lords, nobody spoke on it and it went through like a dose of Epsom salts. Let us be sure this time. Are we in order? It is a fair question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: My recollection of the events of last week is a little different from that of the hon. Gentleman. When the matter to which he refers was raised I suggested that, pending clarification, we should proceed with the debate. When I eventually received the information that was relevant to the point of order I took the appropriate course. We should sensibly proceed that way again. I am assured by the Clerk that all the relevant information is available.
Mr. Holt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As all the relevant information is before the House, I should like your guidance on the distinction that seems to exist between the record of the proceedings of the Committee, which is held by the Clerk in the Private Bill Office, and its formal decisions, including those taken in private session, and the minutes of the meeting in public session. A decision was made about the placement of the headquarters of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter that can be dealt with in the debate.
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has moved the Third Reading, it may be useful if I tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment for recommittal in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and others. The matters that gave rise to that amendment can be discussed during the debate if hon. Members so wish. Is that the point that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is raising?
Mr. Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not making a point about the placement of the authority, which is a matter for debate. I am making a point about the distinction between the record of the proceedings which is held in the Private Bill Office and the minutes. There is a clear discrepancy between the two on one point. The minutes say that the issue of the headquarters of the authority will be dealt with in the House of Lords, and that the promoters have agreed to that. However, the records of the proceedings of the Committee do not include that undertaking. What is the significance of that discrepancy? Should we adjourn until it is resolved?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the purpose of our Standing Orders and our procedures, the relevant record is that contained in the official record of the proceedings of the Committee. I understand that that is available.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for letting the House know that the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends has not been selected by Mr. Speaker. The point of order on which I seek your guidance relates to a point made in the Committee examining the King's Cross Railways Bill, which said that any amendments agreed in Committee ought to be taken on the Floor of the House. I respect and accept the decision made by Mr. Speaker about our amendment, but that Committee said:
"We are quite clear that if a House of Commons committee considers that a Bill referred to it stands in need of amendment, then it is the duty of that committee to make that amendment."
The Committee examining the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill has acted in a way condemned by the King's Cross Railways Bill Committee. If the amendment that the Committee wanted but did not make is not inserted into the Bill, the other place may take a contrary view. If it does so, this House will have no further opportunity to amend the Bill. Thus, the will of the Commons will be frustrated
108
and that is hardly in the interests of parliamentary democracy. Although the promoters have undertaken to propose an amendment to the Bill in the other place, they have done so only in order to avoid further scrutiny on Report. That is undemocratic and weakens the House of Commons.
The House of Commons has a duty to maintain a vigilant watch over the Executive and hold it to account. Democracy is weakened by a thousand small cuts. While the failure of the Committee to refer the Bill back for Report in the House is a small cut, it is an important one.
On 21 June 1990, the Government issued a consultation document called "Private Bills and New Procedures". May I have your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the points of order that we have made tonight, as the Bill returns to the Floor of the House from Committee, will be passed on to those who prepared the document, so that the House can exercise its right to protest and say that this is wrong? The House of Commons must look at amendments coming from Committee. The Committee cannot decide simply to have these referred to the other place, thereby depriving Members of Parliament of a proper and valid scrutiny over the Executive.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sackville]
The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 50.

Division No. 327]

[10 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Couchman, James

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Day, Stephen

Atkins, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baldry, Tony

Dykes, Hugh

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Eggar, Tim

Beggs, Roy

Fallon, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Benyon, W.

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forth, Eric

Body, Sir Richard

Freeman, Roger

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gale, Roger

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bowis, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

Grist, Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Harris, David

Butler, Chris

Hayward, Robert

Butterfill, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Carrington, Matthew

Holt, Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Chope, Christopher

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jack, Michael

Conway, Derek

Jackson, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Janman, Tim

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jessel, Toby

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

109

Key, Robert

Patnick, Irvine

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Porter, David (Waveney)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Portillo, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Redwood, John

Knox, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rhodes James, Robert

Lang, Ian

Riddick, Graham

Lawrence, Ivan

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Lightbown, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Ryder, Richard

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sayeed, Jonathan

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Maclean, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Major, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stevens, Lewis

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Summerson, Hugo

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maude, Hon Francis

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mellor. David

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, Iain

Trippier, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Waller, Gary

Morrison, Sir Charles

Watts, John

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Wheeler, Sir John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Widdecombe, Ann

Needham, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wood, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Yeo, Tim

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Paice, James

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Mr. Tim Boswell.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Barron, Kevin

McAllion, John

Beith, A. J.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Bell, Stuart

McNamara, Kevin

Buckley, George J.

McWilliam, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Marek, Dr John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Michael, Alun

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Pike, Peter L.

Crowther, Stan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cryer, Bob

Prescott, John

Dalyell, Tam

Ruddock, Joan

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

Short, Clare

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Snape, Peter

Faulds, Andrew

Spearing, Nigel

Fearn, Ronald

Turner, Dennis

Flynn, Paul

Vaz, Keith

Galbraith, Sam

Wallace, James

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wigley, Dafydd

Hardy, Peter

Winnick, David

Ingram, Adam

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tellers for the Noes:

Leadbitter, Ted

Mr. Ronnie Campbell and

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. John Cummings.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me now deal with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I understand his concern, but I am sure that he
110
would not expect me to comment on either the proceedings or the conclusions of the Committee that considered the Bill. He will have an opportunity to air the matters to which he alluded, and it will be for the House to make a decision in the light of what is said in the debate. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) may choose to comment on what is said before the end of our proceedings.
10.13 pm
Mr. Holt: Let me continue what I was saying some 20 minutes ago, when I moved the Third Reading.
There is no need for me to repeat in detail the arguments for the Bill, which the Committee has already scrutinised exhaustively. The Committee found, after lengthy consideration, that the promoters had made their case for the preamble. As the Bill's sponsor, I wish to put on record my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Committee for their diligence and hard work.
The promoters agreed to a number of undertakings during the Committee stage. First, and to answer the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the head office of the successor company will be located in Cleveland. That will be so only for as long as there is a county named Cleveland, but it is my wish and that of most of my constituents that the county name reverts to North Yorkshire as soon as possible. When that happens, the company's headquarters will remain where they are, but the county boundaries will be removed or changed. Nevertheless, the headquarters will remain on Teesside, which is the best way that we can phrase the undertaking given by the authority.
Secondly, the authority recognises the significance of this development and fully agrees that an employee share scheme be established in respect of the holding company. That aspect was the subject of considerable debate in Committee, and the promoters are happy to give an undertaking that employers will have that right. Employee involvement in the ownership of the business has always been viewed by the authority as an important factor alongside other local interests, and we want to maintain that policy.
Since privatisation began, Teesside has enjoyed a considerable upsurge in business. Only 10 days ago, albeit without a great deal of national publicity, we launched a roll-on/roll-off ferry service that will operate between Teesside and Hamburg twice a week. That will open up a great deal more of eastern Europe's market potential to Teesside and to the people living there.
Our third undertaking is that the shareholders in any employee share scheme will carry full voting rights to the successor company. We give that undertaking freely and openly, so that everyone knows that the points raised in Committee have been fully understood by the Tees and Hartlepool authority. I repeat the clear undertakings that it has given.
It is a pity that Labour Members have opposed this opportunity for Teesside, but it is not untypical. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and I have been fighting for the steel industry on Teesside. Scottish Labour Members and my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have all been fighting for the Scottish steel industry. Whenever there have been debates or questions about the steel industry over the past few months, not one Labour Member has spoken in

111
support of steel workers on Teesside. We deprecate that in the way that we deprecate the fact that Labour Members failed to support the workers in the Tees port, the developments there, and the jobs and economic well-being that will flow from that first privatisation of a port.
Mr. A. J. Beith: As the hon. Gentleman has described what the promoters have done since the earlier stages of the Bill, perhaps he will give us their view of the levy that has been imposed on the proceeds of the privatisation since the Bill was first
112
introduced, and which will take perhaps two thirds of the amount for the central Exchequer. Are the promoters happy about that? Does it in any way change their view of the Bill?
Mr. Holt: Naturally, when one takes money from someone—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is no different—they are not particularly happy about it. Nevertheless, the promoters are happy that they are losing only half the money. They might have lost the whole lot. The money that they retain will be reinvested in the port authority and will provide job security for the future. I again commend the Bill to the House.
10.18 pm
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: One of the most significant aspects of the Bill is that the Government have not remained neutral. In the debate on the Midland Metro Bill, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping made a short intervention in which he gave no encouragement to the promoters of that Bill that they could look forward to any grant under section 56. He said that, as always with a private Bill, the Government were neutral. How the Minister dares to say that, despite the evidence of the Official Report especially in relation to this Bill, is beyond the belief of any reasonable person in the House.
Before I deal with some of the aspects proper to Third Reading, I congratulate the members of the Committee who worked exceedingly hard during hearings on the Bill dealing with the submissions by the proposer and petitioners. The petitioners and the proposer also worked exceedingly hard. Having said that, one would have thought that hon. Members should be reasonably happy but, time and again, especially in this Session, hon. Members have been increasingly worried about the private Bill procedure.
The promoters of the Midland Metro Bill, which we have just finished considering, said that they had spent about £1 million and the petitioners said that they had spent many thousands of pounds. A large amount of money has been spent on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. However, where the functions of the House of Commons are concerned, hon. Members with local knowledge are virtually neutralised. Four hon. Members and the Chairman sit upstairs and objectors have little impact Even though the petitioners perform their services very well, it is at great expense to the authorities and not to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the difficulties with the private Bill procedure, and with this Bill in particular, is that if the Chair refuses to use his casting vote to allow any hon. Member to talk—as on this occasion—it cuts out any sound and reasonable objections which ordinary citizens are prepared to advance?
Mr. Leadbitter: That is the case.
Let us forget for one moment the presumption that because the proposers proposed the Bill they are right. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority has a chairman, a chief executive, a kind of secretary and 10 non-executive members. Between them, they have been dilly-dallying with the Government for the past few months. Yet hon. Members who, with great respect to those officers, have greater experience of the area have a right to be heard, too. It should not be implied that hon. Members are not competent to have an input into the argument when we have had many more years experience and service in the area than any of those people, including the hon. Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). Let us make that clear.
What is an important objection? We will come to the contradictions in a minute. Mr. Bartlett, the counsel for the proposers, was so anxious to make a good case that from the moment he made his submission in Committee he referred to section 12(3) of the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Act 1966 and pointed out that responsibilities for the care and maintenance of the port area were a constraint. He did not want them. That was his first argument.
114
Mr. Hackney, the chief executive of the authority, was not running on quite the same track as his secretary. In Committee he referred to those responsibilities and said that a special clause protected Hartlepool. I fail to see how a senior officer can say that a section will look after the interests of the infrastructure, of the breakwater and the piers, when counsel in Committee says that Hartlepool wants none of those constraints. He used the word "constraint" as a reason for promoting the private Bill. If the Bill is passed, we know what will happen to the protection of the port. The history of the last 10 years shows that questions have been raised about invoking the responsibilities enshrined in section 12(3) of the Act.
Hartlepool borough council's petition refers, as a matter of primary importance, to section 12. It is worth reading what the petition says:
"Section 12(3) of the Act of 1966 states that the authority shall 'take such steps from time to time as may be necessary for the maintenance of so much of the harbour as comprises the existing port of Hartlepool in a condition not less efficient, safe and commodious than it is at the passing of this Act.' "
I know how important that section is because I was the Member who had it written into the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill of 1966. The clause was devised by me, the then town clerk of Hartlepool borough council, and the parliamentary commissioners. The clause had legal backing and it was accepted by the House. Since then, however, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has been reticent about invoking it and in the case of this Bill has said that it is a constraint. On page 12 of its proof of evidence to the Committee, referring to the section, Hartlepool borough council says:
"The importance of the port and harbour to the well being of the community has long been recognised by the council. Whilst the port authority indicate that the proposed legislation would preserve the burden of that duty upon the operating company, none the less the council suspect that should other interests or priorities demand, the discharge of that duty will be diminished under the proposed arrangements."
That is the truth of the matter.
Another truth is that 10 years ago Hartlepool borough council did not support that section of the 1966 Act. There was a long-drawn-out argument about the protection of the breakwater. Contrary to what is said in its proof of evidence, Hartlepool borough council did not recognise its importance for a long time, but it has come round to recognising it now.
Mr. Skinner: Why did it not recognise it then?
Mr. Leadbitter: It was suffering from incompetent advice. Other legal advisers are helping us now. In Committee, the port's chief executive said that the section is a protection for Hartlepool but to make out a case for the private Bill counsel said that it was a constraint. Men who are supposed to be honourable and intellectually attuned are contradicting each other. We do not have what I call truth in the House of Commons. That is not unusual. I have been here for a quarter of a century. During that time I have found that it is easier to pursue a lie than to find the truth. The only problem is that when one does find the truth certain people get very angry about it.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend plays a leading role in this place. He is on the Chairmen's Panel. Has he noticed that during the past few days the well-paid parliamentary agents who play such a significant role in private Bills, including the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill,

115
have got it wrong? Those tin-pot agents, if I may so describe them, introduced a Bill last week. Much to the embarrassment of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who, as always, was trying manfully to get it through, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) discovered that the parliamentary agents, with their fat wallets, paid for by the taxpayer, had left out clause 6 which had gone through the House of Lords on the nod, not being spoken on by anyone. The result in the House of Commons was like a Monty Python show, talking about clause 6 when it was not there.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has scanned the Bill because I heard him speaking on it once before. I hope he has looked at it carefully, because there is a chance that something is missing. These agents, who are similar to the ones who advised Hartlepool council 10 years ago, may well have cocked it up again. My hon. Friend should be ultra-careful about this as there is some chance that we can stop the whole show.
Mr. Leadbitter: It is possible that we could still do that. My hon. Friend mentions legal fallibilities.
Mr. Skinner: That is one way of putting it. No wonder my hon. Friend is on the Chairmen's Panel.
Mr. Cryer: No wonder my hon. Friend smoked out Blunt.
Mr. Leadbitter: It was harder to smoke out Blunt than it was to smoke out the promoters of this Bill.
I turn to the saga of the 50 per cent. sale of the proceeds, which is going into the pockets——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will avoid turning his back on the Chair. I seem to be missing his jests.
Mr. Leadbitter: This part of the story is at least fascinating. We shall take with it the saga of the enabling legislation.
I do not know whether the chief executive was a delegate at the Tory party conference, but we were receiving communications from Bournemouth from time to time. I thought that the Secretary of State for Transport had enough trouble without him being there. The chief executive's statements were outdone by the more robust language of the secretary of Tees and Hartlepool port authority, a man who suffers from a lack of vocabulary and, at times, politeness.
Mr. Cryer: One of the questions that we continually raise during proceedings on private Bills is the involvement of the Government. My hon. Friend said that an executive was at the Conservative party conference. I wonder if he could give us further information about that as it implies seedy collaboration between members of the Conservative party and others to get the Bill through. That would be quite outside Standing Orders and the honour of this ancient and honourable House.
Mr. Leadbitter: It is more than a coincidence that we have this private Bill and the chief executive in Bournemouth. The chief executive is not an old-age
116
pensioner. He is not thinking of retiring there, but he may say that it was a pure accident that the conference took place while he was visiting that very interesting town.
I have looked through some of the epistles, the communiqués and their dates. On 14 May 1990, during a debate on the Clyde Port Authority Bill, it was indicated that 50 per cent. of the sale of the shares would be paid to the Exchequer whenever a trust port was converted into a company. The percentage was agreed as a broad figure for all trust ports. The House should remember that. The chief executive—through his secretary, of course—claimed that the 50 per cent. left was a gain. He gave the impression that he had negotiated the figure, but the Official Report gives the lie to that. Some of these officials are so imbecilic that they think that Members of Parliament cannot read.
Mr. Beith: The situation is worse than that which the hon. Gentleman has described. On 3 July, in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted in answer to me that the levy would amount to a tax charge of 67·5 per cent. He put it another way. He said that that
"means a cash injection of 32.5 per cent."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 July 1990; c. 568.]
In other words, what the taxman leaves us is a cash injection. By July, the Government had made it clear that, with the combined effect of the levy and capital gains tax, they expected to get more than two thirds of the proceeds.
Mr. Leadbitter: I accept that observation. The hon. Gentleman expressed his concern in my constituency, and I took note of that. The hon. Gentleman jumped to July. I want to go back to June. On 27 June 1990, the Clyde port authority sent a letter to worthy hon. Members, such as myself, and said:
"We share the Government's view"—
that means that the Government have expressed a view for the authority to share——
"on privatisation".
At the end of the letter, the authority adds:
"This Bill is with the full backing and support of the Government."
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping must not sit there naughtily, feeling protected and pretending neutrality. We know what is being done by his mate in a higher office. It is a sham, even if he calls it democracy.
On 15 October 1990, we come back to our worthy secretary of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. That man has had more mention in the House of Commons than in the whole of the rest of his public life—
Mr. Skinner: You don't like him, do you Ted?
Mr. Leadbitter: I feel disposed to limit my feelings of friendship.
The secretary of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority wrote:
"We have also won the return of the 50 per cent. proceeds."
He had nothing to do with it—he was told what to do. Later on, the chief executive said that it came as no surprise to him. They cannot even work together. As I said, when we reach privatisation in four months' time, we shall watch their salaries go up. But they have not even worked for it. They are not even in harmony with each other.
On 5 October, the chief executive of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, in an enclosure to the management and staff, wrote:

117
"Delay on this Bill could lose us our lead and the benefit of the return to the business of 50 per cent. of the proceeds."
What wishful thinking. He is saying, "Do not oppose the Bill. Do not go through the democratic process because if there is a delay we shall lose our lead and run the risk of not getting our 50 per cent." Suppose that someone pinches half my money. If I then say that what I have left is a gain, I ought to be seeking psychiatric treatment.
On 9 October 1990, the secretary of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, on the announcement of the enabling legislation, said this:
"The situation that we foresaw has now materialised."
I think that he was a bit tired; he had been overworked and had not read the Official Report. Way back in March 1988, long before the Tees and Hartlepool port authority thought about a private Bill, the Secretary of State, in a talk to the ports federation, had made it clear that he saw advantages in privatisation. He then said that he was very disappointed by the lack of response. There is no real upsurge of support for privatisation and he has been bludgeoning on since then.
The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. The chief executive answered the counsel for the petitioners about when he became disenchanted with the present constitution. The House will be pleased to know that this Bill reached this House having received no consultation. It was not challenged in Committee and the counsel for the petitioners pointed out bluntly in the last sitting that there had been no consultation. The board agreed the Bill's contents in June 1989 and the Bill reached the Private Bill Office just before the closing date of 27 November. The summer recess split the board's agreeing the Bill and its appearance in the Private Bill Office, so consultation as we understand it did not take place. Only one or two little representations which had already been agreed upon were discussed.
The secretary of the board claims that the board foresaw, but it foresaw nothing. That is how the Bill's promoters have been twisting the words around. Whether they like it or not, they must accept that the petitioners have addressed the facts. They have not tried to distort or to misrepresent. The latter is characteristic of the promoters. The House should be warned that, when we have an opportunity to discuss the new private Bill procedures, never again will we find ourselves in a position of incurring great expense as with public or enabling Bills.
The House is more than likely to grant the Bill its Third Reading and to pass it to the other place, but the procedure leaves a bad taste in the mouth because a handful of people have determined the course of events. They have tried to suggest to hon. Members and to the petitioners that they have behaved properly, but they have not.
Mr. Bartlett was counsel for the petitioners in the Committee upstairs. On 15 May 1990 he said:
"So it is by this means that the proceeds of the sale are returned to the holding company and become available for investment in the expansion of the business. Those will be reduced on the basis of the current indications of the Government by some 50 per cent. Taxation might reduce it further, but it is those proceeds which become available as a result of selling the shares."
The whole of the property, all the assets and the shares would be sold and instead of all the proceeds going back to the port as they should, the Government are going to take half. Under the present system, the port's revenues go into port expansion programmes or to reduce charges. The
118
hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred to one of the port authority's new ventures. That has been implemented under the present legislation, not under the new proposals.
The promoters knew about the 50 per cent. beforehand. They did not foresee it—it was common knowledge. Rather than include it in the Bill where we could see it, they slipped it in during progress on the Finance Bill so we might not see it. That shows how devious the whole process was.
Mr. Skinner: It is a pity they did not slip something into the Finance Act 1981, which produced the massive tax loophole allowing people like Lady Porter and one or two others to invest in offshore companies and make a big fat killing. Has my hon. Friend seen page 17 of the minutes of evidence? I think that it refers to the bloke to whom my hon. Friend has been referring. The minutes of evidence state:
"Mr. Hackney himself admits that the shareholders of the holding company may or may not be concerned with the welfare of Teesside. If they are to behave as logical, reasonable investors would behave, they will be concerned for their profits."
There it is in a nutshell. They are saying, "We are riot worried about the people of Teesside and Hartlepool." All they are concerned about is making money. Hon. Members have argued about the private Bill many times. In this case—I should like my hon. Friend to comment on it—the Government have been promoting the idea. They are not content with just walking through the Lobby and supporting the Bill. They have actually promoted it. There has been a sinister collaboration with people like Hackney and the others, together with the Government, who have now got the Bill through on the private Bill procedure. In reality, it should have been part of their programme if they had really believed in it.
Mr. Leadbitter: Now moving to the 50 per cent. robbery—
Mr. Skinner: Yes, robbery.
Mr. Leadbitter:—the enabling proposals that were announced in Bournemouth, the conference town, the Secretary of State and the chief executive of the port authority have now agreed on one thing. Mr. Hackney said:
"Our belief is that the Government announcement of an enabling Bill of trust ports"
that is, to privatise—
"would not have happened without our Bill, and the money that was spent on it has been very well spent to that end."
That is not the truth. There is a word for that in the House of Commons.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, lying.
Mr. Leadbitter: An hon. Member would not get away with it because it is not the truth. I consider it to be utter impertinence to write to a Member of Parliament or to anybody and say that this enabling proposal would not have existed without the Bill. I now give another quotation to which I referred on Second Reading on 15 Marcxh.
Mr. Cryer: I remember it well.
Mr. Leadbitter: I remember it well, too. I refer to the report of the minutes of evidence of the first sitting of the Committee on 15 May 1990. Mr. Hackney himself exposed the real position. He said:

119
"We were also advised"—
that is, by the Department of Transport—
"that the Government would not be providing enabling legislation at that time because of problems with legislation in the House."
There was not sufficient time.
Good observers in the House know full well that it has already been announced in the House what things will not come under privatisation in this Parliament. One is British Rail, but there is another. Nothing was mentioned about enabling proposals for the ports. That was on the cards—it has been on the cards for a long time and it has had to stand in the queue, but whatever else is said, once that queue was moved aside everybody knew that the enabling proposals would come to the House. It was not because of the private Bill that the Secretary of State is bringing forward the measures. More than that, I wonder what kind of Secretary of State would have the notion, even if it were possible, to promise enabling legislation for all ports on the basis of one port. It is a non sequitur in that sense and it is an untruth in another.
I now refer quickly to matters in contrast—for example, the port authority of Clyde—in this argument. At least the authority gave a raw, frank admission that its Bill is what the Secretary of State for Transport wanted and what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to take. That is the difference in the conduct of the Clyde port authority and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. We must look at the management. As I said, the board is made up of non-executive members. In other words, they are not in the driving seat. At present there are 10, selected by the Secretary of State. The day-to-day management and the authority of the board is left to the management team.
I should like to give a little caveat here. On 15 March I talked about the success of the port. On page 17 of the minutes of the Committee, Mr. Hackney states:
"In 1967 the authority broke even before taxation and employed 2,177 people. It handled just short of £12 million. In 1989 the profit before exceptional items and tax was £11 million. The labour force was dropped to 828 and the tonnage increased to 38 million tonnes."
That shows the streamlining—the economic health—of the port under existing legislation.
Of course, the first step towards privatisation was to get rid of the dock labour scheme. It was a case of "Get rid of these expensive lads—every one of them", and it was done. I feel strongly about the success of the port and that makes it harder to see it run into the more risky waters of private enterprise.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has said that the abolition of the dock labour scheme was the first step towards these proposals. My hon. Friend is a member of the Chairmen's Panel and has been a Member of the House for 26 years. He is saying that, on the one hand, the Government introduced a Bill of their own in the Queen's Speech to get rid of the dock labour scheme, while at the same time they have encouraged and connived with others to use the private Bill procedure to get the second phase of the scheme through.
The Government have a majority of 150 over us and they are tipping off the private Bill people and saying, "Look here, we don't want to stuff our programme with too much, but since we have a majority of 150 and we do not need everybody here to pass a private Bill, you
120
smuggle it in that way; we'll give you a hand and get the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment to go through the Lobby at 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night to support it." That is a corrupt practice of a Government with a big majority who are using the private Bill procedure to tell the nation that this is a private matter when, in fact, it is an addendum to the Government's manifesto and programme. The whole thing stinks. What my hon. Friend says has been said by us many times previously—in relation to Bills relating to British Coal and to Associated British Ports. My hon. Friend has added something new by being able to show that the abandonment of the dock labour scheme is part and parcel of the private Bill procedure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to make a speech? If so, I am sure that he will be able to catch my eye eventually.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Leadbitter has the Floor.
Mr. Leadbitter: The shadow Secretary of State for Bolsover did it in one. He got it right.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It took him a long time to do it.
Mr. Leadbitter: Having covered the success of the port in that thumbnail sketch, I now remind the House that, apart from the constraints that Mr. Bartlett wanted to remove because they were a costly item in the port's financial affairs, he mentioned two other reasons for the Bill. One was getting ready for 1992, but I will not waste time on that——
Mr. Skinner: I would.
Mr. Leadbitter: No, there is plenty of time for other things. The other idea was to be free to go into other investment ventures.
In pages 25 and 26 of the proceedings of the Committee Mr. Hackney said:
"The authority over the years has built up considerable sums of money initially invested in the money markets but the stock market suggested better returns so surplus funds were divided into two and given to professional investment managers. There has been a significant growth in the return achieved on investment income and it is a very successful part of the business."
That is under the present Act. He then says:
"A sum was set aside to invest in companies in the north-east."
There is nothing wrong with that. He goes on:
"A sum was set aside for port-related companies"—
there is nothing wrong with that either—
"and money was set aside for companies that were not port related."
That brings me back to the Second Reading on 15 March. What can be done under the Bill that it can be claimed could not be done under the Act? The companies were listed on page 26 of the report. The chief executive of the port authority said that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority set up a company called Port Authority Distribution Services and another called Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Developments
"to utilise in future in distribution and property business."
I find that of interest. He was asked by counsel upstairs:

121
"What corporate plan have you got for this investment in non-port activities?"
The answer was:
"Integrated transport business"—
which he said was dear to his heart—
"and property."
Yet I find in the evidence that it could deal in property. I do not think that I misread the minutes. It is interesting that there is no corporate plan. There is no plan of any kind for what might be called the financial strategy requirements of those non-port activities. Yet under the present Act the port authority can invest in non-port related activities. The list of them appears in the Official Report. I did not put them there. Mr. Hackney put them there.
One matter is outstanding in the new Bill. On Third Reading we should examine it by what I call the question and answer process, which was used in Committee. We dealt with what are called the holding company and the successor company. I shall not go into the details but the report lays out specifically and with clarity that the holding company would deal with the financial side, the funding and so on and the successor company would deal with the responsibilities to the port such as those under section 12(3) of the Act which requires the authority to maintain the ports and the piers which are constraints. The report said that the port would become an integral part of a group business and that failure in the performance of the group was likely to affect the core port business and the economy of Teesside. The funds of the core business are for group purposes.
In other words—in short, thumbnail language—if the port is one of a group and the group does badly in its investments, does the port suffer? Or if there is an investment proposal, should the money go into the port or where there are better returns to be found in the market? Does this organisation of infrastructure deal positively and certainly with the need for adequate resources for the port? The evidence appears to show some considerable doubt.
On page 39 of the Committee's proceedings Mr. Hackney concluded the part that I described by saying:
"£20 million in cash surpluses was not invested in Teesside but in stocks and shares, some in London, some abroad."
Counsel put to him:
"This Bill is venturing the resources of the port capital invested at risk."
Mr. Hackney agreed. He was asked:
"Two aspects, public and statutory responsibilities which have to be preserved and supporting plans to make the responsibility work."
Mr. Hackney agreed. He was asked:
"They go together but with this Bill the control of the funds goes to the holding company."
He agreed. It was put to him:
"The responsibility goes to a successor company and the funds are in other hands."
He agreed. He was asked:
"The kernel of your case is that if we were purely concerned with port business the present constitution would be satisfactory."
Mr. Hackney said yes. He was then asked:
"But because you want to engage in wider trading activities that constitution is unsatisfactory."
Mr. Hackney said: "That is so." He was asked:
"If the aims and object of the authority is the port then the present constitution is adequate."
Mr. Hackney said yes.
122
"The result of privatisation is that 50 per cent. of assets built up and held for future port development goes into the pocket of the Government."
Mr. Hackney said yes.
Page 34 records Mr. Hackney's answers to counsel for the petitioners who said that there was no groundswell among ports for privatisation. Mr. Hackney said:
"At that time most ports felt that there would probably be some Government enabling legislation and we were waiting for that."
If they were waiting for it and knew that it was coming, why in God's name have they spent so much money? Why are my poll tax payers paying for their profits? Privatisation is like a little mouse running about and the little trap waiting for it is set by the takeover boys. Those who created this nonsense will find themselves out of a job.
Without prevarication, Mr. Hackney said that he was waiting for the enabling legislation. It will come during the next Session. I shall try hard to get the Lords to keep this Bill ticking over until the enabling legislation arrives.
Mr. Skinner: I have agreed with my hon. Friend for three quarters of an hour but he is now on dodgy ground. He wants the House of Lords to keep up the work. I wish him well, but the people who wanted to save the GLC said, "Wait until it gets to the House of Lords. Those independent men and women will stand up for us." What happened? The Prime Minister waved her wand and the Lords all turned up and got rid of the GLC. People said, "Wait until the poll tax gets to the House of Lords. By God, the Lords will make a difference. The SDP and the party that dare not speak its name will band together and stop the poll tax." What happened? Lords turned up from Canada, Scotland and Ireland. Two cousins met in the Lobby and were introduced by the Chief Whip of the Tory party and said "Hello, Charles." They had never met but had turned up to vote to get the poll tax through.
My hon. Friend will fight to the bitter end, but I do not want him to waste his energy. They were going to give us a chuck on with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which was similar to this, and what did we get?—a gnat's whisker. My hon. Friends tried, but we could not get any amendments. My hon. Friend should battle on. but he should not put too much faith in the odd bods in the other place.
Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend is quite right. I never dreamed that my threat had so much weight. However, I want to conclude.
Mr. Cryer: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, who is a man of authority, with many years experience. Before he rushes to his conclusion, could he dwell a little on asset stripping? That is what he is talking about—the seizure of these ports by private interests, and then the selling off of all the lands and assets on which the new owners can get their greedy hands. As a man of the area, he will naturally deeply resent the way that public assets are frittered away by private greed.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have one intervention on top of another. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) will want to respond.
Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right. I have much experience of asset stripping. I used to call them professional enclosures. I used to mix with what was called the high-risk entrepreneurs, who would put their hands in the public purse for grants and loans, and when the time came to repay, would close the shop and go to other countries to open some factories, taking the equipment with them.
There used to be a company in my constituency called Foster Wheelers, which employed a lot of people. Rolls-Royce took it over, and it is now shut. The £15 million worth of defence nuclear orders that we had for many years disappeared, with some of the equipment going to a company in Newcastle called NEI, and some going to Derby. I hear that Parsons is talking of getting rid of 650 men because of the Gulf crisis. That is nonsense. There are not 650 men working out there. It just so happens that Rolls-Royce is working behind the scenes. They call it restructuring and reorganisation.
I have here another question from the minutes. Counsel asked:
"If we had minutes now, we would find nothing until recent times which would suggest that you were disenchanted with your position."
He was referring to the minutes of the authority. Mr. Hackney said, "Yes." The significance of the reference to the minutes is that counsel, who was paid a lot of money for his services, applied to the port authority for a look at the minutes of the undertaking over the previous three years, and was refused. So counsel had to formlate his question in that way to find out when Mr. Hackney and his secretary, and possibly a couple of others, became disenchanted.
I notice that the chairman of the authority has not said a ruddy word. He has been a silent partner—the do-as-you-are-told boy, whose name I do not even know. He was not in the Committee. He thinks that he rules the roost, but he does not. There is a kind of freemasonery working over there. Counsel wanted to get to the meaning of the minutes. He wanted to pinpoint the stage at which there was thought of privatisation. As he could not find that information in the minutes, he had to rely on the word of the chief executive. He asked:
"At what point were you disenchanted with your position?—only recently?"
The chief executive replied:
"That is so."
Question:
"You can carry on Port-related business of every kind under your present powers."
What we have to say to one another in this place must not and does not interfere with our regard for one another, but I say to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, that when the chief executive answered the question, he simply said yes. That appears on page 11 of the second volume of minutes.
Counsel then asked:
"Can development sites anywhere in the country be done, financed and invested in if they contribute to the welfare of the port?"
Mr. Hackney's reply was "Yes". There is no doubt about that answer. He was then asked:
"Could you establish an outpost, if you wished, on the Continent instead of the service between it and the port provided that it benefited the port?"
The answer was yes.
124
The important words are "benefit of the port". As there is a holding company, a successor company and resources generally, surely any operation should be carried out to benefit the port. What is there in the Bill that differs from that?
A member of the committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East—asked a significant question which appears on page 20 of the second volume of minutes. My hon. Friend asked:
"What advice have you received from the Department of Transport?"
This was the answer:
"The Department of Transport advised that the harbour revision route was not a route that the port authority could go down. We were advised by the Government that they would like to pass legislation, but because of the backlog of the legislation business"—
that is the enabling Bill—
"within the House it was unlikely that enabling legislation to enable trust ports to privatise could be passed. We know there was a degree of sympathy."
I have a list of the foreign and domestic traffic in the major ports that is split into five groups.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been in articles for 26 years as a Member of this place. That being so, what is the view of the people of Hartlepool? If anyone knows the answer to the question, it will be my hon. Friend. Should there be a ballot? Should that sort of consultation with the people be organised? The Government talk about ballots for trade unionists and for everybody but themselves, and I should like to know whether steps can be taken and whethere they are in place to draw the people into the argument.
Mr. Leadbitter: Since the town was formed, since it started shipbuilding, since the related trades were established, since the beginning of steelmaking and since the importation of timber—the gamut of activities arising from the coal trade—the people of Hartlepool have had what might be described as a complete link with the port. It was one of the few ports where the public were able freely to walk from the new town of Hartlepool to the then ancient borough of Hartlepool. One was called West Hartlepool and the other Hartlepool. Educationists—I taught more than a quarter of a century ago—were able to take their children through the port and give them lessons about the origin of the ships and their cargoes. There were 4,500 people working on shipbuilding and a further 6,000 working for Richardson and Westgarth. That was more than 10,000 people, and with the related trades there were often as many as 15,000 people working in the port and its surrounding area. There was complete access.
When the Tees and Hartlepool port authority put forward its fancy ideas, footpaths were closed and the shipbuilding work disappeared, as did Richardson and Westgarth. There is hardly any work left, certainly not for that number of people. The authority said that it was dangerous for people to walk through the port. Once a year it carried out its daft notion of closing the remaining parts of the port for a couple of hours. I was there on one such occasion. I was not given access, but after a couple of hours I was told that I could walk through. What a farce. It is an attempt to justify the authority's behaviour. It says, "We have listened to our legal advisers", but some of them could not defend a man against a parking ticket.
Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked the hon. Gentleman an

125
interesting question about a ballot. Will the hon. Gentleman answer? What communications has he received from his constituents either for or against the privatisation measure? Indeed, has he received any correspondence, because I have not?
Mr. Leadbitter: I have been involved with the port for many years—indeed, I was the chief policy witness for the Bill in the House of Commons in 1966. The hon. Gentleman was probably going to school then. I went to school in Hartlepool, and sometimes I played truant. There is a strong affiliation between the public and the port. In fact, the port and the public are synonymous. They belong to each other.
Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman has twice had the opportunity to answer a simple question. How many letters has he received from people in Teesside opposing the privatisation of the port? I am the promoter of the Bill, but I have yet to receive one letter from any trade union official, any trade unionist or anyone other than the two local authorities that are opposed to the Bill. I have not heard from one member of the public.
Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman lives in Langbaurgh, which is about nine or 10 miles from Hartlepool, with a river in between. The hon. Gentleman is living in foreign parts. We are not used to writing to Conservative Members.
Mr. Hardy: A number of hon. Members have referred to the long experience of my hon. Friend and to his deep knowledge of his constituency. Many private Bills have been presented while the Conservative party has been in office, many of which have been harmful to the environment. That is one reason why I am attending this debate. I should be obliged if my hon. Friend could give me some information or offer an opinion on whether there will be any threat to the environment in his constituency if the proposed changes are made and the constraints removed.
Mr. Leadbitter: On 15 March, I referred to the Secretary of State's appointment to the board of an environmental officer. We set a good deal of store by environmental matters in the Teesside area—we are currently involved in a number of issues connected with the environment. It must be borne in mind that we are living in possibly the largest industrial-growth area in Europe—an area that houses petrochemicals, nuclear power, chemical and metallurgical industries and shipping.
According to the Committee, the port authority has made it clear that some 30 per cent. of people employed in the Cleveland area depend on the port for work. Obviously the parameters can move a little, but the port is nevertheless a very important element, which is why we are concerned about its success.
I have here some figures relating to the share of foreign and domestic traffic handled by major ports in the United Kingdom. Associated British Ports is listed, and so are other major company ports, major trust ports and major municipal ports. Not one of the 17 Associated British Ports has obtained a higher percentage of the foreign and domestic trade than Tees and Hartlepool; not one of the nine major company ports obtained the same percentage.
We have already dealt with more than half the ports in the United Kingdom. Of the 10 major trust ports, only one obtained a marginally higher percentage than Tees and
126
Hartlepool, and only one of the major municipal ports obtained a slightly higher share. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is a success—as it is now constituted, that is.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend has demonstrated very effectively that the port is viable, that it is performing fantastically well and that there is therefore no case for change. If that change comes, however, what will be the impact on Hartlepool? It seems that about three quarters of the port's activity—including employment and output—takes place on the Tees. Surely Hartlepool will find itself very much at a disadvantage in the event of privatisation: if investment is made in other areas, it will be the most vulnerable section covered by the authority.
Mr. Leadbitter: That is, indeed, a problem and one that I referred to on 15 March.
An expert witness who appeared before the Committee, an authority on port activity and port-related trade at home and abroad and a qualified consultant—I cannot hold that against him, of course—tried to summarise the implications of the Bill. His assessment made it abundantly clear that there was a poor case for privatisation. He pointed out that, although the port is very successful—the chief executive concedes this—it depends on a narrow base consisting of three or four large companies.
This is a captive trade. It is not a question of competition; the companies have no means of receiving or disposing of their materials and finished goods other than the port. The port is essential to them, and they are essential to it. The whole complex of industrial activity—80 per cent. of which is related to the port—is an important element of the economic welfare of the region; that is why I was so disturbed to hear what that expert witness had to say.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As a member of the Committee, I received about half a dozen letters from members of the public in Cleveland concerning the environmental aspects of Shields sands and the birdlife and other wildlife that exist there. Among them was one from a 10-year-old girl begging me to stop the Bill being passed because she knew that the development would mean Shields sands being lost to nature.
Mr. Bell: Before my hon. Friend concludes what has been a sterling speech, I recall that when he served on the 1966 Committee he was given the promise, which was incorporated into the Bill, that the port of Hartlepool would continue in perpetuity. That undertaking was also given in the Committee on the Bill now before us, and may be reflected in the final legislation. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) know what happened in the past, when the Government promised a golden share to keep companies in the public domain for ever.
We can see a whole scenario developing whereby the new company will end up in private hands in the City. When that stage is reached, how will the port for which my hon. Friend fought so hard in 1988 be kept in public hands in perpetuity?
Mr. Leadbitter: The 1966 Bill was the subject of 18 months of consultation, because its promoters at least displayed courtesy and an understanding that input from various local interests would benefit them. There were, as

127
always, one or two exceptions—pompous, arrogant individuals who thought they knew it all, but who outside their ivory towers were as incompetent as one could find. Some of them came from the list of the good and the great, and felt that they were not accountable to anyone. In Committee, they even had the cheek to say that the port did not belong to anyone. If that was so, what business was it of theirs to be involved in those proceedings?
Some of the debates on the 1966 Bill lasted two or three hours. We were even given special rooms at the Grand hotel so that the public could have their say. That was something quite different. I remember one or two of them sniggering at us. One man said, "You'll never win." That was the way it was. I do not like mentioning names, except when the individuals concerned enter the House and are recorded in the Official Report. Then they are on a hiding to nothing.
I ended my speech on 15 March by indicating that even a guarantee from the company's executives in golden letters would be worthless because they are not in a position to give any guarantee. The sad thing is that when the Bill is passed, those executives have no guarantees about their own jobs.
In Committee, counsel made it clear from the start that the Bill was a piddling little thing in terms of high finance, and that it is all because the promoters want to invest in integrated transport. I have more years' experience of transport than all of them put together. One can never get an integrated transport system in a competitive market. The market can never decide on integrated transport. That is the first lesson that one learns. As to saying it is dear to one's heart—that is trying to take wooing a little too far.
Then the authority talks about putting in two offices, and surely it can do that, but it does not have a plan. Hon. Members might ask the Tees and Hartlepool authority if it has a corporate plan—a strategy for investment in property. If so, what kind of property and where is it? What is the risk element of the venture?
If we want to talk in terms of track record on investment, we should not go to the present Tees and Hartlepool port authority because it does not have a good record. If it has a failure, it says that it will try a rescue operation.
Let us consider all the expense and time the authority has spent trying to side-track parliamentary procedure of enabling legislation—it has been devious and has not told the truth—but in a few weeks from now there will be enabling legislation and the House will be able to scrutinise and examine the Bill in Standing Committee rather than in the way in which we examine private Bills in Committee, with four members. They can work hard and be as diligent as they like, but they are working against the law of diminishing returns—the harder they work, the less result we seem to get. The authority goes on and on misrepresenting, but the question and answer powers that the Minister gave to the House are factual and give it the lie.
Whatever happens to the Bill, if the port is privatised, undeserving people will get full support from people such as myself because we want to make the port work. We are used to doing that because our conduct is always better than the example that we have had to put up with in the past few months.
11.32 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I shall speak briefly to put the Government's case.
As I explained on 15 March, the Government support the underlying principle of the Bill, and I welcome the initiative shown by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority in the proposals in the Bill.
I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). Most of his speech was an outright attack on the management and leadership of the port authority. However, he told us, rightly, how successful the port is and has been in the past few years. One of the reasons for that success is the Nissan car company and the way it operates its business; it exports many cars through the port. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who got the company to go to that area. It has subsequently given a lot of support to the Bill and a lot of custom to the port.
Mr. Leadbitter: It cannot be true that the hon. Gentleman is giving the full credit to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). With great respect, and without wishing to diminish the right hon. Gentleman's reputation—which is beside the point—for the very first time we worked in unity in the northern region with a positive plan to attract Nissan's investment. The northern region succeeded, not the right hon. Member for Chingford.
Mr. McLoughlin: I have obviously touched a raw nerve. I did not mean to do so. I meant merely to suggest how successful the port had been. I did not want to excite the hon. Gentleman.
The Government welcome the port authority's initiative. It will stand the port in good stead. It is no surprise that the Finance Bill contained a clause relating to this matter. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, and as the whole House knows, I made that clear in my speech on 15 March. I said at column 749 that one of the options that we were considering was the inclusion of a provision in the Finance Bill. I am pleased that we were able to do so. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) who first urged trust ports that wished to pursue a private venture to introduce private Bills.
The Bill is particularly important. I wish it well.
11.35 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister was so quick to sit down that one has to conclude that he had had enough of the mood of the House.
In a desperate search for support among the Tory faithful at a recent conference the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government intended to introduce a Bill to privatise trust ports. In doing so, he has made this private Bill wholly redundant. The privatisation of the trust ports should be debated on its merits, though I doubt very much whether Ministers will be able to bring such merits to the attention of the House. I assure them that Labour will vigorously oppose any such measure.
Mr. Devlin: The hon. Lady cannot predict—nor can I, or any other hon. Member—what will be in the Gracious Speech. Even if what she has said were true and such a Bill

129
were to be introduced, would not it be in the interests of the people of Teesside and Hartlepool if our port were to be privatised before the others so that it had a competitive advantage in the marketplace, since it would be in the private sector before the rest? That is probably why her hon. Friends have not received a single letter of protest about the measure.
Ms. Ruddock: I cannot believe that my hon. Friends have not received any letters. Some of them have taken the trouble tonight to say that they have. I have certainly received letters on the topic. People are opposed to the privatisation of this local port. If the hon. Gentleman has such faith in this procedure, he, like everyone else, ought to be willing to wait for a proper debate by the whole House on the privatisation of all trust ports. Then at least a Government Bill would be before us that would afford the House the opportunity properly to examine the case for radically changing the status of around 60 British ports.
Mr. Devlin: Is the hon. Lady saying, therefore, that during the Bill's progress through the House she and her hon. Friends have not had an adequate opportunity to discuss the merits of the Bill? The House has given two formal readings to the Bill and it has been discussed in Committee. We have been kept up late at night upon it so that both sides of the House could put their views at great length. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has just detained us for over an hour. Is she saying that the House has not had an opportunity adequately to discuss the merits of the case? I believe that it has.
Ms. Ruddock: I am saying that the private Bill procedure is inadequate for a proper debate, for proper accountability and for proper decision-taking. I repeat that if the Government and party of the hon. Gentleman had so much faith in their arguments, the Bill would come before the House as a proper Government measure, not in this inadequate and somewhat underhand way.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend contrast a Government Bill, which a Minister would have to explain in perhaps a 20 minute or half-hour speech and pilot through perhaps 20,30 or 40 hours of a Committee's sittings, with the paltry few, fumbling, halting sentences that we heard tonight as a paltry, feeble excuse for ministerial comment, which was less than adequate for any procedures of the House?
Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend admirably makes his own case, which I fully endorse.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There is an additional procedural problem with the Bill, even under the private Bill procedure. No amendments were made in Committee, despite numerous attempts to table them, and therefore there was no Report stage. It is said that an amendment will be moved in the Lords for the new port authority to be based at Cleveland. If such an amendment has been made in Committee, hon. Members could have tabled further amendments and had a fuller discussion, including answers from the Minister on each of the amendments, and we could have had a decent debate on Report. We were not allowed a Report stage because of Whipping in the Committee as well as generally inside the House.
Ms. Ruddock: I am delighted to be able to provide so many opportunities for my hon. Friends to make such important interventions.
130
The trust ports, of which Tees and Hartlepool is one, were set up with Government aid to stimulate the development of industry in their regions. The Tees and Hartlepool port is the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom. We acknowledge its success. It has attracted new business and reinvested the money made in that enterprise. It has been an important source of employment in an area which has been hard hit by unemployment. In short, it is the kind of local undertaking, with a degree of accountability, that is anathema to the Government. They require private shareholders to get their hands on any worthwhile asset, regardless of the consequences for the local interests and for the local community.
Mr. Holt: The hon. Lady said that the existing management is responsible to somebody. To whom is it responsible? After it is privatised, every shareholder will have a say or will be able to ask questions, whereas at present they cannot. Management is not responsible to anybody.
Ms. Ruddock: As my hon. Friends have repeatedly explained, we believe that there is a degree of accountability and involvement of the local authority, the local community and its interests. Provision is made under the trust arrangements for constant reinvestment of the money made by the local enterprise of a port. As has been shown repeatedly by my hon. Friends, removal of trust status will mean that money made in the community will not be returned to it. That is where accountability will be lost. There are no guarantees that privatisation will bring local benefits, more investment or more jobs.
Dock workers have every reason to be suspicious of measures such as this. Last year, we were assured that the abolition of the dock labour scheme would not lead to the return of the notorious cattle market for casual labour, yet all the signs are that it has. In Hull, three managers who were previously employed by Associated British Ports have set up a company and two agencies to employ former employees. They are not prepared to recognise the Transport and General Workers Union, which previously represented those men. In September, all the remaining registered dock workers in Hull were made redundant, as were all but 19 in Bristol and Avonmouth.
Mr. Devlin: What about Teesside?
Ms. Ruddock: I am coming to Teesside.
Furthermore, the taxpayer picked up the bill of £130 million, compared with the Government's prediction of £25 million. That is what privatisation means. The Government are prepared to back any measure at any cost—and to use the taxpayers' money—to give private profits to private individuals.
As my hon. Friends have repeatedly said, the Bill is not an independent private measure but an integral part of the Government's proposals to privatise every part of the ports industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said with such clarity, the Bill is a licence for asset strippers. It does not have the job-creating potential the promoters claim for it.
I shall not take any more of the House's time tonight. The Bill does not deserve the support of the House, and I shall be pleased to join my hon. Friends in opposing it.
11.45 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Bill has already been the subject of a fair amount of discussion in the House and, as we have discussed it, there has been a tendency for new developments to emerge. I shall focus on one of them—the port levy.
From the earliest stage, there has been anxiety, even among friends of mine—the Liberal Democrat councillors on Teesside, who are not opposed in principle to the privatisation of the port—that the resultant company could be subject to takeover and that Teesside might then be controlled by a company that had an interest in suppressing its position in favour of that of a port somewhere else. Those anxieties have not gone away. They cannot be dispelled by guarantees given by the present management or potential management of the port because too much depends on what could happen far into the future. There is to be no golden share—whatever value one attaches to that—and no other procedure whereby a guarantee can be provided. That must be set in the balance against some of the advantages that can flow from the greater commercial freedom that the new ports structure can provide, but it weighs heavily with the Teesside people who are concerned that their port may be taken away from them.
I am not suggesting that the existing trust structure is ideal. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) should have implied that it was so satisfactory. At certain times, the Labour party has thought it very unsatisfactory and has proposed to nationalise all the ports and put them under direct public corporation control. That is not a route which I favour either. But the present structure leaves the port accountable to nobody in particular. I think that there would be a lot more sympathy for the privatisation route if we could be certain that there would be substantial ownership of the port within the local community—on a scale that would make it difficult for the port to be taken over by interests from a long way away.
One of the things that makes that aim more difficult to achieve is the port levy. During our proceedings on the Bill, the Government have introduced a swingeing form of taxation of the privatisation process for which there is no real logical justification. The Government have discovered that there is money in privatisation and, if there is money around, they want it for themselves. It is proposed to claw a large part of the proceeds of privatisation into the Exchequer. That proportion is sometimes described as 50 per cent., but we all know that it is a lot more than that. In answer to my question during the Committee stage on the Finance Bill, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury pointed out that when one adds in the capital gains tax charge, one reaches a tax charge of 67·5 per cent. on the proceeds of privatisation.
That is not the end of the story. If the company disposes of shares in the initial stages at less than market value, it will still have the tax levied upon it at 50 per cent., as if the disposals had been made at market value.
One of the effects of that is that if the company makes special arrangements to ensure that there is a substantial shareholding by local institutions and local individuals or by its own employees, it will be taxed as if it has made those disposals at market value.
Suppose that the new port management decides that the route to follow is that set out by the Government. Let us
132
consider electricity privatisation as an example. Let us suppose that the port authority decided not to take up the ludicrously expensive advertising campaign, but simply adopted the incentives. Suppose it wanted to offer the customers, the local community and the employees advantageous terms for shares, such as bonus shares and special shares, if they are held for a certain period. In all those respects, the authority would increase its liability to tax. The tax that the Government have devised would discourage the port authority from making provision for the maximum ownership of shares by its employees, by the local community and by institutions based in Teesside.
The Government are not merely robbing Teesside of money that should go back to the local community; they are discouraging that community from owning shares in the port. The Government's attitude to employee share ownership schemes is odd. They have provided for only a 3 per cent. stock of employee share ownership, although they have raised the figure from 2 to 3 per cent. in response to criticisms made during proceedings on the Bill. However, in another context Ministers have pointed out that that is a small amount to make the subject for tax relief for employee share ownership schemes.
When speaking about employee share ownership schemes on a different Bill the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
"10 per cent. strikes the right balance, representing as it does a stake large enough to ensure the employees a degree of involvement in the company's affairs, while not being so large as to make the new relief unattractive."—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 960.]
However, in the context of the ports, the Government are allowing for only 3 per cent. They know that 10 per cent. represents a reasonable employee involvement which could have some influence on the company's affairs, but they have made certain that the employees do not get 10 per cent. by limiting the tax relief to 3 per cent. What is the logic of that? If it is a Government objective to encourage employee share ownership at a significant level, why do they not allow the 10 per cent. level to apply to the port? The Government have found another way of discouraging the new port body from distributing its shares to employees.
I believe that the port levy is the most outrageous provision. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has criticised it in the past, but I could find no Conservative Members to support me during proceedings on the Finance Bill to oppose the levy, to try to reduce it to 25 per cent. or to ensure that exemptions were made to it in respect of the various categories of potential shareholders.
Mr. Devlin: This is a very interesting and intricate issue which lies at the centre of the privatisation. There is a legal question: to whom does the port currently belong? That person, body or group of people is entitled to the proceeds. If the port authority as presently constituted is a public body, the Government must be entitled to all the proceeds. That is like saying that if the company's assets are worth £1 million and they are to be offered at £1 million, the company will have a cash injection of £1 million thus doubling its asset value. By taxing at 50 per cent., the Government are trying to sell an asset for the amount that it is actually worth without putting in a massive capital injection which would mean that the shareholder was paying £1 for a £2 asset.
Mr. Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been got at by the Whips. During earlier stages of the Bill he was rather more robust in his criticism of these proceedings.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that no one owns the port. Legally that is true, but that does not mean that the Government own it either. If the same principle had been applied to the Trustee Savings Bank, the Government would have seized the entire proceeds of the bank's disposal. However, they knew that panic would have set in if they took over the proceeds. It is ludicrous to pretend that money that is already in the port and which everyone assumes is there for the port and its development somehow belongs to the Government and can be removed by them.
That is not the argument that was advanced in proceedings on the Finance Bill. The argument was that, over the years, the Government had made a significant investment in the port of Tees and Hartlepool and that they should get some return on that investment. They will be getting a pretty grand return on the investment if they get the kind of money that they expect to get from the 50 per cent. levy. I simply cannot accept the argument that the Government are somehow entitled to 100 per cent. There is a legal judgment on which is based the conclusion that it is not the Government who own the port but the state—in this case a rather diffuse concept that again does not give any moral entitlement to the central Exchequer to claim the benefits of the privatisation of the port.
Who, after all, should have the benefit of privatisation? Surely the local community in which the port is situated should have it. The local community has to maintain and build roads around the port. The local community has to cope with the additional traffic in and out of the port areas. Over the years the local community has invested in the port, both financially and through the hard work and effort of all the people of Teesside and Hartlepool who have worked in the port. The industries and activities of the areas have made the port what it is. If there were no industries in the areas using the port, it would not have had the success that it has enjoyed so far.
The Government do not have that moral case. They are actually taking out of the port a much larger share than 50 per cent., and they are doing it in a way that will make it less likely than ever that the ownership of the port will be transferred to the people of Teesside and Hartlepool.
I want also to refer to what was said at the Conservative party conference about port privatisation and the future. There seemed to be some suggestion that we are talking about leaks of the Queen's Speech and things that are uncertain. It may be that what the Secretary of State says has an element of uncertainty about it, for reasons more related to his potential tenure of office than anything else. However, he said:
"Many of our great ports are Trust Ports. Many of them want to expand, diversify and develop. And they want to be privatised."
Quite how those bodies that nobody owns could have wants and feelings of that kind I am not sure, but, according to the Secretary of State, they want to be privatised. He went on:
"And I am delighted to announce today that within the next year they'll be free to be privatised."
I make it quite clear that this is enabling legislation and that no trust port authority will be required to take the route to privatisation. I wonder whether the Minister can offer me any guidance on that point. Several Opposition
134
Members have talked about enabling legislation, but that is not what the Minister said. It can be interpreted in that way. He says that they will be free not to be privatised. If we do not pass the Bill tonight, will the Tees and Hartlepool port be able to say, "We do not think that we will go ahead. We have looked again at the figures and we have decided that the Government are raiding the till to such a massive extent that we will wait until they think again and perhaps reconsider privatisation under future legislation when we can get rid of that absurd levy" Will the port be free not to be privatised? The Minister's smile does not tell me anything at all, so I encourage him to intervene.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it would be quite inappropriate for me to speculate on what may be in the Queen's Speech, and therefore I cannot do so.
Mr. Beith: I certainly would not wish the Minister to do that, but I thought that he could offer me some commentary on what the Secretary of State said. I thought that he, as the Minister responsible for ports, would have been told what the Secretary of State meant when he said that next year they will be free to be privatised. I shall certainly want to challenge the Minister if he comes along next year and says, "Folks, you have to be privatised," because that is not what I understand to be freedom. It might be what the Government understand to be freedom, but freedom to do what one is told is not what I understand to be freedom.
There remains a certain lack of clarity about future intentions, but it is perfectly clear that, if the Bill goes ahead and the port of Tees and Hartlepool is privatised, the central Exchequer will rob Teesside and Hartlepool of a great deal of money which should be invested in the local community. That tips the balance quite decisively against giving the Bill a Third Reading.
11.59 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was kind enough to mention the Committee stage of the Finance Act 1990, on which he obviously served, and referred to some of the Minister's statements to persuade the Committee to accept the new clause which provided that 50 per cent. of the assets of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority should go to the Exchequer. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Committee had been told that the Government had made a substantial investment in the port and that it was therefore quite proper for the Government to take 50 per cent.
In that context, I should like to quote from what the Minister for Aviation and Shipping said on 15 March:
"Admittedly it is a long time since such grants were paid to the THPA, and the amounts were small; but the grants were paid about 20 years ago towards investment projects in the port, and some of those assets are still in use. There is a general rule that, when assets acquired or improved by a non-Exchequer body with the aid of Government grants are disposed of, an appropriate proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer.—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 749.]
If the Government make a small investment in a port authority and then, 20 years later, ask for 50 per cent. of the assets, which, with capital gains, amounts to 67·5 per cent., we are talking about nothing short of daylight robbery. When it was first proposed that the THPA should

135
be privatised, and when the THPA executive took on board the suggestion of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), it was not told—at any stage—that the Government would take 50 per cent. of the assets or that capital gains tax would also be deducted.
It therefore came as a shock when the Minister made that statement on 15 March. It came as a bigger shock in Committee when the Treasury counsel, or a Treasury representative, announced that, in addition to the 50 per cent., there would also be the capital gains tax to take into account. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has said, 67·5 per cent. of the profits will be taken immediately out of the pockets of the port authority and its people.
We have had a great discussion tonight, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), on the proposed shareholding. We have also had a great debate about whether the shares or the trust port itself belong to the local community. A number of curious statements have been made by Mr. John Hackney and Mr. Charles Wellington about what will happen to the shares, who will be their ultimate owners, and whether there will be a stock market flotation. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool how we could guarantee the perpetuity of the port at Hartlepool if the shares belong to unknown people, if they were held by unseen hands, and if we cannot even guarantee the future of the site of the headquarters. Although it was agreed in Committee that the site should be in Cleveland, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has pointed out that Cleveland may not exist for much longer. It may well disappear and become North Yorkshire, which the hon. Gentleman said was his ardent desire. What sort of promise is being made when people talk about having the headquarters in Cleveland when Cleveland itself may not exist? What kind of promise is it to say that the port of Hartlepool will exist in perpetuity when we do not know who the shareholders are?
I refer now to the story that appeared in the business news section of The Daily Telegraph on 19 October, which stated:
"A last ditch attempt to halt the privatisation and subsequent stock market flotation of Britain's third largest port will be made in the Commons tonight."
It was ahead of itself, but it referred to the subsequent stock market flotation. How does that statement square with the statement of Mr. Charles Wellington, the secretary of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, in the Evening Gazette on Thursday 18 October, the day before? He wrote:
"May I please correct your recent editorial Steam Ahead regarding shares in the THPA's privatisation. Our shares will be offered to the following:
All our 800 staff without distinction between management and others; all our pensioners and pension fund; the pension fund of the local authorities; the pension funds of our major users."
The next paragraph is significant. It says:
"That spreads the shares as widely as possible. If we went further we would need a general flotation. That would open us to takeover from the start."
What is one to make of that contradiction? Are we to understand that there is to be no stock market quotation because it is afraid of predators, the City boys, the takeover boys to whom my hon. Friend the Member for
136
Hartlepool referred? Of course, there would be nothing to prevent—certainly we have heard of nothing so far—those workers, pensioners and local pension funds selling their shares to the highest bidder and thus the management of Tees and Hartlepool losing control. That is exactly what Opposition Members have consistently warned against ever since privatisation was mooted.
The article in The Daily Telegraph included a photograph of Mr. John Hackney, the chief executive of Tees and Hartlepool port authority, who was reported as saying:
"We want to be in the private sector."
However, according to Mr. Wellington, the authority does not want a stock market quotation because those nasty bogey men called the whiz kids could take its shares from it. Yet everyone knows that the ultimate of a private company is one that is quoted on the stock exchange. The purpose of a company being on a stock exchange is to raise money through share issues for more investment. I presume that in years to come the Tees and Hartlepool port authority would not be interested in further financing itself through so-called junk bonds.
While Mr. Wellington said that there would be no stock market flotation, Mr. John Hackney told Mr. John Petty of The Daily Telegraph:
"Stock market flotation would come three to five years after privatisation."
There we have it. That was just the time that Mr. Wellington said that workers would have to hold on to their shares for them to gain in value. Did Mr. Wellington think that that increase in value would come about through a stock market flotation? Perhaps he did not want that to appear in the local evening paper. Who should be brought up under the trades description legislation? Are the shares of the Tees and Hartlepool to be quoted on the stock exchange or not? Will they be traded on the big board or over the counter? The secretary of the Tees and Hartlepool says no but the chief executive says yes. Of course, when one starts to give interviews to the unsuspecting press, it hardly matters what one says, for the journalists will write it down and repeat it anyway.
In the same interview with Mr. Petty, Mr. Hackney said:
"We want to be in the private sector, ready to welcome other ports into it."
Can you imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker? The local press has been bombarded with stories about the terrible Labour Members of Parliament who are letting down the area because they are preventing Tees and Hartlepool from being the first trust port to be privatised. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said just that in an interview with Tyne Tees Television. But all that Mr. Hackney wants to do is to open the door for privatisation, to put out the welcoming mat, to grab it warmly, I presume, by the throat. What is the nonsense about wanting to be there to welcome the other ports?
In effect, Mr. Hackney is saying that Tees and Hartlepool wants to be first through the door so that it can beat the others to it, gain an advantage and be rewarded for carrying out Government policy before the Government. It wants to be first so that it can divest itself of any intention to invest in Tees and Hartlepool and can invest elsewhere in Britain and on the continent. Mr. Petty, of The Daily Telegraph, was right when he predicted that Conservative Members were expected to stay late to ensure that the Bill was approved and sent to the other place for

137
further consideration. The Opposition will certainly see that Conservative Members are kept up late on Third Reading. It will be given a Third Reading only with the help of the payroll vote. That is hardly surprising because the Minister for Aviation and Shipping said on Second Reading that he would vote for the Bill. He did support it, and so did his colleagues.
Labour has had one success in its efforts to oppose privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority because Opposition Members have forced the Government to cease corrupting the private Bill procedure. That will ensure that the Gracious Speech will contain a provision for the privatisation of all the trust ports by way of public rather than private Bills. We have had some small success in modifying Government tactics.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to draw the Minister's attention to the question whether there would be enabling legislation to permit all our trust ports to go private if they wished or whether the legislation would be such that the ports would be obliged to go private. The heart of the matter is that the Treasury is the guiding force behind this privatisation. It has seen that there is about £50 million worth of assets in Tees and Hartlepool and knows that it can take 67·5 per cent. of that. It knows that there must be about £200 million worth of assets in the trust ports and that on privatisation those assets can be taken over by the Government. Everyone knows that the Government are trying to get their hands on every possible penny before a general election year, and £200 million would be very handy. Again, we come back to ideology and the Treasury and to the idea of taking money from local communities.
Labour Members are modest, but the Treasury knows a good thing when it sees it. It does not need to watch "Howard's Way" to see how Jan Howard can be ripped off by a local con man because the Government are capable of such rip offs. Having lifted 50 per cent. of the assets of Tees and Hartlepool, they will lift the other 27·5 per cent. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed knows, in this Session the Government had to modify the Finance Bill so that they could take that 50 per cent. It was done with a private Bill and an amendment to the Finance Bill, which means that the Government are obliged to take the public Bill route and present enabling legislation.
The Government were able to lift half the assets of the Tees and Hartlepool authority because of the incompetence of a management which sought to privatise the port before all the others and was not aware of the Government's intention to take half the money. As I have said, the other ports may be in a situation similar to that of the Trustee Savings bank. On Second Reading the Minister said that that bank was different from trust ports because there had been no Government investment. There was no Government hand in the till and therefore the Government were not able to take money out. Perhaps the trust ports that they propose to privatise will not have had even modest Government investment because in 1981 the Government ended investment in the trust ports. The Government are trying to get their hands on trust port money, but they may find that the money is not there. The Daily Telegraph article implied that the Treasury had changed its position, and was no longer interested in whether taxpayers' money had been invested as an excuse to take 50 per cent. of the money raised through the sale of trust ports assets.
138
The interview given by Mr. Hackney shows a change of position, which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed might notice and seize upon as significant. The article shows that, whereas in the past the Treasury has had its hand in the till because money has been invested by the taxpayer, in future the simple fact of privatisation will lead the Government to take 50 per cent. of the assets of a trust port, whether or not there has been an investment. Thus, the Government are clawing back money for the Treasury.
Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend will bear in mind that no Minister for Aviation and Shipping can make a statement about a 50 per cent. stake without saying something else. When analysing any statement, an obvious question is why? The answer by the Minister was that the Government had given grants. Perhaps my hon. Friend will develop this point. A grant is a grant. I did not know that it was a qualification for taking back the proceeds of the sale of a company or trust port.
Mr. Bell: I take my hon. Friend's point. That did not happen to companies such as Courtaulds in County Durham, which took a lot of grant money from the Government to open a plant, but when it closed it, took the machinery and moved it to another plant. We are not aware that the Government asked that company for the grant money to be returned. Again, we see the long fingers of the Treasury in the till.
The Daily Telegraph article on the interview with Mr Hackney said:
"Still at balance is the Government's plan to claw in up to 85 per cent. of total flotation income by applying capital gains tax as well."
If we take Mr. Hackney's scenario of the trust port going first into the hands of the pension funds, then to flotation on the stock market, the Government will take even more money—up to 85 per cent. of the assets of the port authority. The article also tells us:
"A consortium will be set up to buy the port from a trust being formed to hold it on privatisation. It would be a mixture of staff, management, local pension funds and city institutions. Tees and Hartlepool are being advised by Rothschilds as the financial adviser."
If we read carefully the statements of Mr. Wellington and Mr. Hackney, we see that they are not mutually exclusive or self-contradictory. Mr. Wellington's statement in the Evening Gazette is true as far as it goes, but Mr. Hackney unveils for us the rest of the truth—that a stock market flotation is planned and will take place three to five years after privatisation.
There we have it. The port authority will be privatised if the Government get their way, and this is a Government measure, as we have said time and again. Its shares will then be distributed among pension funds and local employees. The hon. Member for Stockton, South asked how many jobs with the port authority had been lost on Teesside since the dock labour scheme had been abolished. I told the House in December 1989 that some 130 jobs had been lost on Teesside, and 70 in Hartlepool. We were talking then of about 200 job losses. It is curious to offer to give shares to members of the work forces when 200 of them have been made redundant and when others have replaced some of those who invested a lifetime of work in the local docks, in the dock labour scheme, on behalf of local communities.
There are no guarantees that we can ensure that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority will maintain its

139
pre-eminence as a port on the Tees and in Hartlepool once it has fallen into the hands of a conglomerate. I shall mention one for the sake of providing an example, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. Assuming that a company such as P and O gets its hands on the THPA, where will investment moneys go? Will the headquarters stay in Cleveland? Will the port continue to thrive, or will it go steadily downhill if investment is taken elsewhere?
I would not like to leave Mr. Petty of The Daily Telegraph without a parting glance at the advertising copyist's pen. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was robust in his language when he referred to some of the statements made by Tees and Hartlepool representatives. Mr. Petty stated:
"London is the biggest port because it handled 54 million tonnes of cargo last year. It was followed by Sullom Voe oil port in the Shetlands with 41 million tonnes compared with 38 million tonnes for Tees and Hartlepool."
That is the crushing journalese that we might expect from those who listen with care to the statements of the THPA. If oil is excluded, Tees and Hartlepool becomes the second port after London. If oil is excluded from Sullom Voe—it is an oil terminal that imports nothing but oil—I am sure that Tees and Hartlepool will take a higher place in the league. Of course, that is not the sort of argument that would appeal to journalists in the course of interviews.
I am glad to see the Minister for Aviation and Shipping in his place. He is a modest man and—
Mr. Cryer: He has much to be modest about.
Mr. Bell: Since he entered the House as a result of a by-election, he has enjoyed a swift rise to the Government Front Bench to ministerial status. We have followed with care the statements that he has made, with much modesty, on the Bill. I have referred to some of them.
We have always known that the Bill is a public and not a private measure. It is to the Minister's credit that he has persuaded the Secretary of State for Transport that there should be enabling legislation for all the ports. Ministers should not try to hide behind the cloak of secrecy that covers the Gracious Speech. Many Ministers have told us that they would not like to reveal the contents of a Gracious Speech, and that is because they would not wish to offend the Prime Minister. There was, however, the promise last year that there would be a children Bill. The Secretary of State for Social Services looked askance at the Prime Minister as the right hon. Lady sat next to him, but said, "I could not give a promise but I believe that we might look for legislation to be outlined in the Gracious Speech."
The Secretary of State for Transport made a significant announcement at the Tory party conference. There was even greater glory—Tees and Hartlepool have come a long way—when the Prime Minister said, before her 14-minute standing ovation, that the Government would privatise the trust ports. She did not say whether all of them would be privatised or only those with assets that the Government could take. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping should not be too modest in his presentation.
I shall deal briefly with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh on Second Reading. What has happened to THPA Distribution and Services Ltd. and
140
THPA Developments Ltd.? We have not heard a squeak from the hon. Gentleman about those companies this evening. However, he said on 15 March:
"The creation of the new companies is one of the first practical steps towards creating new wealth and jobs in the north-east."—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 734.]
That was another bit of parliamentary newspeak—an expansive statement about new jobs and new wealth for the north-east.
What has happened since Second Reading? Have we heard any more about those companies? What are they doing? I understand that when those questions were put in Committee the answers showed that there was not even a plan of action for those companies. It was the creation of yet another media event. The message is the medium or the medium is the message. News is made, but jobs and investments are not. Statements are made about jobs and investments and, suddenly, Tees and Hartlepool become greater ports.
The hon. Gentleman was also right when he said on Second Reading that the number of people employed by the authority had steadily declined. I have no idea why the hon. Member for Stockton, South—who rapidly left the Chamber once it reached midnight—asked how many jobs had been lost.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: It is important to put on the record that not only have there been job losses, but since the employment of contract workers an increasing number of workers have come to my surgery with problems of compensation for accidents.
Mr. Bell: That is an important and sad statement. In a speech on a motion for the Adjournment in December 1989 I referred to the fine health and safety record of the port authority. If one of the consequences of these changes, and the fact that the dock labour scheme has been abolished, is a fall from the high standard that we have come to expect, it will be a sad day for those working at the docks and for the contractors.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh also spoke on Second Reading of a cash injection of many millions of pounds into the local economy. He said that that would have a knock-on effect, creating a host of jobs in the construction, transport, leisure and other industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) cannot be here tonight because of ill health, but he put the kibosh on that bit of parliamentary-speak when he pointed out that the port authority had been investing in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber, importing, transport, display signs, storage, security, fencing and engineering. None of that has been denied.
I wrote to the Minister asking for an inquiry into the affairs of the port authority. He had a lengthy consideration of the issues that I raised, but reached the conclusion that there were no grounds for an inquiry. What does that tell us? It is that the port authority was acting properly when it made investments in property, finance, aviation, air travel and so on. It had the power, so it did not need to come to the House to privatise the port. The powers existed and the investments were made. I went through every one of them with a fine-tooth comb on Second Reading.
Mr. Leadbitter: It is not only a case of the power being there. My hon. Friend may recall that, in my speech, I referred to the holding company: under the Bill, it will have financial control.
Here is a proposition. Investors may make a large-scale investment in the port, with a long-term payback and the prospect of a smaller financial return; or they may make a short-term investment with a quick payback and higher profitability. What would they decide? That is the difference; that is where the port will lose out under the new system.
Mr. Bell: How many companies over the past 11 years have taken the Tory route to easy investment—as they perceived it—borrowing from the banks to advance themselves by moving from hotels to property, construction or some other business, and then going down the Swanee? We have seen three examples on Teesside alone of substantial firms—involved in, for instance, construction work, and knowing what they were doing—being lured by the Tory philosophy of quick profit, investing in property and finding that they could not make ends meet. They have lost out, brought in the administrator and shed labour, leaving work that had to be finished by other firms.
We are seeing the lure of quick profit again now: wherever that profit may be—whether it is in the south of England or in Amsterdam—that is where Tees and Hartlepool proposes to invest. The idea of investing in the ports and building them up will be deemed of secondary importance.
Mr. Leadbitter: Which is more likely to be successful—a port authority whose objective is to look after a port's operations and maintenance—that is, the port of itself—or a port within a group of other interests, a group that may invest unfortunately and lose out? Will a port's chances be lessened if it is part of a group in which other interests and decisions are involved, and will they be increased if it is a port authority of itself? The answer is obvious—except, of course, to the chief executive.
Mr. Bell: As my hon. Friend has said, we must return to the question of accountability. To whom is the present trust port accountable? We know where its priority lies: its priority is the port, and that is where its investment is directed. If its accountability is redirected to its shareholders, what will happen to the port?
I had a chat with a very senior bank manager the other day. He said, "In my youth we lent money against proper security, and we got a return on it. Now we are obliged to invest to keep up with the competition: we have to show a return on that investment, and it does not much matter what the security is." If a port authority is answering to shareholders who want a quick buck—another phrase imported from the United States—its interest in the port will be diminished still further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, in his lucid speeches, made points that have escaped members of the THPA who think that they are involved in a new vogue, "Privatise and be damned". And that, indeed, will be the consequence of privatisation.
Opposition Members have said time and again that there are adequate powers for the THPA to invest locally, expand locally and take all the action that would keep it on the local map, and also enable it to retain all those who
142
work in the port and in the subsidiary industries mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam).
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that it was a myth that reconstituting the port would prevent a local say in the way that it is run. Can the hon. Member tell the House whether the company will eventually be quoted on the stock exchange? Does he share Mr. Wellington's view that it will not be quoted, or Mr. Hackney's view that it will? If it is to be quoted on the stock exchange, will the local community have a say in how the port is run? The existing committee includes trade union representatives in the form of dock workers, as well as local council representation. In that way, the local community can oversee the running of the port.
In his Second Reading speech, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh mentioned that the trust port dated back to 1808. None of us wants to be caught in a time warp, but the hon. Gentleman described how members of the local community, including four women—so it seems that the north-east was in the forefront in women's rights even in 1808—had the interests of the port at heart.
Mr. Holt: I highlighted those four ladies not because they exercised their own rights but had duties imposed upon them, as riparian owners of part of the port authority. When the king wanted to ensure that the estuary was kept clear, he instructed those owning the land on each side to keep it free. The four ladies that I mentioned happened to be among those who owned land on the Tees at that time.
Mr. Bell: That was a simple coincidence or a matter of convenience.
Mr. Holt: It is a matter of fact.
Mr. Bell: Nevertheless, women's rights were being advanced in the north-east as long ago as 1808. I suppose it was a proper response for a Tory Member to explain that, if women had any rights in those days, they were based on their riparian interests.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) suggested that the authority's commercial headquarters should remain within the area. However, that amendment does not appear in the Bill.
Incidentally, I am glad to see present in the Chamber at least two Labour Members of the Committee, but hard as I look, I cannot see any of the Conservative Members who sat on the Committee. I have no idea what has happened to them.
Mr. Cryer: Is it not disgraceful that the Chairman of the Committee has not turned up either, especially given that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) so often used his casting vote against amendments? By contrast, Labour Members of the Committee remain sufficiently interested to follow the Bill's progress in this Chamber.
Mr. Bell: As my hon. Friend said, the Chairman of the Committee represents constituency interests on the Isle of Wight, which are rather divorced from those of Teesside. When it was put to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) that members of the Committee should visit Teesside and Hartlepool and the port, and benefit from local input, the Chairman declined and refused to allow the Committee to make an official visit of that kind. It is

143
the regular practice of many Committees to visit the location in question on any Bill, but on this occasion that was not allowed. Members of the Committee were instead compelled to make an unofficial visit, at the risk of having to offer the House an explanation for their action—but at least the THPA was able to provide the necessary facilities to enable that visit to take place.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Committee record shows that the initial vote on the proposal that it should visit the Tees and Hartlepool port was 2:2. Discussions led up to that vote. Hon. Members had different views about the necessity of the visit, and that was legitimate, but the casting vote should have been used by the Chair for the good of the Committee. It was obvious that my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and I were insistent that a visit should take place, and that it would be disruptive to the Committee if the casting vote was not used to allow such a visit. However, the Chairman refused to use his casting vote in such a way and that caused disruption to the Committee for about nine weeks.
Mr. Bell: Those people who say that the Labour Opposition have delayed the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House should take note of the points that my hon. Friend has just made. That delay need not have happened if there had been a common sense approach in Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may recall that the hon. Member for Tynemouth, who had come to support the hon. Member for Langbaurgh on Second Reading, suggested that the commercial headquarters of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority should stay in the area. That amendment is not on the face of the Bill tonight. We have not had a Report stage, on which that amendment, had it been made properly, could have been debated because there is no such amendment—there is merely an undertaking that that will be incorporated in the other place.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the criticism of the Bill that it was effectively a Government measure, since they did not have time to make a public Bill of the privatisation, and had urged the promoters to take the private Bill route, thus corrupting parliamentary proceedings.
It is true that, within the framework of private Bills, there was nothing hybrid or public about the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, but the then Minister for Aviation and Shipping said on Second Reading that the Government intended to privatise all such ports but they did not have the time. So that we may understand that we are discussing a Government Bill, I shall quote the Minister for Aviation and Shipping who stated:
"We believe that there are advantages in the main commercial trust ports being transformed into companies. So far we have not been able to make room ourselves for the legislation needed to bring about such a change. Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have promoted their own private measures."—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 105.]
We have already covered this ground in points of order made on Second Reading. I do not propose to labour them tonight.
I raised the second issue earlier as I wished to draw it to the attention of the House, and you said that I could mention it in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In
144
Committee on which my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East and for Blyth Valley sat, the promoters accepted two proposals made by the Committee: first, an undertaking that would be incorporated in the Bill, and, secondly, a promise which would not be incorporated. The undertaking was that the headquarters of the successor company should remain on Teesside. That is not in the Bill. The promise was that there would be a share option scheme for employees. We have only the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's word on that, as it will not be incorporated in the legislation.
Because of assurances given by the promoter, the amendment on the Teesside headquarters was not referred back to the Floor of the House so that there could be an appropriate Report stage. When a Committee considers a Bill that has been referred to it by the House, and when it requires amendment, there is an obligation on the Committee to refer it back to the whole House. I prayed in aid during my earlier point of order the wording of a recent special report by the Committee that considered the King's Cross Bill. It said:
"We are quite clear that if a House of Commons committee considers that a Bill referred to it stands in need of amendment, then it is the duty of that committee to make that amendment."
That was not the case in this instance. Again there was corruption of the procedures of the House and a disregard for hon. Members whose duty it is to scrutinise legislation, whether it be Committee work, or a private Bill, or a public Bill.
It is also our duty to scrutinise Select Committee work. Our duty is to hold Ministers of the Crown, and even Committee chairpersons, accountable. We were not given that opportunity because the procedure used was clearly designed to avoid having a Report stage. The House ought to draw attention to that time and again.
I said earlier that our democracy is diminished by a thousand small cuts, not by a frontal attack either by the Government or by Ministers. It is diminished by a variety of small cuts of the kind that are evident here. One thing is said in the Finance Bill Committee about how much money has come to the authority; another thing is then said by the Minister—that very little money has come to it.
The Tees and Hartlepool assets stood at £52·508 million—a hefty sum of money for any trust port. The Opposition say that it should stay within the community. Therefore, this Third Reading ought not to take place and the Bill ought not to be passed. We ought not to have to go through this laboured exercise of privatising the port.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) mentioned the number of jobs that were lost following the demise of the national dock labour scheme. About 3,800 jobs have been lost in the docks industry since privatisation. The structure within which workers had security has been replaced by the market free-for-all.
In his short speech the hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that there had been lengthy scrutiny of the legislation. There was proper scrutiny in Committee. Again, I commend my hon. Friends who served on it. I commend also the local authorities that opposed the Bill from the beginning. Spurious points were made by the hon. Members for Langbaurgh and for Stockton, South about how many letters had been received. They did not take into account, however, the objections of Langbaurgh borough council, Hartlepool borough council, Stockton borough

145
council, Cleveland county council and the Transport and General Workers Union. All those councils were duly elected to represent their constituents and to act in their best interests. The Transport and General Workers Union has a vested interest on behalf of its workers who worked, and who still work, in the docks.
From the very beginning there has been a great deal of opposition to the Bill. I personally regret that Middlesbrough borough council did not add its voice, in the sense of petitioning against the Bill in Committee. It passed a motion objecting to it, but that was not sufficient. It ought to have followed up its objections with a properly-lodged petition.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that the head office would always be located in Cleveland, even if it becomes North Yorkshire and even if there is a change of Government. The Opposition believe in regional assemblies. We believe in a regional assembly for the north. Cleveland county council may become part of that assembly and Cleveland may become Yorkshire and Durham again. Where would that leave the port authority's location on Teesside?
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh referred to considerable interest in the fact that 10 days ago a roll-on/roll-off service had been inaugurated with Hamburg. He did not say that it could have been inaugurated at any time in the history of the trust ports without a private Bill and without privatisation. The eastern European market to which he referred could have been developed without any of the procedures that we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh mentioned the clear undertakings that had been given, but I challenge the possibility of them being kept in the many years that lie ahead. Following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I referred to the clear undertakings given from the Dispatch Box for other companies such as Jaguar and BP and for the golden share. Guarantees of Government control have been given for a host of companies whenever a statement has been made, but when an offer has been made by British Aerospace or anyone else those undertakings have been eroded and discarded.
Mr. Holt: It is not so long ago that the House received a deputation of Indians from Canada, who brought with them the parchment that had been signed by a British colonel on behalf of the King when he granted lands in perpetuity to Canadian Indians in the 1700s. That was signed in good faith, but time moves on. The undertakings that were given by the port authority and I were given in good faith. No one can speak of what will happen in 200 or 300 years' time.
Mr. Bell: I have seen Mr. John Hackney, the chief executive, in many lights but not as a British colonel in the Army serving in Canada 200 years ago. We must look after our constituents, but even we do not look 200 or 300 years ahead. We look three or five years ahead, by which time Mr. Hackney tells us the company will be privatised. If the company is to be floated on the stock exchange within three to five years, we have a right to ask how valid the undertakings are. How cart we be sure that the headquarters will be based in Cleveland, and how can we be sure that investment will be made?
146
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh used his opportunity of speaking on Third Reading to criticise the attitude of Cleveland Labour Members to the Teesside steel industry. He said that only he and the hon. Member for Stockton, South asked questions about the Teesside steel industry. I sat on the Bill to privatise the steel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and I are aware of British Steel's investment in Teesside. We do not have to make spurious points when investment is forthcoming or say, "We are the ones who asked questions on the Floor of the House." We can get our assurances, make our points and get investment privately. We do not have to make media events from what will happen.
We knew, and we work to keep it this way, that the Teesside plant would be successful. From whom was it under attack? It was from the Tory Government of 1979 onwards. My memory goes back to when two blast furnaces were ordered for Redcar because demand was going to be so great. We built the Kielder dam to supply water from Northumberland right through to Teesside for those two plants. It was a Tory Government who decided that—
Mr. Holt: It was Lord Rippon.
Mr. Bell: It was decided by Geoffrey Rippon because it was feared that there would be a drought in 1976 or 1977. I shall not digress too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was certainly a Tory Government—the Government elected in 1979—who scuppered the second blast furnace and the second steel mill. That meant that we had to concentrate on one steel mill. We know who to hold responsible for that episode.
Ms. Mowlam: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Opposition Members are interested in the long-term industrial development of Teesside—strategic development with secondary and tertiary industries feeding off our main industries. We are not interested in what Conservative Members constantly indulge in—cheap points intended to get media coverage. The work put in by county and district councils and by other bodies in the area has been towards long-term investment, and that is what we want, having lost 43,000 jobs in the past 10 years not only in the docks generally but at British Shipbuilders, at Smith's Dock and in the dismantling of ICI and British Steel.
I should also like briefly to reinforce the point about individual shareholders—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady is both too long and too wide.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, and has encompassed, in a short period and very succinctly, the points that I have laboured to make. Those of us who have the interests of Teesside at heart, especially in relation to the steel mill, are not obliged to come to the House and make statements about how much we have done. We know that long-term investment is the result of many consultations over many months and years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was perfectly right to say that the Government have not been neutral. We suspect that they are not even being neutral tonight and that the payroll vote may be called in to secure Third Reading. Judging by the effervescence that is in evidence in the Chamber, those who constitute the payroll

147
vote are coming back after a sojourn in more clement and favourable surroundings than one is likely to find in the House. As I said earlier, the Minister said that he would be voting for the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool referred to the private Bill procedure and to the amount of money that had been spent on the Midland Metro Bill, which we discussed earlier. We have not been told just how much money the THPA has spent on this exercise. I estimate that another £1 million-worth of the trust ports' money has been spent in connection with the Bill—whether on hiring new press officers to put out lovely press statements in The Daily Telegraph telling us about the stock market flotation or on hiring bankers such as Rothschild, who no doubt have a strong interest in the ports of Tees and Hartlepool, or simply in terms of the amount of time that has been spent. I am sure that all that will add up to £1 million.
The Government are to take 67·5 per cent. Add to that a further £1 million and bear in mind the fact that the THPA already has the power to do what it will with its assets and one wonders why we have got ourselves into this intellectual and ideological bind—
Mr. Holt 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 127, Noes 28.

Division No. 328]

[12.59 am

AYES

Amess, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arbuthnot, James

Forth, Eric

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Freeman, Roger

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Gale, Roger

Atkins, Robert

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Goodlad, Alastair

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Grist, Ian

Baldry, Tony

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Harris, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hind, Kenneth

Boswell, Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Holt, Richard

Bowis, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

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

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Burns, Simon

Jack, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Jackson, Robert

Butcher, John

Janman, Tim

Butler, Chris

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Butterfill, John

Key, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Chapman, Sydney

Kirkhope, Timothy

Chope, Christopher

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Lang, Ian

Conway, Derek

Lawrence, Ivan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Cope, Rt Hon John

Lightbown, David

Couchman, James

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Curry, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Day, Stephen

Maclean, David

Devlin, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dorrell, Stephen

Malins, Humfrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mans, Keith

Eggar, Tim

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fallon, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mellor, David

148

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Stern, Michael

Needham, Richard

Stevens, Lewis

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Summerson, Hugo

Page, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Paice, James

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Thurnham, Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Trippier, David

Portillo, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Redwood, John

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Waller, Gary

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wheeler, Sir John

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Wood, Timothy

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Yeo, Tim

Ryder, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sayeed, Jonathan

Miss Ann Widdecombe and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. William Hague.

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

NOES

Armstrong, Hilary

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Beith, A. J.

McWilliam, John

Bell, Stuart

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Marek, Dr John

Cryer, Bob

Michael, Alun

Cummings, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dalyell, Tam

Pike, Peter L.

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

Prescott, John

Dixon, Don

Ruddock, Joan

Flynn, Paul

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Turner, Dennis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Leadbitter, Ted

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Kevin Barron, and

McCartney, Ian

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The house dividied: Ayes 127, Noes 27.

Division No. 329]

[1.11 am

AYES

Amess, David

Cope, Rt Hon John

Arbuthnot, James

Couchman, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Curry, David

Arnold, Sir Thomas

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

Atkins, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Devlin, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Dorrell, Stephen

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Eggar, Tim

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fallon, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Freeman, Roger

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

Gale, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Burns, Simon

Goodlad, Alastair

Burt, Alistair

Grist, Ian

Butcher, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Butler, Chris

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carrington, Matthew

Hind, Kenneth

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Chapman, Sydney

Holt, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jack, Michael

149

Jackson, Robert

Portillo, Michael

Janman, Tim

Redwood, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ryder, Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lang, Ian

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Sayeed, Jonathan

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lightbown, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stern, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stevens, Lewis

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maclean, David

Summerson, Hugo

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thurnham, Peter

Mellor, David

Trippier, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Morrison, Sir Charles

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Waller, Gary

Needham, Richard

Wheeler, Sir John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wood, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Yeo, Tim

Page, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Paice, James

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Patnick, Irvine

Miss Ann Widdecombe and

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Mr. William Hague.

Patten, Rt Hon John

NOES

Armstrong, Hilary

McAllion, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Barron, Kevin

McWilliam, John

Beith, A. J.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Bell, Stuart

Marek, Dr John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Michael, Alun

Cryer, Bob

Prescott, John

Cummings, John

Ruddock, Joan

Dalyell, Tam

Skinner, Dennis

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

Turner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Derek

Tellers for the Noes:

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam and

Leadbitter, Ted

Mr. Peter L. Pike.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Towards the end of the last debate I had occasion to reproach the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). In case the House is beginning to doubt the quality of my eyesight, I assure the hon. Lady and the House that my remarks were aimed only at her intervention.

European Company Statute
Postponed proceedings resumed.
Question again proposed.
1.21 am
Mr. John Browne: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me again after an interregnum of some six hours. Six hours ago I was discussing the exchange rate mechanism and European monetary union. My main point was that we cannot have fair and workable European monetary union or a single European currency until we at least have a single European market, let alone a single European economy.
European monetary union and a single currency can come only after we achieve a single European market and a single European economy. Premature entry to the exchange rate mechanism will result in a stronger currency and, therefore, higher interest rates than we would otherwise have. That in itself would lead to a larger current account deficit than would otherwise be the case, speculation and sudden rather than gradual devaluations.
Premature entry to European monetary union would lead to the much quicker development of a federal state of Europe with little time for the introduction of democratic controls. That would have two main effects. First, it would result in the exposure of the United Kingdom economy to the full gale force of German economic competition before we are truly ready to face it. That would result in vicious and unnecessary damage to British businesses and companies, leading to loss of jobs and damage to the long-term control and wealth-creation ability that we would enjoy if our economy were healthy and more ready to take on more direct competition.
Secondly, it will lead to an increase in impositions such as those in the documents that we are debating—impositions which will have deep social and economic effects. They include the imposition of non-executive directors, of worker participation and of tax reforms. I mentioned them earlier before we broke at seven o'clock, so I will not go over them again. All these impositions are important, and will have a tremendous effect upon our nation. They will be introduced by measures such as that now before us, which are slid through without adequate time for discussion.
I agree with the general aims of these proposals, but they do not allow for evolution, which is what we must achieve. Therefore, I urge the House not to agree to the instrument.
1.25 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: The instrument covers a number of important points. The memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry, signed by the Under-Secretary, says that the European company statute will deal with formation, registration, capital, shares, debentures and the attached rights, boards, general meetings and their rights, accounts and audits, winding up, liquidation, insolvency and suspension of payments. The last four categories are listed under paragraph (f).
With EEC-wide companies, those categories will create enormous problems. We have enough problems with United Kingdom-registered companies without extending the same ease of formation to companies in the 12 member states. I can illustrate that with the example of roofing

151
firms that carry out work, provide a guarantee and then go into liquidation and are wound up. Because of a separate legal identity of a company, the debts go not with the directors but with the company. Often, people who have paid to have their roofs given a specialist treatment are way down on the list of creditors. The document makes no reference to the order of priority of creditors, which is most important.
In our legislation, outstanding wages and salaries and national insurance payments are first on the list of priorities for payment when the assets of the company are realised, but the customers are way down it. Therefore, in this example, people whose roofs have been affected by shoddy workmanship by a cowboy operator are unlikely to get anything at all if the company goes bankrupt. In our constituency work, we have all come across cases of people with a legitimate complaint about a company that they cannot pin down. They write to the liquidator, usually a firm of accountants, and it says that if there is anything left after the assets have been realised and the proceeds distributed, the complainant will hear from the liquidator. In practice, the complainant hears nothing at all. Very often, the company then appears in a different guise—Roof Repairers 1991 Ltd. instead of Roof Repairers 1983 Ltd.
There are some restrictions in company legislation, but, in my view, and I suspect that of many of my hon. Friends, they are not sufficiently well controlled to ensure that there cannot be any exploitation of company legislation. This convenient notion that companies are a separate legal entity, different from the legal identity of the directors, is no help. With the proposed European company statute, that would be repeated EEC-wide over 12 nation states. Shoddy Roof Repairers (Strasbourg) Ltd. would be able to operate in Bradford, Leeds and Halifax, and the problems of chasing it up would be compounded by the fact that it was based in Strasbourg and not in the United Kingdom. That is an important consideration. Although after paragraph (f)—
"winding up, liquidation, insolvency and suspension of payments"—
there is (g)—
"relief for tax losses of overseas branches"—
and (h),
"sanctions for infringements",
there is no certainty. The fact that there will be a long journey to the EEC member state where the company is registered will be an impossible difficulty for most ordinary people. For example, there would be the air fare to Strasbourg, a city which is on the border between France and Germany. It would not be necessary to travel to the edge of the EEC in my example, but it would cost about £300 to go to the company's headquarters to obtain redress. There would be real problems for ordinary people.
I accept that the problems would not be so great for other companies that were creditors and had assets and income that could be used to pursue recalcitrant companies, but we are dealing with companies that would provide all sorts of goods and services in the manufacturing and service sectors while operating throughout the Common Market.
There are dangers that are not made clear in the documentation. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on them, and I note that he has expressed reservations about
152
the proposal. He has stated in his memorandum that the Government do not see a need for the ECS and believe that a shortcoming is the heavy reliance on national law. It is a confusing position when certain aspects of a company would be based on Common Market legislation while other parts of its operation were based on national member state legislation. That means that there will be a duality of legislation. As company legislation is fraught with difficulties in any event, there would be even greater difficulty for the ordinary person. He would have to consult lawyers with international experience such as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is an international lawyer of great expertise and reputation. He would be of the sort to be consulted. Perhaps a United Kingdom solicitor would be consulted as well. It would be a complicated position which would be unnecessary in my view. I am gratified that the Government share my view.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their worries about these matters. Some of them stem from what my hon. Friends and I consider to be Government inefficiency in negotiations. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that some of us believe that that is a front to disguise the Government's real position, which is opposition to worker participation.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening. Worker participation is the last item on the list set out in the memorandum and with which the ECS deals. I have a different view from many others on the issue. I do not think that a seat on the board is especially effective. I think that the right to recall a director or directors by the workers to give them an account of what is happening should be built into any worker participation scheme. The French have the safeguard, for example, of the right of trade union representation in companies with 30 employees or more, and only if there are no trade union representatives are non-trade unionists invited on to a representative board, which is not a company board but a consultative board which a company has to consult. The next Labour Government should seriously consider providing the same right as that which exists in French law, whereby no one can be dismissed for economic reasons without the approval of the French Minister for Employment.
That law was not introduced by a terribly left-wing Government. Indeed, there have not been any terribly left-wing Governments in France. The last left-wing Government had Mr. Delors as finance Minister. He made such a mess of matters by remaining in the exchange rate mechanism, and its predecessor the snake, that rigorous economy measures had to be introduced. He was pushed out of the French Government into the Commission at £100,000 a year, where he has managed to do a great deal of damage. At least in France the elected Government of the day, whether left, right or centre, have the power over the owners of capital to say whether people can be dismissed for economic reasons. Successive French Governments have exercised that power for more than a quarter of a century and the French people do not question it. It means that employers—small, medium and large—accept that if they want to dismiss people they must have sound economic reasons, which they must present to the Government. They cannot arbitrarily dismiss people.

153
That is an important safeguard for workers. Similar legislation in the United Kingdom would provide a safeguard for ordinary working men and women.
Ms. Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. He might be interested to know that France has again led the way with a recent court ruling that favoured the creation of a European-level works council for the airbus project. France is already setting up the parallel structures that are needed for that sort of legislation in Britain.
Mr. Cryer: Airbus Industrie is a successful combination, but not a Common Market-wide combination. It has thousands of workers in several countries. British Aerospace in Manchester makes components for the airbus, as does Aerospatiale in France "It was necessary to develop some combination for a complicated and highly technical process, and that has been done. It is welcome, but it does not depend on the existence of the Common Market, and neither does the actual production of the airbus. The memorandum supplied by the Department of Trade and Industry states that the ECS would require companies
"to involve their workers in one of three models of participation … but in the event of a failure to agree the boards would have the final say "
That shows that, even under this proposal, workers will not have a great deal of power.
The memorandum also states that where negotiations fail
"a national model would apply. This would have to provide for at least the same information and consultation as would be required if a model were agreed by collective bargaining."
I suspect that the Government have reservations about the legislation because of the worker participation aspect. Indeed, the Minister says so in his memorandum. I would favour the right to greater information. The last Labour Government established the Bullock committee, which made a number of recommendations. They were bitterly opposed by the then Conservative Opposition, and, because we were a minority Government, they went no further.
I do not think, however, that we should necessarily rely on the Common Market for suggestions and recommendations—and, indeed, legislation—about worker participation: we can develop our own provisions, and after the next general election, when we have a Labour Government, we shall be able to develop a system that will be the envy not only of the other 11 member states but of the whole continent.
While I share my hon. Friend's view about the Government's attitude, I feel that this country should be prepared—under a Labour Administration—to develop the proposals for worker participation much more radically than is suggested in what is, in fact, a fairly timid document.
I have other reservations. The proposals represent a move towards a federal United States of western Europe, which is the motivating factor in the EEC Assembly in Strasbourg. What if hon. Members were required to declare European company investments and shareholdings, as they are required to declare United Kingdom shareholdings through the Register of Members' Interests? It would be necessary to comb the 11 other member states' registers to check out any complaints, and to ensure that hon. Members were following the rules. It is difficult
154
enough to keep abreast of Members' interests in United Kingdom companies without having to trawl through all that extra material.
The scrutiny of Members' financial interests carried out by the Strasbourg Assembly—some call it a Parliament, but I refuse to grant such a grand title to what is really no more than a consultative body—is shoddy. In Strasbourg itself, the register of Members' interests is, in theory, available to the public; in practice, it is kept in a room to which there is no public access. In the triangular paperchase of the Common Market in Brussels where the committees meet, no such register is available at all; and there is no publication of a printed document like ours, available to members of the public for easy reference. The Assembly has a very indifferent attitude to something that we consider very serious—something that has been debated here for many years, and has been changed on occasion as a result of various developments.
The register is available in Luxembourg but no meetings are ever held there, so it would be necessary to undertake a journey of several hundred miles—counting the return journey—to consult it. Members of the public, who could not see the register in Brussels, would have to make a special journey to Luxembourg; they could not see it in Strasbourg—although in theory it is open to the public—because the public cannot reach the place where it is kept. If that is an example of European concern about the need for public representatives to declare their interests, it is not a very good one; and, if it illustrates the views of the EEC and its appointed Commissioners about public and private company formation, it does not do so very promisingly.
On the whole, I do not think that the measure has much to recommend it. Certainly every Opposition Member wants more worker involvement, and the Common Market always puts forward some proposal intended to tempt people in that regard. The social charter mentions the right to trade union membership, but it has been modified in such a way that it would not permit the workers at GCHQ in Cheltenham to have their rights restored. We still have to depend on this House for such legislation, and the next Labour Government will introduce a Bill to restore the rights so disgracefully removed from those working at GCHQ. We will not rely on the EEC for that.
In the same way, worker participation is a good idea, but it is a sprat to catch a mackerel. The directive does not confer radically important rights. It recognises the existence of workers, gives them a few crumbs, and might tempt some people to conclude that, on balance, the directive is of some benefit. I do not think that it is, not least because of the difficulties that a European statute would create, which I described at the beginning of my speech. On balance, it would create more difficulties than benefits, and worker participation can best be dealt with by national legislation that will set an example to other member states and to the rest of Europe.
It may be argued by some that the EEC could be a way of getting around a Tory Government. I have never subscribed to the view that one can in that way relieve the Labour movement of the obligation to secure a majority in this House and to achieve its aims and objectives through making proper use of this Parliament. We should not rely on outside bodies and organisations to get around the Government. When a Labour Government is elected, exactly the reverse could occur, with the Tory Opposition

155
attempting to get around our legislation by turning to the Community. There are always people in such institutions willing to agree with an opposition party that a country's elected Government should not be taking certain action. Such tactics undermine a democratically elected Government.
No one despises the present Government and their policies more than I, and I want to be shot of them. However, the way to achieve improved workers' rights is not to skirt around the Government and become involved in the shambles that is the Common Market but to work for the election of a Labour Government. Every day that passes brings us nearer to a general election and to the next Labour Government who can implement their own legislation—and demonstrate that we can take the lead in company legislation, workers' rights and trade union law within not only the EEC but the whole of Europe.
1.47 am
Mr. Ian McCartney: I refer first to the need to strengthen workers' rights in companies that are wound up or go into liquidation. I can cite a practical example relating to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which concerns the liquidation recently of Parkfields plc in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), but many of whose former employees live in my constituency.
The company was formerly owned by British Rail Engineering Ltd. When it was privatised, those members of the work force who remained with the new company were given absolute guarantees on the continuation of their employment rights and the transfer of engagements. They were meant to ensure that people who had been employed by British Rail for anything from 10 to 25 years would, if they worked for Parkfields, continue to enjoy the same rights and conditions as before.
Just over eight weeks ago, Parkfields plc, which has 39 subsidiaries throughout the United Kingdom and the EEC, was wound up. Cork Gully, a subsidiary of a major company in the City, was given the responsibility for trying to secure some resources from the bankrupt company for creditors. Men who had negotiated, through the trade union, several thousand pounds worth of redundancy payments only weeks before the winding up of the company found that when the cheques were presented to the bank they were not met. Employees had been given cast-iron guarantees about transferring their employment engagements from British Rail to Parkfields and giving a commitment to that company. The company asked them to give up their commitment and to accept a financial contribution for their loss of employment, but when they placed the cheques in the bank they were bounced by Cork Gully.
Some members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union lost between £18,000 and £22,000 and were informed that they were unsecured creditors. The remainder of the work force—in excess of 100—had made arrangements with British Rail about their concessionary passes. They were informed by Cork Gully that they must return them within 24 hours or find themselves in legal difficulties.
I approached British Rail about the passes. Mr. Reid, the new chairman, immediately recognised the problems
156
that had arisen because Parkfields plc had failed to keep the promises it gave to the workers on privatisation. He extended their rights to use their passes until the end of this month. Cork Gully has made it clear to British Rail that it will not provide resources from the wind-up fund for the continuation of the passes.
People who worked for British Rail for more than 20 years were given commitments by the then Secretary of State for Transport at the Dispatch Box, and subsequently by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that, by agreeing to transfer their engagement to the new, privatised company, they could continue their employment with no loss of years spent with the company, redundancy arrangements, levels of pay and other fringe benefits. But when the company was wound up that was found to be incorrect. The workers merely found that they were unsecured creditors. Surely it cannot be correct for the Government to give to workers commitments which are found to be absolutely worthless when a company is wound up.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will have a word with his colleague in the Department of Transport about this sorry state of affairs. People who have given a lifetime of commitment and work to an industry find that when the company is wound up there is no chance of their receiving the benefits that they are entitled to, which were rejected out of hand, disregarded, and discarded by arrangements which give them no protection whatsoever.
I also wish to mention worker participation in relation to the AEU and the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am a member. Those unions lost a substantial number of members in the Piper Alpha disaster. The second part of the subsequent Cullen inquiry dealt with worker participation and its effects on health, safety, terms and conditions of employment upon rigs and on the development of the rights of workers to be represented on those topics.
There are about 56 companies operating in the North sea, employing 31,000 employees in 43 oil fields and 24 gas fields. During the Cullen inquiry it became clear from the representations of the 36 multinational companies represented by the Offshore Operators Association that they recognised that specific to the sub-contracting arrangements was the fact that worker participation was not allowed, whether it was on health and safety matters, conditions of service or trade union recognition.
The purpose of the EEC legislation to protect worker participation is to take account of what happened on Piper Alpha. That disaster occurred precisely because of the conditions on the rig at the time of the explosion. Trade union participation in health and safety matters was not allowed.
This is one of the most important industries in the United Kingdom. About 36 multinational companies, based in other EEC countries, work in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea. They are not obliged to enter into commitments about worker participation. Due to the Government's intransigence, worker participation is not allowed on North sea oil rigs. That has serious consequences for workers' health and safety and working conditions.
During the next four to six weeks a comprehensive report is expected to be laid before the House. Among the Cullen inquiry findings there is expected to be the finding that because the 36 companies operating in the North sea

157
have deliberately opposed constructive policies for worker participation they have therefore weakened fundamentally the safety regime in the North sea.
I have been involved in discussions this week, on behalf of my trade union, with a number of sub-contractors operating in the North sea. Some of them rely on their contracts with the 36 major oil companies operating in the North sea. Since the Piper Alpha disaster they have recognised the need for worker participation in matters such as health and safety, training and general conditions both onshore and offshore, particularly on the rigs. Their employees work a two-week cycle on the rigs. The sub-contractors are prepared to reach an agreement with the trade unions representing the work force, but some of the major North sea employers have made it clear to them that to reach such agreements with the work force would mean the end of their contracts with them. That gives the green light to North sea operators that Britain, due to the connivance of the Government, is not prepared to countenance worker participation in health and safety and other matters.
One would think that party political differences would be put on one side when considering a report such as that prepared by the Cullen inquiry into the loss of more than 100 lives in some of the most horrific conditions ever envisaged in an industrial accident. It was one of the most detailed inquiries ever held into health and safety. Despite all the evidence given to the inquiry, the basic right of workers in the North sea to participate in matters relating to their health and safety and other issues has been rejected by multinational companies who operate in the British sector of the North sea. They are not prepared to allow their workers to participate in matters that affect their health and safety.
Ms. Mowlam: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point about worker participation, "Business Brief" is one of the sources of information about the detailed discussions that have taken place in Europe on worker participation. It says that worker participation has proved to be a tough problem, because of British intransigence, between this country and German workers who wish to hold on to the advantages that they have gained. The Italians tried to take the initiative in order to break the deadlock on worker participation. However, it failed. That led some observers to conclude:
"there will be no significant progress on the draft Directive until there is a change of Government or attitude in the United Kingdom."
Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments. Significantly, evidence given to the Cullen inquiry showed that among all the companies operating outside the United Kingdom there was legal recognition of workers' rights to participate in training, health and safety and recruitment. If such conditions can operate outside the United Kingdom, I cannot understand why, following Piper Alpha, the Government do not take an active interest in persuading the 36 multinational companies operating in the North sea to adopt a different attitude to worker participation.
I can understand the Government offering the excuse that they were ignorant of the position prior to Piper Alpha. I do not agree with that argument, but, from the Government's point of view, it may be a legitimate excuse for what happened. But no excuse can be given now as the Cullen inquiry is likely to report that two thirds of workers
158
on North sea rigs are employed by sub-contractors. Their negotiating rights, therefore, are not recognised by the main contractor.
That inquiry is likely to report that two thirds of the work force in the oil and gas fields, but particularly the oil fields, are employed by sub-contractors and have been involved in industrial disputes this summer on the need to hold discussions about health and safety. There is nothing to prevent the main contractor from refusing to allow them back on to the rig, even if their employment rights and status have been recognised by the sub-contractor.
These matters are serious because what is at stake is not just the right of an employee to have a say in 'what happens. When a major industry such as oil, with the support of the Government, can deny Parliament the right to recognise workers' ability to defend themselves against unsafe work practices we cannot idly stand by and allow the Government to undermine the major steps that have been taken by the Community to defend those workers.
There is not enough time to go into other issues and other industries, although I should like to do so. For the second time in the past week, I shall attempt to keep on your good side, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government cannot simply turn a blind eye to what is happening in Europe and the wider world. Even in the United States, the so-called cradle of capitalism, there is an awakening about the rights of workers to be involved in their industry and of companies to tap their talents and enthusiasm through an organised trade union or with them individually. The east Europeans attempted to hold back freedom, but the Government cannot hold back the need of the western world to involve workers in the development and maintenance of their industry or in research and development and new ideas.
Workers' rights are here to stay. If the Government do not go along with that—if they do not help in the process—they will be swept aside both in the next general election and by developments in Europe. We are either part of Europe or we are not part of it. We cannot pick and choose. The Government cannot decide to agree with some aspects of the European process and simply ignore others that it considers to be ideologically unsafe.
If we are in Europe and if we want to develop Europe, we must do so for the benefit of all working people. We cannot leave market forces to dictate people's living conditions, their health and safety and their terms and conditions of employment. Workers have an absolute right, in a market economy, to share the negotiating capabilities of their counterparts elsewhere in the EEC. In dangerous industries, such as the North sea oil industry, they must have an absolute right in law to a direct say in the development of health and safety practices. Without that say, workers will not only have their proposals rejected by management; they may lose their lives, as happened at Piper Alpha. Those workers have gone, but their families have to live with the situation. As we discuss legislation dealing with workers' rights, let us keep it in mind that for many in industry the ultimate sacrifice is not the loss of their job but the loss of their life.
2.6 am
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Lady has addressed the House once. Does she have the leave of the House to speak again?
Ms. Mowlam: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I begin by referring to a comment that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made much earlier. He said that he thought that Opposition Members had misunderstood the Government's position. We said that the main reason why the Government were not happy with the proposal was that an attempt had been made to include worker participation. The hon. Gentleman said that that was only one of a number of reasons why the Government were not happy.
Let us look at the draft instrument, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred on a number of occasions. Under the heading "policy implications", the precise reasons for the Government's opposition to the proposals are set out. Paragraph 19 says:
"The Government do not see a need"
for the European company statute. That does not strike me as a strong reason for not being happy with the proposals. Paragraph 21 says:
"On taxation, the Government agree with the Commission".
Paragraph 22 explains:
"On other issues the Government is not opposed to the ECS in principle".
It is in paragraph 20 that we find stated clearly the Government's main reason for objecting to the proposals:
"The Government are opposed to the compulsory worker participation provisions in the ECS".
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes said that that was only one of many reasons why the Government were not happy with the proposal. In fact, an analysis of the policy implications shows clearly that it is, in fact, central to their objections.
For once, the Government have been reasonably consistent. Their opposition to worker participation is well known. I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment in his place. I well remember reading documents on worker participation in the European Parliament in the early 1980s, when the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the concept was both direct and virulent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I hope so.
Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman puts it on record: he says that he hopes so. Having left. the Department of Trade and Industry for the Department of Employment, he states clearly, in his usual direct and open style, that he is still deeply opposed to worker participation. We argue that it is because the Government oppose the concept that they are unhappy with the proposed European company statute. I am sure that, as the hon. Gentleman is in expansive form, he will remember the opposition in the European Community to the fifth directive, to the Vredeling consultation and to the 13th directive. On all those, the Government's opposition to worker participation has been clearly stated. I am not sure why we should assume that the Government's position in relation to the European company statute would be any different.
The Department of Trade and Industry provided United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament with a briefing on the European company statute. It contains a breakdown of the Government's arguments about the statute. Page 4 refers to three options on worker participation which the Government claim are compulsory
160
and will be forced on European companies that might be based in the United Kingdom. Paragraph (c) states that the third option
"allows for some flexibility in the participation arrangements,"
That is a clear acknowledgement that flexibility is possible. However, because the Government believe that worker participation should not be adopted, the paragraph continues:
"Moreover, it cannot be assumed that this flexibility would be retained in any Statute. It should, for example, be noted that the draft Fifth Directive requires the equivalent option to make provision at least for the participation arrangements set out in option (a) and (b) above."
This point is central to the European company statute on worker participation, and it is clear from the Department's brief that it prefers not to have worker participation in any shape or form. I present that evidence to the House because it shows the opposition and it provides ammunition, argument and the details to the European Parliament with which to oppose the directive. This is not a minor or marginal aspect. Instead, the Government's unwillingness to provide greater information or consultation with workers in this country is central to their opposition to the statute.
I have other information to support my argument. The "European Industrial Relations Review No. 179" provides a good synopsis of different parts of European legislation and the different views of different countries on particular statutes. I refer to that document to establish that it is not just the Opposition who can see the Government's dislike of worker participation so clearly and strongly. The briefing shows that the rest of Europe shares our perception. The review states on page 1:
"Serious differences of opinion are emerging within the EC over worker participation…the UK Government has adopted a hostile attitude towards this kind of provision which seems to render it increasingly isolated in a European context."
That is clear evidence of the Government's isolation and hostility towards worker participation, and that is the general view held in Europe.
It is clear that the Italians have tried several initiatives to try to break the deadlock in the British intransigence towards worker participation. The Germans are also opposed to any watering down or half-hearted measures which might replace the present conditions for workers' rights contained in the company statute. It is only because of Germany sticking to its guns on this matter that we have the chance to discuss worker participation on a minimal level. We should like to see a great deal more worker participation. Thanks to other countries in Europe, at least we have the basis.
The British Government's unwillingness to be flexible and to adapt in respect of this statute, as with other directives referring to worker participation, has made it so difficult to make progress on them. Other countries in Europe have tried desperately to shift the Government to a point at which we could have agreement on a statute of this nature with worker participation in it, but that is not to be unless there is a change of Government or a change of attitude in the United Kingdom. Such change will be needed. Ironically, that is what the rest of Europe believes will be necessary if we are to get worker participation.
Our support for workers' rights and the need for information and consultation is entirely consistent with the positions that we have adopted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the

161
Companies Bill. The amendments to that Bill were the kind of disclosure and publication of company accounts that we feel is necessary so that workers in a company can see information and be consulted on facts. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has blinding flashes of common sense and rationality on the topic. He actually said that the second option on offer seemed to make a lot of sense. However, he was soon called back into rank and did not stick to his point. Conservative Members can clearly see that what is in the statute is not terribly radical or terribly extreme—it is a basic right to which workers should be entitled.
The Government talked a lot about wider share ownership and about increasing people's ability to participate. The European company statute refers directly to the rights of shareholders. We have heard Minister after Minister saying that wider share ownership has not worked and that, despite the Government's desires, some individuals have taken one or two shares and not traded them—much like Green Shield stamps—but have held on to them.
Mr. Cryer: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the resolution about the European company statute. The Government's resolution states that the statute
"should contain a minimum of regulation consistent with the aim of providing adequate protection for those who may be involved with a company formed under the statute."
It does not say anything about workers or the consumers of a company's products. It is a narrow resolution.
Ms. Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As I am sure he is aware, the narrowness of it was dealt with in last week's debate on the single market and financial services. Opposition Members complained bitterly that, whether it be this European company statute, the usage directive, the second banking or the capital adequacy directive—whatever the Government are bringing forward—they do not bring forward a consumers' directive. That has been discussed in the European Parliament and in the Commission. The Commission thinks that the earliest date that a consumers' directive will be in operation is 1991, when many other directives and draft instruments will be in place. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In the narrow definition on the Order Paper today, even the rights of consumers are not taken into account in any meaningful way by the Government.
I do not wish to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as the debate started six hours ago, it is essential to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned two named individuals. I do not know exactly what he was referring to, but it is clear that hon. Members would regard with dismay and worry the programme on Cambodia. If the Minister sees his way clear to writing the letter for which my hon. Friend asked, Opposition Front-Bench Members would appreciate a copy.
My penultimate point is—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment might find this debate ridiculous. I am sorry that he does. The debate began earlier this evening. Opposition Members were quite happy to discuss the matter at a sensible hour this evening. Conservative Members caused hon. Members to return to discuss it at 2.19 in the morning. Like him, I should like to be tucked up in bed
162
—[Interruption.] Yes, I do have certain standards—but Opposition Members are not responsible for the timing of this debate.
We had a good discussion earlier in which the Minister asked directly whether the Opposition were asking for a European company law. I said that that was not the essential point and that we should have liked different negotiations which would lead to a different point. However, when I thought about this over dinner, I realised that the takeover directive is, in fact, European law on the statute book, and that it has not negated national law. The two do not have to work in opposition—they can work in parallel. National company law has not been devalued or replaced by European company law. The two systems can work in parallel and need not add to overcumbersome legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has outlined his clear desire to see the implementation of the worker participation section of the European company statute. He said that it is essential that progress is made at a national level and that the United Kingdom should take the lead in Europe. It is important to add that, again, the two need not work in opposition; they can work in parallel. We should push hard—a Labour Government would do so—for legally enforceable workers' rights, for rights to which everybody should be entitled, but that does not mean that we should not push the present Government towards making changes in Europe and within the existing legislation.
Mr. Allen McKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point because I had intended to raise it. I am sure that she will recall that lead used to be used at a workplace in my constituency, but is no longer. I know that she will also recall the fact that the fault lies entirely—or rather mainly—with the Health and Safety Executive. If trade union rights had been adhered to in that place and if there had been worker participation, three of my constituents would not have ended up in hospital with lead poisoning.
Ms. Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which fits into much of our discussions earlier this evening. If we have such difficulties on a national level although we have legislation to protect workers' rights, what about the problems that we face when trying to get retribution or a response when there is an accident in France involving a company that is based in Germany, with British workers? Without a proper legal framework to protect workers, we shall be in an untenable position.
The European company statute had been discussed in detail in the European Parliament where much more time was spent on it than we have been able to spend today. A reading of the proceedings of the debate in the European Parliament shows clearly that all other countries voted with a large majority in support of the statute. The vote was 175 to 23 in favour, with two abstentions. That shows the support for the statute in the rest of Europe.
I refer now to two or three of the points that were made in the European Parliament in support of the statute. Stress was placed on the close links between the industrial and social aspects. The structuring of the European company is regarded as an opportunity to give concrete form to the social dimension of the internal market—
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Lady said that hours ago.
Ms. Mowlam: The hon. and learned Gentleman may remember much of what I said earlier, but I did not talk then about the social dimension of the internal market, and I did not—as I am about to do—mention the difficulties that the Government now face, driven as they are by an ideology that hypnotises them not to see the parallel between the social and industrial dimensions. It is when those two work in unison, which Labour Members and members of other parties in the European Parliament are keen to see happen, that a European company statute will have a meaningful impact for society as a whole. I inform the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that I did not make that point earlier.
Some other points were made in the European Parliament in support of the European company statute. Labour Members regard the statute as fine in principle but would like to see some changes. Members of the European Parliament see the social dimension as a fundamental component of the internal market, not as a mere adjunct to it. It will be indispensable. We have argued that on numerous pieces of European legislation in the House. We are worried, as with the European company statute, about the distinction between a directive and a regulation. We are fearful that the regulation may go through but that the directive on worker participation will lie on the table and will not be implemented at the same time. That anxiety was expressed clearly by many Members of the European Parliament. Labour Members believe that we are in danger of seeing that fear realised, due to the Government's intransigence in Europe over many years of discussions.
The debate in the European Parliament emphasised clearly that there were several options for worker participation in the European company statute. Many speakers expected it to be incumbent on the management and staff of any undertaking to reach agreement on the model of worker participation to be adopted. They also expected that no European company would not apply any model of worker participation. That has been the crux of our argument on this part of the European company statute. There are three options. Flexibility is built into the statue. By default there could be a reversion to the national option. A European company could negotiate an agreed option beween management and workers in a particular European company. We believe that that would give enough flexibility. The Minister said that that would have to be in the statutory framework. Yes, and a good thing too, because without such legal protection and unless the general principle is agreed, workers' rights will not be protected.
We clearly understand that the detail would have to vary from company to company, country to country and circumstance to circumstance. We readily accept that. We want to see established the principle that it is a legal right of every worker to be provided with information and to be consulted. It is clear that the Government are not only out of date and out of time with British companies, but out of step with the attitude in the rest of Europe.
The European company statute clearly shows that Labour Members are in tune with the rest of Europe. For the Minister, Europe stops at Eastbourne or perhaps the Channel islands, with their offshore implications. For the Prime Minister it is probably the Isle of Wight. We see the need for a European company statute. We happily agree
164
with the Minister that it may not be used much in the early years. It may not be used without some changes to remedy the confusion that exists in parts of it. We readily acknowledge that. If the regulation is not accepted, the next Labour Government will negotiate that detail carefully. But we shall be sure that the worker participation element is included. We believe that that element is the main reason why the Government have blocked the directive.
2.28 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised an important point about insolvency and re-formation of companies through their directors. That matter is covered in sections 1(15) to (23) of the draft. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are not satisfactory, particularly in relation to national law. It is an area of company law provisions which we shall look at carefully to make sure that there is a satisfactory means for winding up and at least similar precautions and protections to those in current United Kingdom insolvency law.
I agree with the general line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for his many good points on company law and accountancy problems, several of which will be taken up by the Government in forthcoming negotiations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that the Government wish to encourage on a voluntary basis the many good models of employee share participation and employee participation in general. Britain has much to be proud of, because in recent years many good models have been developed and many schemes pioneered. As my hon. Friend said, the National Freight Consortium is seen by people all over the world as an example of great success.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a series of issues that are the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I am sorry he is not in the Chamber but I think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is in touch with my hon. Friend who, I am sure, will read the report of the debate and will contact the hon. Gentleman if he has helpful information.
I should like to rebut three points made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). She said that the Government's position was not clear, but that is far from the case. I made our position quite clear in the debate and it is set out in the explanatory memorandum. I like to hear the views of the House and have noted several useful comments which we shall follow up in the negotiations.
The Government are against several elements in the current proposal. We oppose some of the company law proposals, the taxation proposal, the voting base of the measure and the particular forms of mandatory worker participation in the directive. However, it is not true to say that we are against a particular style of worker participation or against employee participation in general because, as I made clear in the debate, we are against a certain kind of mandatory worker participation.
Secondly, Labour still refuses to come clean on whether it would negotiate a comprehensive framework of European law that would deal with the problems of 12 different types of company. I do not know whether the

165
Opposition cannot say or will not say, but it seems that they have no idea of their policy on the relationship between European and national company law. It is a great pity that they cannot clarify this crucial issue.
The hon. Member for Redcar tried to claim that if a Labour Government were handling these negotiations and had in front of them a more general proposal for a European company statute, they would make rapid progress. The hon. Lady says that that we are unable to do that. When Labour were in government for five years from 1974 until 1979 there was a more general proposition on the table and not an inch of progress was made. That shows that the realism of office made Labour realise that there are all sorts of company law problems in the proposals. I am glad that Labour will not have the chance to find that out again.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 63, Noes 4.

Division No. 330]

[2.32 am

AYES

Amess, David

Maclean, David

Arbuthnot, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Malins, Humfrey

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Mans, Keith

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Boswell, Tim

Page, Richard

Brazier, Julian

Paice, James

Browne, John (Winchester)

Patnick, Irvine

Burns, Simon

Portillo, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Redwood, John

Butcher, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Carrington, Matthew

Ryder, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Sackville, Hon Tom

Chope, Christopher

Shaw, David (Dover)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Conway, Derek

Stern, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Stevens, Lewis

Day, Stephen

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Devlin, Tim

Summerson, Hugo

Fallon, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Forth, Eric

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Freeman, Roger

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Gale, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Waller, Gary

Goodlad, Alastair

Widdecombe, Ann

Hague, William

Wood, Timothy

Holt, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Jackson, Robert

Kirkhope, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Greg Knight and

Lightbown, David

Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McAllion, John

Tellers for the Noes:

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Ian McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8404/89 on the proposal for a European Company Statute; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that if there is to be a European Company Statute, it should contain a minimum of regulation consistent with the aim of providing adequate protection for those who may be involved with a company formed under the statute.

Wages Councils
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
2.43 am
Mr. John McAllion: It is with some relief that I rise to begin the Adjournment debate at nearly 2.45 am. I am sure that that relief is shared by the Minister and your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In a written answer earlier this year the Secretary of State for Employment confirmed the Government's decision not to abolish the wages council system for the present. He announced that such was the Government's concern about the effect of the wages councils that he intended to keep their operation under close review. We know from the Secretary of State that the Department of Employment has a close working knowledge of what is happening to the wages council system, and the Under-Secretary of State is ideally placed to respond to the report published only last month and entitled "Crime without Punishment: The Story behind Wages Councils Underpayments". The Minister laughs at the notion of such a report being published, and the record will show his flippant attitude.
The report was published by the Low Pay Unit and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and it chronicles a state of affairs which calls into question the fitness of Ministers at the Department to continue in their high office. It reveals that those who have been entrusted with administering the wages council legislation enacted by the House are turning a blind eye to a crime wave of illegal underpayment of minimum wages. It shows that they are, if nothing else, aiding and abetting those employers who commit the criminal offence of illegal underpayment. That is nothing short of a national disgrace. Those inside and outside the House are indebted to the Low Pay Unit and to the National Union of Civil and Public Servants for bringing that scandal to our attention.
Wages councils protect 2·5 million of Britain's lowest paid workers. The protection that they afford cannot be described as excessive, unreasonable or unrealistic. A few examples of current wages council rates will testify that the rates are too low rather than too high. The made-up textile sector has a basic hourly minimum of £2·22 and an overtime hourly minimum of £3·33. The equivalent figures for the hotel and restaurant sector is £2·33 and £3·50. For the hairdressing sector, it is £2·40 and £3·60. Those wage rates hardly begin to compare with the wages earned last year by Sir John Nott, which we understand from the weekend press to have been £1·5 million. The wages councils' rates show that the workers protected by them earn £90 gross for a 39-hour week, and take home considerably less.
Given that the Council of Europe's decency threshold is currently £163, it can hardly be argued that it is unreasonable to expect employers to pay wages council rates. Certainly the House does not believe it to be unreasonable. That is why legislation was enacted to set up wages councils, and why it has never been repealed. That is why illegal underpayment has been made a criminal offence. That is why Ministers have been charged with establishing a machinery—the wages inspectorate—to give effect and teeth to the wages council system.

167
Until the House decides otherwise, it is the clear and bounden duty of Ministers to make that legislation work, to bring to justice those who criminally offend by illegal underpayment, properly to resource the wages inspectorate, and to make the wages councils as effective as possible. That is why the report is so disturbing. It reveals such a record of neglect and dereliction of duty by Ministers that, if honour were the criterion, it would require the resignation of those who have failed properly to discharge their duties to this House.
The report highlights a number of areas in which the Department and its Ministers have fallen down. First, they have done so in the resourcing of the wages inspectorate which, in effect, is the police officer of the wages council system. Five years ago, in 1985, the Government proposed the abolition of wages councils but were forced to back off by the hostile response from churches, voluntary organisations, trade unions and even from the majority of employers. At that time there were 120 wages council inspectors; today there are just 71—a reduction of 41 per cent. in five years. Using the Department's latest estimates, that means that there are just 71 inspectors to oversee 379,253 establishments and to provide cover for the 2,472,400 employees—a ratio of one inspector to 35,000 employees. That represents under-resourcing on a disastrous scale, with the inevitable result that far fewer establishments are visited—a quarter fewer in 1989 than in 1986—and there is far more reliance on the less effective checks provided by questionnaires and postal inquiries.
What unscrupulous employer can seriously be expected to fill up a form admitting that he is illegally underpaying his workers? There is growing evidence of widespread disrespect for the laws passed by the House, with 11,000 workers underpaid to the tune of £1·38 million in 1989 and arrears of payment owed to workers up by £74,000 on the 1988 figure. Those are, of course, wages inspectorate estimates, and they are likely to be underestimates as they take no account of the long hours worked in wages council industries or of employers who do not register with wages councils because they are not legally obliged to do so even though those very employers are the most likely to be guilty of illegal underpayment.
The Government are fond of boasting that they are creating a climate in which free enterprise can flourish, but "Crime without Punishment" shows that the climate is one in which criminal underpayment is encouraged, along with widespread disrespect for our legislation. The so-called party of law and order seems to put on kid gloves when it comes to dealing with unscrupulous employers, and the results are there for all to see: widespread illegal underpayment, widespread illegal failure to post wages council orders, widespread failure to keep records of wages paid and hours worked—in effect, widespread exploitation of some of the poorest workers in the European Community.
A Government who were genuinely anxious to uphold the rule of law would be clamping down on such law-breaking—but not this Government. They continue to cut back on the proper policing of the wages council system. They ignore their own statistics, which point to a crime wave with nearly 23,000 offences in 1989 alone. They fail to act against those who commit those criminal
168
offences—there were just 10 prosecutions in England and Wales in 1989, and not one in Scotland. That is a lamentable record.
The Government's record on low pay contrasts starkly with their record on pursuing wrongdoers in other areas—for example, those who defraud the Department of Social Security. Every opportunity has been seized to increase the number of DSS fraud investigators to a present level of 820, while at the same time every excuse has been used to cut the number of wages inspectorate staff to the current pathetic level of 71. We cannot avoid the conclusion that the Government are prepared to crack down on lawbreakers who are poor, but equally prepared to condone lawbreaking on the part of employers who are better off.
Free-marketeers, of course, will dismiss all this, and will point to huge underlying economic changes in developed capitalist economies such as ours—the shift away from heavy industries such as shipbuilding, steel and coal which were heavily unionised and employed mostly well-paid male work forces towards the newer service industries employing mostly female part-time workers, often non-unionised and generally low paid. They will point to the example of the United States, where during the Reagan years there was a massive expansion of low-paid employment in the retail and catering sectors. They will try to tell us that there is no alternative to the low pay option, and that at least it represents a lesser evil than the mass unemployment of the early 1980s which was so plainly the creation of the present Government.
Seen in that context, the Government's policies are, at any rate, obvious and explicable. The weakening of trade union power has opened the way for the expansion of low-paid employment; the contracting out of public services is a means of promoting low pay through the lowest tender procedure; the rescinding of the fair wages resolution and the deratifying of International Labour Organisation conventions 94 and 26 has exposed Government contract workers to low pay. The threatening and bullying of social security claimants out of benefit and into whatever low-paid work is available is part of that same strategy. So, too, is the continued undermining of the wages councils which are the subject of this debate.
The Government have enthusiastically embraced low pay as part of the answer, and in so doing have failed to understand that low pay is really part of the problem. If wages councils are abolished, either officially or by the Government's current back-door strategy, Britain will be alone in Europe in not having any legislation to protect low-paid workers.
As it is, Britain falls lamentably short of European standards. The Council of Europe's decency threshold of £163 must seem like a mirage to the 10 million low-paid workers in this country who earn less than that. And Britain alone refused to sign the European social charter, with its rights for workers to be paid a sufficient amount to provide themselves and their families with a decent standard of living. Britain refuses also to adopt a civilised attitude to workers' rights and living standards.
Ministers fail to understand that, in promoting low pay, they are not helping Britain to catch up with the rest of Europe but are leaving us further behind. It is vitally important for the Government to heed the advice of those with special knowledge of low pay and who produced the report to which I have referred, and to commit themselves to the reforms that it outlines. The Government must also

169
restore, strengthen and extend the wages councils machinery to cover emerging areas of low pay such as contract cleaning and the security industries. They should also re-ratify ILO conventions Nos. 94 and 26 and introduce legally binding minimum wage protection for all citizens, as exists elsewhere in Europe.
Those are just a few of the reforms which would help to protect workers from the exploitation to which they are currently subjected. They would help also to end the obscenity whereby, at one end of the pay scale, it is not considered excessive for one man to earn £1·5 million while at the other end of the scale £2·20 per hour is regarded as too much.
The case against low pay is overwhelming, but the Government's case for abolishing the wages councils has yet to be made with any credibility. I suspect that that will remain the case even after the Minister has replied.
2.57 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on bringing this important matter before the House even at this late hour. I listened to his arguments carefully, but they owe more to emotion than to reason. The hon. Gentleman's arguments reflect some depressingly familiar propaganda of a kind regularly produced by organisations which seem more intent on discrediting the Government than on helping the very people whose cause they purport to fight.
The irresponsible allegations made today were prompted, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, by publications such as "Crime without Punishment"—a product of co-operation between the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the Low Pay Unit, which are scarcely unbiased or independent sources of information, analysis or conclusions.
I will deal immediately with the alleged crime wave of underpayment. The hon. Gentleman argues that one third of all the establishments visited by the wages inspectorate were found to be paying less than the minimum remuneration required by the relevant wages councils. That figure is a complete misrepresentation of the true state of affairs. First, it relates only to the results of checks in which inspectors actually visited establishments—and such visits are targeted specifically on establishments where underpayments are more likely to be found.
Secondly, the discovery of an underpayment at an establishment visited does not mean that all the workers there are underpaid. Normally, only one or two of them are found to be underpaid as a result of such visits. The only valid yardstick of compliance is the proportion of workers in the system who are found to be underpaid in all the checks—not just those carried out by visits—which are conducted by the wages inspectorate. This figure runs consistently at around 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. No one in his right mind could describe that figure as indicating "a crime wave of underpayment", which shows the extent of distortion offered by the report cited by the hon. Gentleman today. Nor is there any foundation for the suggestion that the level of underpayment is at an unprecedented high, or that it is increasing. Last year's fractional increase in the amount of underpayment discovered is attributable to the inspectorate's increased success in targeting its work on employers more likely to be underpaying. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman
170
that the inspectorate's work is now more tightly focused on discovering underpaying employers than it was in the days of the last Labour Administration.
Not only do wild allegations about the state of compliance offend those involved in running the system, but they also arguably damage the situation of those who are vulnerable to underpayment. The more that pressure groups and others mislead the public as to the state of compliance, the more likely it must be that some employers, albeit not many, will be tempted to transgress on the grounds that they will be in good company.
Not content with misrepresenting the extent to which workers are underpaid, those who wish to discredit the Government also allege that the Government are undermining enforcement in other ways and the hon. Gentleman has done that again today. They argue that changes in the numbers and grading of inspectors weaken the system, and they maintain that the inspectorate's approach to the job—the methods that it uses—encourage non-compliance. I rebut those charges entirely.
The number of inspectors is lower than in 1979, but our reasons for doing this were entirely justifiable. In 1981 we curtailed the expansion of the wages inspectorate on which the Labour Government had embarked towards the end of their term because the overriding need in Government was to reduce public spending generally to a level which would not wreck the economy. In reducing the size of the inspectorate, however, we simply brought inspection back to the level which obtained for many years prior to 1978. In 1986, we reduced the numbers for an equally good reason—it was simply not necessary to have the same number of inspectors to check compliance because checks had become easier and quicker with the simplification of the wages orders following the 1986 legislation. We also anticipated that compliance would be higher following the reforms, and our expectations in that respect have been realised.
Experience of enforcing the simpler orders has also shown us that the work of some of the higher grade inspectors can be safely regraded so that all the basic inspection work is done at executive officer level. Again, therefore, the suggestion that we are embarking on a wholesale regrading is quite inaccurate. Of the 71 posts for "on the road" inspectors, only 17 were in the higher grade. There is absolutely no intention to change the number of inspectors or the volume of work that they undertake.
The hon. Gentleman also seeks to indict the Government by implying that they encourage the inspectorate to adopt a "soft touch"—he used the term "kid gloves"—in dealing with employers. That is an entirely baseless accusation. The methods that the inspectorate uses are essentially those which have been found effective over many years, and indeed some of the devices that it uses to enable it to make the best use of its time were introduced by the last Labour Administration.
In this context, I am thinking in particular of the much misunderstood "questionnaire" procedure in which employers are asked to state the amount that they are paying their employees. This method accounts for only a minority of checks carried out and is mainly used by inspectors to help them "screen" establishments for likely underpayers. The fact is that in test checks some 95 per cent. of employers are found to be completing the questionnaires truthfully and accurately, which means that

171
the inspectorate is better able to focus its attention on those respondents whose replies indicate cause for concern.
We are also attacked for not prosecuting enough of the employers who fail to meet the requirements of the legislation. The ratio of prosecutions to establishments underpaying is higher since 1979 than it was under the last Labour Government, but that really misses the point—that under all Governments the inspectorate has pursued a policy of achieving compliance primarily through advice and persuasion and not by prosecution. Some four-fifths of all the establishments found to be underpaying are being inspected for the first time, and it is rarely appropriate in those circumstances to haul them before the courts. The vast majority of employers readily put right any deficiencies in the amount that they are paying. Nor is it sensible to run people into the courts because the notice of the current minimum rates is not pinned up or the right records have not been kept, if it is perfectly clear when the inspection takes place that no worker is being underpaid. Of course, where there are doubts about the employers' willingness to comply with the law the inspectorate will keep a tight check on the situation and take legal action if necessary.
The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the Government's attitude to wages councils in general. He quoted—I think accurately—what the Secretary of State said earlier in the year about our position as regards wages councils, which is a matter of record. I emphasise that that is based not on an ideological stance but on a practical approach to the matter. For example, the work of virtually all independent economists supports our contention that there is a price to be paid for any attempt at minimum wage fixing and that that price is in jobs and employment. It is no argument to say that other countries are unaffected or untroubled by machinery of the kind that the hon. Gentleman cited. Some, such as the Netherlands and the United States of America, do not raise the level of their minima for years, and organisations such as the OECD and the European Community itself have commented on the need for countries with minimum wages to consider the impact of those arrangements on job levels.
172
It is worth pointing out, because it is relevant to the debate, that the United Kingdom's unemployment level is significantly below that of most of our major European partners and competitors. That is something which Opposition Members choose to ignore when it suits them, but we still regard it as very important.
Secondly, our emphasis on maintaining and improving employment levels reflects not a disregard for people's living standards but the absolute opposite as lack of employment opportunities, not low pay, is the major cause of low living standards. Only 4 per cent. of those full-time workers who are in the lowest decile of earnings are in the lowest 10 per cent. of incomes.
Thirdly, the facts simply do not support the accusation that the abolition of the wages councils would lead to what people sometimes call "poverty wages". Indeed, the whole notion that that phrase conjures up is false. As I have said, the link between low pay and low living standards is weak. Four fifths of wages council workers are contributing a second income to the home. They are not people living in households with low living standards.
The Labour party's proposals for the introduction of a national minimum wage fly in the face of logic and ignore the facts that I have outlined. The effect of introducing a minimum at the level currently envisaged would be to reduce employment very quickly by around 750,000. This estimate does not even allow for the full restoration of differentials, as supported by the recent statements of eminent trade union leaders such as Eric Hammond and Bill Jordan.
The right way to help those on low pay is to continue our policies of deregulating the labour market wherever this can reasonably be done, thus stimulating enterprise and initiative, creating more jobs and raising living standards all round. I believe that our success in freeing up the labour market is evident in the fact that more people are at work in Britain today than at any other time in our history.
I hope that I have answered some of the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman and refuted some of the unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations made in the report to which he referred. I am glad to have had this opportunity to put the facts on record.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Three o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the accident and fatality figures for people on YTS(a) nationally and (b) in St. Helens, for the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. YTS accident information is not held specifically for the St. Helens area. The tables provide quarterly YTS accident figures for the last 12 months nationally and for Merseyside, which includes St. Helens.

  Table A: National

  Accidents1

  Period

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  1 October 1989–31 December 1989

  31

  170

  721

  1 January 1990–31 March 1990

  1

  133

  527

  1 April 1990–30 June 1990

  163

  604

  1 July 1990–30 September 1990

  —

  87

  440

  Table B: Mersey side

  Accidents1

  Period

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  1 October 1989–31 December 1989

  7

  42

  1 January 1990–31 March 1990

  —

  3

  20

  1 April 1990–30 June 1990

  —

  4

  24

  1 July 1990–30 September 1990

  —

  3

  27

  1 Training Agency accident figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Training Agency's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurences Regulations 1985.

  3 This was a road traffic accident on scheme time.

  Duty-free Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of how many jobs in the United Kingdom duty-free manufacturing and retailing industry, including jobs in airlines, ferry companies and airports, may be lost if duty-free sales are eliminated.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has not made estimates of the effect on United Kingdom unemployment of the abolition of duty-free sales.

  Tourism
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much advertising the British Tourist Authority undertook in Japan in 1989.
  2
  Mr. Forth
  In the financial year 1989–90 the British Tourist Authority did not undertake any advertising in Japan. This decision was taken by the authority against a background of very high advertising costs in Japan. But the authority spent a total of £670,000 on specific marketing activity in Japan in the same period.

  Part-time and Temporary Work
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses from organisations were received in response to his Department's consultative document on the European Commission's proposals on part-time and temporary work and working time; how many of those responding supported the proposals in full or in part; and how many were against; and if he will list those organisations broadly supportive of the Commission's proposals.

  Mr. Forth
  The consultation document covered four proposals for directives. A total of 207 organisations have responded to the document, many of which were organisations representing large numbers of employers. A significant number of responses were concerned with some rather than all of the proposals.

  A total of 141 organisations expressed a clear opinion on the directives on part-time work. Of these, 27 were clearly or mainly in favour of the proposals, and 114 were against.

  On the directive concerning the health and safety of temporary workers, 14 organisations thought there is a need for this directive, while 47 took the opposite view. Ten organisations thought that temporary workers are at a greater risk than permanent workers, while 48 had an opposite view.

  The proposed directive on working time was supported by 15 organisations, and was opposed by 100.

  It is for the individual organisations concerned to decide whether to publicise their views.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Global Warming
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if there are any plans to follow up the discovery by the RRS Charles Darwin that biological production of nitrous oxide in the oceans is contributing to global warming.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following the discovery that the nutrient-rich waters of the Indian ocean produced significantly larger amounts of nitrous oxide than had previously been thought, NERC scientists are preparing plans for future work on nitrous oxide production in cooler waters in order to assess whether estimates of the total ocean production should be changed.

  "Education for Citizenship"
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the original publication date for curriculum guides paper No. 8; when he now expects it to be published; and if he will give the reasons for the delay.
  3
  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the National Curriculum Council intends to publish curriculum guidance 8: "Education for Citizenship" next month. The timing of its publications is a matter for the NCC.

  Teachers' Pay
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many responses have been received by the Government to "School Teachers Pay—the Report of the Interim Advisory Committee"; and, of these, how many are critical of the recommendations for supply teachers.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend received responses from eight statutory consultees to the Government's proposals stemming from the third report of the Interim Advisory Committee. In addition, comments were received from eight other organisations. Three of the latter were critical of the proposals concerning supply teachers.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with teachers' unions' representatives regarding teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the six teacher unions in June to discuss his proposals for new pay determination machinery.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority in England and Wales the range of foreign languages available in(a) schools and (b) other establishments, and taught in the last academic year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not available in the form requested. A copy of the 1988 secondary school staffing survey is available in the Library.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for extending the choice of foreign languages available in schools and colleges after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have specified 19 languages as eligible to be the modern foreign language foundation subject in the national curriculum. These include all the working languages of the European Community and 11 other languages which also have cultural and commercial importance. Within this framework, we are encouraging schools to offer a wider variety of languages, and in 1991–92 we are making grants available to local education authorities in England to support schemes for the diversification of first foreign language provision in their areas.

  The responsibility for deciding academic policy such as the range of foreign language tuition in institutions of further and higher education rests primarily with the institutions themselves.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the recruitment of teachers of foreign languages and the current position on vacancies in schools; and what plans he has further to increase the number of foreign language teachers.
  4
  Mr. Fallon
  Following the extension of the teacher training bursary to modern foreign languages from September 1990, applications to modern foreign language courses beginning this autumn have increased by 16 per cent. over 1989. Recruitment figures for initial teacher training courses will be published shortly.

  The January 1990 survey data show foreign language teacher vacancies of 2·3 per cent.

  The Department is supporting a number of research projects both to ease the recruitment of foreign nationals and to enable a greater number of teachers here to become effective teachers of modern foreign languages. We are also the first country to implement the EC directive on the mutual recognition of qualifications, as it relates to teachers.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the teaching of European languages to children of school age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A modern foreign language is a foundation subject in the national curriculum for pupils aged 11 to 16. The languages specified as eligible to be taught as the national curriculum foundation subject include all the working languages of the European Community. Schools are required to offer pupils the opportunity to study at least one of these languages.

  History
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy for the teaching of history for age groups five to seven, seven to nine, nine to 11, 11 to 13, 13 to 16 and 16 plus years.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend published his proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for history on 26 July. The National Curriculum Council is currently carrying out the required statutory consultation on those proposals. Its report is due by 17 December.

  A-levels
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish an analysis of the breakdown of 1990 A-level results in secondary schools, with comparable figures of grades and percentages for both the maintained schools and the independent sector; and if he will make a statement on indications of changes in overall A-level standards, both for pass levels and for the higher mark grade categories.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows, for school leavers in England in 1988–89, the percentage of those attempting A-level or AS examinations who achieve UCCA points scores of 1 to 8 and 9 to 15.

  School Leavers in England, 1988–89

  Maintained

  Independent

  All Schools

  Attempting 1 or more A/AS-levels (000's)

  106·46

  33·00

  139·49

  Percentage of above who gain

  UCCA1 points score 1–8

  59·1

  43·4

  55·4

  UCCA1 points score 9–15

  31–2

  52–9

  36–3

  5
  1The UCCA points score is calculated using the 3 best A-level, or paired AS examination, results. Each grade is given a score, from 5 points for a Grade A to 1 point for a grade E, and the best 3 added together. The maximum points score is therefore 15.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Executive Officers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to his written answer of 15 October relating to salaries of executive officer recruits to the civil service, if he will answer those parts of the original question that would not involve a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: No part of the original question could be answered without disproportionate cost.

THE ARTS

  Regional Arts Associations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will report on progress with the devolution of responsibilities to the regional arts associations.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Arts Council published a consultative list setting out the allocation of future funding responsibilities between itself and the regional arts boards at the end of September. This is based on the principles endorsed by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), which I have since further confirmed. The period of consultation expires at the end of November. Final decisions will be taken as soon as possible thereafter.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in(a) gross domestic product, (b) manufacturing output, (c) unemployment, (d) unit labour costs in manufacturing, (e) real wages, (f) inflation and (g) the balance of trade in manufactures between (1) 1979 and 1989 and (2) 1985 and 1989 in (i) Germany, (ii) France, (iii) Italy and (iv) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information in respect of 1979 and 1985 can be obtained from the following publications:

  (a) Gross Domestic Product

  "National Accounts Main Aggregates Volume I 1960–1988" published by OECD

  Part 6 table 4 gives GDP at current prices and 1985 exchange rates and table 13 GDP at current prices and current exchange rates both expressed in billions of US dollars for all the countries in question.

  (b) manufacturing output

  Information for 1979 can be found in "Short Term Industrial Trends" and for 1985 in "Industrial Trends" published by Eurostat.

  (c) unemployment

  Separate tables are given for each country in "Main Economic Indicators Historical Statistics 1969–1988" published by OECD.

  (d) unit labour costs costs in manufacturing

  Separate tables are given for Germany and the United Kingdom in "Main Economic Indicators Historical Statistics
  6
  1969–1988" published by OECD. Data are not available for France and Italy.

  (e) real wages

  Information on compensation of employees which includes all payments in cash and in kind made by employers in remuneration for the work done by their employees is given in Table J in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1988 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat.

  (f) inflation

  Separate tables showing consumer price indices are given for each country in "Main Economic Indicators Historical Statistics 1969–1988" published by OECD.

  (g) balance of trade in manufactures

  This can be calculated from data in "External Trade Statistics Year Book 1988 edition Theme 6 Series A" published by Eurostat.

  Information in respect of 1989 can be obtained from the following publications:

  (a) gross domestic product

  Part III (Appendix) in "Main Economic Indicators" published monthly by OECD gives GDP at current prices arid 1985 exchange rates and GDP at current prices and current exchange rates both expressed in billions of US dollars for all the countries in question.

  (b) manufacturing output

  "Industrial Trends" published by Eurostat.

  (c)unemployment

  Information can be found in the various country tables published in "Main Economic Indicators" published monthly by OECD.

  (d) unit labour costs in manufacturing

  Information can be found in the various country tables published in "Main Economic Indicators" published monthly by OECD.

  (e) real wages

  Not yet available.

  (f) inflation

  Information on Consumer price indices appears in Part I (Indicators by subject) in "Main Economic Indicators" published monthly by OECD.

  (g) balance of trade in manufactures

  This can be calculated from data in "External Trade Monthly Statistics Theme 6 Series B" published by Eurostat.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the time lag between changes in the International Monetary Fund index of the trade-weighted relative price of United Kingdom exports of manufacturers and changes in the United Kingdom balance of trade in manufactures in terms of value; what index figure is reflected in the latest trade figures; and by how much the index has since increased as a result of(a) the higher rate of inflation in the United Kingdom and (b) the increase in the nominal rate of exchange.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Changes in the IMF index of the trade-weighted relative price of United Kingdom exports of manufactures can to some extent have a contemporaneous effect on the value of United Kingdom exports and, hence, the balance of trade. The full effect, of course, takes longer to work through and estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty. The balance of trade is also influenced by the growth of home and overseas demand, and by non-price competitiveness which has improved markedly in the 1980s as a result of the Government's supply side measures. The IMF will publish the level of the index of trade-weighted United Kingdom relative prices relating to recent months in due course.

  Financial Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Budget surplus or deficit he anticipates for 1990–91; what he expects the inflation rate to be at the turn of the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  It is clear that policy is now reducing inflationary pressures in the economy. The prospect is for a substantial reduction in inflation over the coming year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish revised forecasts of inflation and of the public finances in the autumn statement.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of repossessions by building societies for each of the years since 1979 in(a) Nottingham, (b) the east midlands region and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Maples
  Statistics are not available in respect of Nottingham and the east midlands region. The figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders for the number of repossessions nationally by building societies and the Abbey National are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  2,530

  1980

  3,020

  1981

  4,240

  1982

  5,950

  1983

  7,320

  1984

  10,870

  1985

  16,770

  1986

  20,930

  1987

  22,930

  1988

  16,090

  1989

  13,740

  11990

  14,390

  1 first half.

  Duty-free Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the elimination of duty-free sales under the EC treaty or the Single European Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The European Commission has made it clear that as a consequence of the completion of the single market, duty-free shopping for intra-Community travellers should cease. However, the Commission has not yet come forward with firm proposals for this.

  The Government understand the Commission's view that it makes no sense to grant a tax concession for crossing a frontier when fiscal frontiers have been removed. Equally, the Government are aware of the economic significance of the duty-free trade and will examine all the arguments carefully before a decision is reached.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in relation to tax fraud, he will list(a) the number of investigators in the Inland Revenue, (b) the number of investigations in 1989–90, (c) the number of prosecutions in 1989–90, (d) the cost of these operations in 1989–90, (e) his estimate of the net tax collected and (f) (e) divided by (d), expressed as £s collected for every £ of cost.
  8
  Mr. Francis Maude
  During 1989–90 a total of 3,200 Inland Revenue staff units completed 110,000 investigations into possible or actual tax fraud. These investigations cost £89 million and yielded £941 million: a yield of approximately £10.50 for every £1 spent. There were 235 prosecutions for offences related to tax fraud in the year.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, during recent meetings of the European Council of Finance Ministers, he raised with his Italian counterpart the role of the Italian state-owned Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in providing investment capital to Iraq.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had any discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England concerning the underwriting of contracts signed by United Kingdom companies with Iraq prior to 2 August, for the construction of facilities contracted by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning.

  Mr. Maples
  No.

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual savings in total to registered charities as a result of being zero-rated for value added tax purposes for each of the past five years; and what was the estimated total for the current financial year.

  Mr. Ryder
  Charities as such are not zero-rated, but they benefit from various VAT reliefs on certain supplies they make and on certain goods and services they buy in, which are zero-rated by virtue of their intended use. They also benefit from the more general zero-rating of some everyday items, such as food. No precise information is available, but it is estimated that these zero-ratings save charities this year some £300 million in tax: a total roughly the same in today's terms for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what options are currently under consideration in respect to harmonisation of value added tax rules by 1992 or any other target date; what discussions he has undertaken with the EEC or other Governments on this topic; and if he will make a statement on his policy in respect to the protection of charitable bodies in the United Kingdom from any adverse effects.

  Mr. Ryder
  The EC Commission now envisages more flexibility in the setting of VAT rates than was apparent in its original proposals for the single market. The Government have welcomed the revised thinking but have made it clear that they still do not consider centrally determined tax approximation to be appropriate or necessary. They have also resisted the suggestion that zero rates after 1992 should be restricted in scope and subject to certain conditions. The United Kingdom position remains that our zero rates as a whole, and not just those of particular interest to charities, are not a pertinent issue for the completion of the single market.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the work of voluntary organisations in Wales of any harmonisation of
  9
  value added tax which might end the zero-rated concessions currently in force; how much money would be involved; and what action he intends to take to protect the whole of voluntary and charitable organisations in Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have no reliable figures on the extent to which voluntary bodies in Wales benefit from VAT reliefs, but are opposing any tax approximation proposals for the single market which would further restrict our ability to use zero rates. EC decisions in tax matters require the unanimous agreement of all member states, and there is no question of any unwelcome proposals being forced upon us.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax on North sea oil production, including royalties, paid by oil companies in August and September 1990 and the equivalent in 1989.

  Mr. Maples
  Total receipts from tax on North sea oil production, including royalties, were £595 million in August and September 1990 and £523 million in August and September 1989.

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much official debt is owed by Tanzania and Uganda; how much debt relief each has received under the Toronto terms; and what calculation the Treasury has made of the likely level of debt relief under Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: At end 1988, the total official long-term debt owed by Tanzania and Uganda was $4 billion, and $1·6 billion respectively. Tanzania has received two reschedulings on Toronto terms, consolidating a total of $576 million. Uganda has received one rescheduling on Toronto terms which consolidated $89 million. The cash flow saving from these Toronto terms reschedulings compared with the effect of non-concessional rescheduling is therefore about $20 million each year for Tanzania and about $3 million each year for Uganda. If all official bilateral creditors, including the non-OECD creditors, were to implement Trinidad terms the stock of debt would be reduced by a total of about $1·6 billion for Tanzania, and $0·3 billion for Uganda.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions for the entry of sterling into the ERM, other than the DM2·95 central rate and the 6 per cent. margins, were sought by Her Majesty's Government and agreed to by the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The central rates and fluctuation margins, which we proposed in exercising our right to take sterling into the exchange rate mechanism, were determined by mutual agreement. No conditions for entry were sought or agreed to.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer now that the pound is in the ERM, what assistance, through the very short-term fund facility from the other central banks, is available to the Bank of England for the purpose of holding the rate within its agreed margins.
  10
  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The Bank of England has available very short-term credit facilities with the other participating central banks. These are automatically available and unlimited in amount for financing intervention at the compulsory intervention rates. They may also be made available by arrangement for intervention within the agreed margins.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who were the analysts who calculated the pound's purchasing power parity at DM3·30, DM3·19 and DM2·95, respectively; and what publication of the International Monetary Fund suggested that industry would be competitive at the DM2·95 rate.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The analysts were Phillips and Drew, Goldman-Sachs and the London Business School. The International Monetary Fund publication was "International Financial Statistics".

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report the inflation-adjusted real exchange rate for each quarter since the second quarter of 1979, using the definition that he was using when he referred to the average inflation-adjusted real rate of the past decade being DM2·95, Official Report, 15 October, column 931.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The figures are shown in the table.

  Real deutschemark sterling exchange rate

  Rate

  1979

  Q2

  2·36

  Q3

  2·57

  Q4

  2·48

  1980

  Q1

  2·69

  Q2

  2·86

  Q3

  3·02

  Q4

  3·34

  1981

  Q1

  3·59

  Q2

  3·55

  Q3

  3·37

  Q4

  3·21

  1982

  Q1

  3·33

  Q2

  3·27

  Q3

  3·33

  Q4

  3·25

  1983

  Q1

  2·90

  Q2

  3·04

  Q3

  3·15

  Q4

  3·14

  1984

  Q1

  3·10

  Q2

  3·07

  Q3

  3·08

  Q4

  3·05

  1985

  Q1

  3·01

  Q2

  3·25

  Q3

  3·30

  Q4

  3·15

  1986

  Q1

  2·85

  Q2

  2·86

  Q3

  2·61

  Q4

  2·43

  1987

  Q1

  2·41

  Q2

  2·56

  11

  Rate

  Q3

  2·60

  Q4

  2·64

  1988

  Q1

  2·69

  Q2

  2·85

  Q3

  2·91

  Q4

  2·96

  1989

  '

  Q1

  3·04

  Q2

  3·00

  Q3

  2·92

  Q4

  2·78

  1990

  Q1

  2·71

  Q2

  2·77

  Q3

  2·96

  Notes:

  (i) Real exchange rate calculated using gdp deflators.

  (ii) Deflators used for most recent observations are partly estimated.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what letters of support he has received for the practice of collection of the poll tax from tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have had no letters for or against the collection of the community charge from duchy tenants.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Social Security Commissioner
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average cost to the office of the social security commissioners of an appeal to the social security commissioners.

  The Attorney-General
  The average cost to the office of the social security commissioners of an appeal to the social security commissioner is estimated at £430. This figure excludes accommodation, but includes staff costs and the costs of the social security commissioner.

  Divorce (Legal Aid)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the amount of legal aid paid in respect of divorce cases during each of the past three years.

  The Attorney-General
  The gross amount of legal aid paid in respect of divorce and related matters during each of the past three years is as follows:

  £'000

  1987–88

  90,050

  1988–89

  108,366

  1989–90

  110,564

  Those figures do not include Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act and Married Women's Property Act cases.

  "Holocaust News"
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given by the Crown prosecution service to initiating proceedings in respect of the publication "Holocaust News" distributed by the British National Party.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown prosecution service decided in 1987 not to institute proceedings in respect of the publication "Holocaust News, No. 1".

  The Crown prosecution service has requested the police to investigate the circumstances of the publication and distribution of the publication "Holocaust News, No. 2", and a decision whether or not to initiate proceedings against any person will be taken when the results of the investigation have been received.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Stationery
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to improve and extend the range of everyday stationery items available to hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The present range of stationery is designed to meet the needs of Members bearing in mind the limited storage space available. If my hon. Friend has a specific request he should contact the Serjeant at Arms.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he, or officials from his Department, have been invited to participate in the international conference on quality management in the nuclear industry, to be held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London on 17–18 October.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Wave Power
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he or officials of his Department were invited to appear on the Thames Television programme "This Week" on wave power, broadcast on 27 September; and if he will obtain a copy of the transcript or a videocassette for his departmental library.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am often invited to participate in a whole range of programmes. While I did not appear on the Thames Television programme "This Week" on wave power, my officials gave the programme makers extensive background briefing. It is not my Department's usual policy to obtain a copy of the transcript or a video cassette for its library.

  Research Projects
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what financial support the Goverment are giving(a) to coal gasification research projects and (b) to research into pressurised fluidised bed combustion technologies in 1990–91.
  13
  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department is providing £870,000 on coal gasification, of which nearly £600,000 falls in 1990–91, which represents about 15 per cent. of the total expenditure on the project.

  My Department has offered to provide 50 per cent. of the cost of the experimental work at Grimethorpe on the topping cycle concept, up to £8 million. British Coal is currently pursuing negotiations with possible industrial partners and the level of Government support cannot be settled until those negotiations are completed.

  Petrol
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the national consumption of petrol in August and September 1990; and what were the equivalent figures in 1989.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Friday 19 October,Official Report, columns 964–65.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has made since July 1990 to the oil companies about petrol prices.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have encouraged United Kingdom oil companies to exercise restraint and not to increase prices any more than necessary. The companies have delayed price increases, and the Director General of Fair Trading found in his report of 28 September that restraint was being shown. The companies have made a number of decreases in pump prices over the last two weeks following decreases in the international market.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for what reasons power generated from Scotland does not qualify for inclusion under the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 8 February 1990, at column 724.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the underwriters for the sale of the electricity distribution companies and the estimated total fees payable.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It has not yet been decided who the underwriters on the sale of the regional electricity companies will be, nor has the level of their fees been fixed. These items will be settled only once the price and terms of the offer for sale are agreed and following a competitive auction on underwriting rates.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action will be taken by the United Kingdom Government to ensure that any nuclear materials or nuclear installations transferred from military to peaceful usage are verified under the existing voluntary offer safeguards agreements of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  14
  Mr. Wakeham
  All civil nuclear material held in the United Kingdom, including any material transferred into safeguards, is subject to Euratom safeguards under the Euratom treaty of 1957 and to the terms of the United Kingdom-Euratom-International Atomic Energy Agency voluntary offer safeguards agreement of 6 September 1976—IAEA INFCIRC 263.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish any proposals made by Her Majesty's Government to the International Atomic Energy Agency conference at the end of September relating to the annual International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards implementation report.

  Mr. Baldry
  No proposals were tabled by the United Kingdom delegation concerning the annual International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards implementation report during the International Atomic Energy Agency general conference in September.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the United Kingdom Government or any other Government raised the issue of International Atomic Energy Agency application of safeguards during the International Atomic Energy Agency annual conference in Vienna during September, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the recent International Atomic Energy Agency general conference many delegations, including that of the United Kingdom, expressed their continuing strong support for the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards system.

  Electricity Demand
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the likely system maximum demand for electricity in 2000.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The level of system maximum demand is highly uncertain and will depend on, among other things, the rate of economic growth, relative fuel prices and the relationship between generation and system maximum demand. Two possible scenarios of future electricity generation in 2005 and 2020 were published in "Energy Paper No. 58", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the net amount of electricity imported from France in 1989; what proportion this represented of electricity consumed; and what are his Department's estimates of the equivalent figures for 1995 and 2000, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1989 net imports of electricity from France amounted to 12·6 terawatt hours, representing 4 per cent. of total electricity available from public supply and industrial producers.

  Future import levels are uncertain and will depend largely on decisions taken by the market.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of electricity is generated from coal, gas, nuclear and renewables, respectively, now; and what is his Department's estimate of the likely proportions in 1995 and 2000, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The proportions of fuel used to generate electricity in 1989 are as follows:
  15

  Fuel used in electricity generation

  Per cent. share

  Coal

  69

  Nuclear

  21

  Oil2

  8

  Renewables3

  2

  The amount of gas used to generate electricity accounts for less than 0·1 per cent. of the total. Future proportions of fuel used are uncertain and will depend largely on decisions taken by the market. Two possible scenarios for 2005 were published in "Energy Paper No. 58"—table 4.10—a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  1. Information published in Energy Trends, Table 16. Coverage is for the generating companies formerly comprising the public electricity supply system: National Power, PowerGen, Nuclear Electric, National Grid Company, Scottish Power, Scottish Hydro, Scottish Nuclear, Northern Ireland Electricity Service, Midlands Electricity and South Western Electricity.

  2. Including oil used in gas turbines and diesel plant or for lighting up coal fired boilers, and Orimulsion.

  3. Mainly natural flow hydro.

  PowerGen
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is now prepared to disclose when he first had discussions with Lord Hanson about the possibility of a trade sale of PowerGen.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 July, at column 523.

  Radiological Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the outcome of the development of the EXPURT computer model on exposure from urban radionuclide transfer developed by the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Baldry
  The EXPURT model—exposure from urban radionuclide transfer—has been developed by National Radiological Protection Board over a number of years with support from the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and the European Community. It is intended primarily for use in assessing radiation doses received by the population resulting from accidental releases of radioactivity.

  A report by the National Radiological Protection Board describing the current state of development of the model has recently been published and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Piper Alpha
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received the report into Piper Alpha chaired by the Lord Cullen; and when he expects this to be published.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 October 1990, c. 967]: I have today received Lord Cullen's report. I am arranging for this substantial document to be printed and presented to the House, and I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Automobile-related Crime
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking in relation to automobile-related crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in June, and asked it to consult members, and report back, on the following issues:

  (i) how progress could best be made in Europe towards a new mandatory common standard on car security;

  (ii) what plans manufacturers have for voluntarily building better security—particularly improved locks and locking mechanisms—into their new cars; and

  (iii) what manufacturers arc doing to encourage car buyers to give a higher priority to car security when buying a new car.

  We are awaiting the society's report.

  Officials are discussing with the Consumers Association, the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association and the insurance industry how they might assist with initiatives aimed at tackling car crime. We are also producing a car theft index to show which makes and models of cars are most likely to be the subject of crime.

  Car crime has continued to receive a high priority in our crime prevention publicity campaign, including TV and press advertisements and our crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime"—over 3 million copies of which have been distributed—and the briefer "Family Guide"—over 2 million copies of which have been distributed.

  Romania
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications he has received for the adoption of mentally handicapped children from Romania since the fall of the Ceausescu regime, showing the results of these applications;

  (2) what is the policy of his Department towards the adoption of mentally handicapped children from Romania.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Every application for entry clearance on behalf of a child adopted in Romania, or who is coming here for adoption, is considered on its merits as a matter of discretion outside the immigration rules. The main consideration is whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interests. Only one such application has been made on behalf of a child who is known to be mentally handicapped. This application was made on 7 June 1990 and approved on 16 July. I wrote to the hon. Member about this case on 19 July.

  Electoral Registration, Finchley
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been undertaken by his Department into the decline in electoral registration in the Finchley parliamentary constituency following the figures published in 1988, 1989 and 1990; and what were the findings of these investigations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None. I understand, however, that in 1990 the electoral registration officer for the London borough of Barnet, which includes Finchley parliamentary
  17
  constituency, removed from the register for the borough the names of over 8,000 people about whom no information has been received for three or more years, and who, therefore, no longer appeared to be eligible for inclusion.

  Energy Planning
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he or officials of his Department have been invited to participate in the conference on emergency planning organised by International Business Communications in London on 29 October.

  Mr. John Patten
  In July officials were asked to provide a speaker on the implications of 1992 for the emergency planning community. After discussion, it was agreed that the Health and Safety Executive would provide a speaker. Home Office officials will not be attending this conference arranged by International Business Communications, but will receive copies of the conference papers.

  Dispersal Prisons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the latest available figures for staff-inmate ratios in dispersal prisons during the time that inmates are unlocked.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Inmates in dispersal prisons are unlocked from about eight in the morning until eight at night and the ratio of staff to inmates varies throughout this period. On a midweek afternoon when the largest number of regime activities, including work, education and visits are in operation, the number of prison officers to inmates would normally be as follows:

  Officers on duty1

  Number of inmates at 18 October

  Ratio

  Albany

  113

  377

  1:3·3

  Frankland

  185

  398

  1:2·2

  Full Sutton

  175

  436

  1:2·5

  Gartree

  122

  311

  1:2·6

  Long Lartin

  150

  430

  1:2·9

  Parkhurst

  177

  234

  1:1·3

  Wakefield

  205

  704

  1:3·4

  1 includes principal and senior officers and specialists.

  The variations in staffing levels reflect a number of factors including differences in physical design and in the provision of certain particularly staff intensive facilities such as a psychiatric wing or a special secure unit.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current cost per inmate per week in each dispersal prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost per inmate per week in each dispersal prison in 1989–90, the latest figures available, are:

  Establishment

  £

  Albany

  532

  Frankland

  600

  Full Sutton

  600

  Gartree

  600

  Long Lartin

  550

  Parkhurst

  882

  Wakefield

  390

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers who graduated earlier this month from the Newbold prison officer training school expressed a wish to be placed in posts at prisons within the Yorkshire area; and how many were actually placed in posts within Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty-one of the 180 officers who completed their training at Newbold Revel on 12 October named an establishment in North, South or West Yorkshire as their first choice. None was posted there, such vacancies as there were being filled by existing officers with longstanding requests for a transfer.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 6 August from the Prison Officers Association branch at Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield, regarding staffing levels.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The letter concerned a dispute about the staffing of Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield which was resolved at a national disputes meetings on 2 October. In the light of the outcome of that meeting, one of my officials replied to the letter on 18 October.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prison officer staffing levels agreed under "fresh start" for Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield and the actual number in post for 1 April 1988, 1 April 1989 and 1 April 1990; and what information he has on the reasons for the differences in these figures.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Wakefield prison went on to "fresh start" in April 1988. A staffing level of 429 officers, including principal and senior officers and specialists, was set by the regional director. The actual number of officers in post on the dates in question was:

  1 April

  Number of officers

  1988

  406

  1989

  426

  1990

  440

  In setting the original staffing level and in determining subsequently the resources to be allocated to Wakefield, the regional director took account of the needs of the establishment relative to the others in his region and of the contribution which it was able too make to the efficiency improvements which were an integral part of the "fresh start" package.

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long has Lorrain Osman now been in prison on remand.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mr. Osman was held on remand only from 7 December 1985 until 1 June 1987. On that date he was committed to custody by the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate to await the Secretary of State's order for his surrender. The Secretary of State has been prevented from completing his consideration of the extradition request from Hong Kong because of the series of appeals initiated by Mr. Osman, the last of which is outstanding.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest time any prisoner has been imprisoned on remand(a) in the last 30 years, (b) in the last 20 years and (c) in the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information about the longest periods held in remand during the last 30 years is not available centrally. On 30 June 1990 one unconvicted prisoner had been held in Pentonville prison for more than four and a half years having been committed to custody pending completion of extradition proceedings. An indication of the length of time spent in prison service establishments by person received on remand is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales"—tables 2.3 and 2.4 of the latest issue, for 1989, Cm. 1221, copies of which are in the Library.

  Ritual Murder (Leaflet)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations the police are conducting into the identity of those responsible for publication or distribution of the leaflet "Another Blood Libel or Ritual Murder".

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that inquiries have established that the names given for the publisher and the printer of the leaflet are false. The investigation is continuing.

  RELATE
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial contributions his Department is making to RELATE; if it plans to increase its contribution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the present financial year RELATE will receive a grant of £1,306,840, which includes a special grant of £300,000. I am not yet in a position to say what its grant for the following year will be.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into the Birmingham pub bombings to be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the light of new information discovered by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, my right hon. and learned Friend referred the cases of the Birmingham Six to the Court of Appeal on 29 August. Any further police inquiries into these cases in connection with the hearing before the Court of Appeal are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  AIDS (Police Information)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any information or data are recorded, referenced or retained by the police on their manual files or upon computer, including the national police computer, the Metropolitan police computer and any other constabulary computer, which describes, or can identify, an individual as being antibody positive to a test for human immunodeficiency virus or as having an AIDS 20
  diagnosis or any related human immunodeficiency virus illness or which describes that individual as being contagious as a consequence of such diagnosis; whether guidelines have been issued to the police in relation to the recording of such information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, the Earl Ferrers, wrote to the hon. Member on 16 October on these matters. As he explained in the letter, it is for chief officers to decide what information to keep on local force computers and manual records. He also confirmed that police forces are able to record on the police national computer information on the health or likely behaviour of a person where such information would be of help to them in dealing with that person. The reply to a question by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 15 October at column 725, sets out the warning signals which may be used on the police national computer. These include a warning that the subject of the record may be a hazard to others as a carrier of diseases. It is for the police to decide whether to use this or any other warning signal.

PRIME MINISTER

  Green Issues
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what benefits Her Majesty's Government gained from the attendance by an official of her efficiency unit at the Royal Institute for Public Administration conference on greening the way we govern at Royal Holloway college on 21–22 September.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that a member of the efficiency unit accepted a personal invitation to chair a session on "Environment, accountability and value for money". No costs were incurred by Government.

  Romanian Children
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiative she put forward to support Romanian children suffering from AIDS and other diseases during her visit to the United Nations conference on children in New York in September.

  The Prime Minister
  At the world summit for children. I signed the world declaration on the survival, protection and development of children and supported the plan of action. Both documents recognised the urgent need to accord a high priority to health care and to AIDS programmes for children in all countries, including Romania.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will include in the Official Report a table showing, for each of the last 10 Sessions, the ratio of statutory instruments introduced by the negative resolution procedure to those by the affirmative resolution procedure.

  The Prime Minister
  Figures for the numbers of statutory instruments laid before the House each Session are not readily available. However, all instruments laid, with the exception of Orders in Council and draft Orders
  21
  in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, are considered by the Joint or Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The following figures, derived from the sessional returns relating the delegated legislation, are based on instruments considered by these Committees during each of the last 10 full Sessions. Excluded from the figures are statutory rules of Northern Ireland, special procedure orders and all instruments which are not subject to parliamentary procedure.

  Instruments considered by the Joint or Select Committee on Statutory Instruments

  Session

  Instruments subject to annulment

  Instruments subject to affirmative procedure

  Ratio A:B

  A

  B

  1979–80

  1,010

  235

  4·30:1

  1980–81

  755

  130

  5·81:1

  1981–82

  686

  121

  5·72:1

  1982–83

  455

  99

  4·60:1

  1983–84

  863

  180

  4·79:1

  1984–85

  637

  158

  4·03:1

  1985–86

  815

  158

  5·16:1

  1986–87

  462

  117

  3·95:1

  1987–88

  1,179

  246

  4·79:1

  1988–89

  854

  160

  5·34:1

  Leaks
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many persons elected to the office of Member of Parliament, office holders and non-office holders, other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister knew, prior to 4 pm on Friday 5 October, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention to announce in October either a cut in base rates or entry into the exchange rate mechanism;

  (2) whether she will institute a full leak inquiry into how information relating to the cut in base rates and exchange rate mechanism entry was known to individuals in the City of London more than one and a half hours prior to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 4 pm on Friday 5 October;

  (3) how many civil servants knew prior to 4 pm on Friday 5 October of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention to announce in October either a cut in base rate or entry into the exchange rate mechanism.

  The Prime Minister
  Only those with an operational need to know were informed prior to 4 pm on Friday 5 October of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention to announce a cut in base rates and the Government's decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism on Monday 8 October.

  I have no evidence to suggest that information relating to the cut in base rates and entry in to the exchange rate mechanism was known to anyone in the City of London outside the Bank of England prior to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. If the hon. Gentleman believes that he has such evidence he should make it available to the appropriate authorities.

  Foreign Troops (Training)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for granting approval to companies seeking to provide military 22
  training for foreign military forces when such training involves the release of United Kingdom classified information.

  The Prime Minister
  Were any such requests for approval to be made, they would be considered by the Department or Departments which had originated the United Kingdom classified information concerned.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to open; what discussions he has had concerning the bank recently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development will be able to start operations when so authorised by the inaugural meeting of its board of governors. This will be held when the bank's articles of agreement have been ratified by members with two thirds of the total voting power, to include at least two borrowing members. The ratification process is likely to be concluded by next spring.

  I opened the second conference of prospective members of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development at Lancaster house today which will review progress in developing a sound operational framework for the new bank. I am confident that the bank will soon be able to play its part in fostering private enterprise and economic development in central and eastern European countries committed to democratic principles and market economics.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for 1988, 1989 and 1990 to the most recent practicable date the development aid given to Cambodia by the United Kingdom Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 15 October, at column 633. Britain has no Government-to-Government aid programme in Cambodia, but details of humanitarian aid provided to Cambodians since 1988–89 is as follows:

  A. Projects co-funded with British non-governmental organisations

  Project

  Disbursed

  Committed

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Support for Primary and Secondary Schools

  —

  13,884

  —

  Community Schools

  15,000

  —

  —

  World Council of Churches

  21,490

  —

  —

  Preventative Health Care Services, Kampot

  —

  —

  192,250

  Initial Assessment

  —

  5,841

  —

  Primary Health Care

  —

  8,631

  —

  Primary Health Care

  —

  —

  61,433

  Rural Water Supply

  46,656

  —

  —

  Takeo Canal Irrigation System

  79,534

  —

  —

  Rural Water Supply

  —

  —

  7,570

  Animal Vaccines Project

  —

  —

  43,604

  23

  Project

  Disbursed

  Committed

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Ministry of Agriculture

  —

  —

  54

  Agricultural Development

  —

  33,270

  —

  Engineering Assistance Programme

  —

  —

  35,985

  162,680

  61,626

  340,896

  B. Multilateral agencies working inside Cambodia

  Agency and Programme

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  United Nations Children's Fund

  Health, water, nutrition, sanitation and education

  250,000

  250,000

  500,000

  Food and Agriculture Organisation

  Animal vaccines

  100,000

  —

  —

  World Health Organisation

  Anti-malaria

  —

  —

  200,000

  World Food Programme

  To support UNICEF's well and pond digging programme

  —

  —

  300,000

  350,000

  250,000

  1,000,000

  C. Assistance to Cambodians on Thai/Cambodia border

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  UNBRO

  350,000

  500,000

  1—

  Humanitarian Aid to non-communist Cambodian refugees

  100,000

  100,000

  —

  NGOs

  100,000

  60,000

  44,000

  ICRC

  50,000

  —

  —

  600,000

  660,000

  44,000

  1 1990 contribution to UNBRO made in first quarter of year.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason a proposal for the repair of a water filtration plant in Cambodia was turned down.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Oxfam applied in 1988 for co-funding of a water distribution project in Phnom Penh under our joint funding scheme. When we told non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam, that we were prepared to support projects in Cambodia, we indicated that we would prefer to consider smaller-scale development projects with a humanitarian element and not infrastructural projects concerned with restoring or maintaining major public utilities which are more usually the concern of government rather than non-governmental organisations.

  This project fell into that second category and was therefore rejected. Since 1988–89 we have committed £565,000 to co-fund 12 projects in Cambodia carried out by non-governmental organisations, including five from Oxfam, and are currently considering five new proposals, including three from Oxfam.

  Developing Countries (Conference)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution his Department made to the 11th review conference of CAB 24
  International on technological assistance and ecological protection in developing countries, held in London at the end of July.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I gave the opening address at CAB International's 11th review conference. My Department represented the dependent territories at the conference and one of my senior officials was a member of the United Kingdom delegation. Following the conference we are considering with CAB International possible forms of assistance during its transition to a more commercial footing. My Department was also represented at CAB International's workshop on the ecological foundations of sustainable agriculture which was held a few days before the review conference.

  Brazil
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he or officials in his Department have had with Ministers or officials of the Brazilian Government in regard to technical and planning assistance available from the United Kingdom to support RIMA environment impact studies, in particular on the development of ecologically balanced projects in the Amazonian rain forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There have been discussions between officials about assistance for training in environmental impact assessment. A proposal for British support for a joint review of Brazil's environmental impact assessment needs is at a preliminary planning stage and requires detailed discussions with the Brazilian Government. All project proposals for British support in Brazil are of course assessed for their likely environmental impact. Under our bilateral programmes we can support Brazilians to undertake in the United Kingdom training in environmental assessment techniques.

  South America
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have plans to discuss further the rescheduling of the external debts of those countries in South America which are currently allocating significant resources to the task of preserving remaining areas of natural rain forest.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government recognise that many of those countries in South America with large areas of rain forest face serious debt problems.

  The Paris club is always ready to discuss, where necessary, the rescheduling of official debt for countries pursuing IMF-agreed economic reform programmes.

  Much of the South American countries' debt belongs to commercial banks: arrangements for dealing with this debt are a matter for negotiation between the debtor countries and the banks within the framework of the strengthened debt strategy.

  Pergau Hydro-electric Project
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been offered under the aid and trade provision to support contracts between the Malaysian Government and Balfour Beatty, General Electric Company, and Trafalgar House for the Pergau hydro-electric project.
  25
  Mrs. Chalker
  An offer of a grant of up to £68·25 million from the aid and trade provision, based on an estimated contract value of £316 million, was made on 17 April 1989. An extension of this offer expired on 17 October 1990. A further extension remains a possibility, but no decisions have been taken.

WALES

  Lorries (Magor and Undy)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes concerning the petition from the No Lorries Through Magor and Undy Action Group presented at the Welsh Office, Cardiff on Friday 12 October.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The petition is being taken into account in the consideration of construction traffic routes in Gwent.

  Young People (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list for each local social services authority in Wales for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989 the number of placements made in facilities providing secure accommodation and indicate what proportion of those children in the care of the home authority such a number represents;

  (2) if he will list for each facility in Wales providing secure accommodation for young persons for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989 the number and proportion of young persons so accommodated on behalf of a local social services authority other than that providing the secure accommodation.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on Thursday 18 October.

  Nurses Grading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many clinical regrading appeals by nurses in Wales were still awaiting a decision on 1 October or on the nearest date for which this information is available; and how many appeals were dealt with in each month in 1990;

  (2) how many clinical regrading appeals by nurses were still awaiting a decision in each health authority area in Wales on 1 October or on the nearest date for which this information is available; and how many appeals were dealt with in each health authority area in Wales in each month in 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest information available is as shown in the table:

  Number of appeals outstanding (October 1990)

  District health authority

  Number

  Clwyd

  209

  East Dyfed

  112

  Gwent

  588

  Gwynedd

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  699

  Pembrokeshire

  79

  Powys

  57

  South Glamorgan

  396

  West Glamorgan

  42

  Total—Wales

  2,182

  26
  Details of numbers of appeals dealt with each month are not held centrally.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of designated intensive care beds in(a) each district health authority in Wales and (b) in each district general hospital in Wales in each of the years 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of the beds allocated to intensive therapy units for the years 1980 to 1988–89 are published in the relevant issues of "Hospital Bed Use Statistics", copies of which are in the Library. Beds allocated to ITUs as at 31 March 1990 are given in the table:

  Authority/hospital

  Beds allocated

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  6

  Ysbyty Maelor

  6

  Total

  12

  East Dyfed

  Bronglais

  4

  West Wales General

  3

  Total

  7

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall

  6

  Royal Gwent

  7

  Total

  13

  Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  Princess of Wales

  8

  East Glamorgan General

  6

  Prince Charles

  4

  Total

  18

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales

  16

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  6

  Llandough

  4

  Total

  26

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston

  7

  Neath General

  9

  Total

  16

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  2

  Infertility
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the most recent figures available showing the number of clinics in Wales offering(a) IVA, GIFT arid other procedures and (b) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVA; and if he will also publish the total numbers of (i) single, (ii) twin, (iii) triplet, (iv) quadruplet, (v) quintuplet and (vi) sextuplet pregnancies following GIFT procedures in each category of clinic.
  27
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, some information on these matters is published in the annual report of the Interim Licensing Authority, a copy of which is available in the Library. The Interim Licensing Authority was established by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1985.

  It is expected that in future some of the data requested will be available from the IVF register, which has been set up by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys with funding from the Department.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual sums of money committed since the inception of the European regional development fund to each recipient local authority and the annual amount paid to each from the fund.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Childbirth Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures for 1988 and 1989 showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in Wales(a) whose labours were induced, (b) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (c) who had elective caesarean section.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information is given in the table. Information for 1989 is not yet available.

  Estimated percentages of hospital deliveries by type of onset of labour: Wales 1988

  Type of onset of labour

  Percentage

  Induced

  4

  Spontaneous

  84

  Elective caesarean

  5

  Other caesarean

  7

  Note The information is based on OPCS 4th revision codes for the classification of surgical operations and procedures which were introduced in 1988.

  Sewage
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to setting special requirements in respect of the treatment of sewage from hospitals in Wales in general and particularly in regard to Ysbyty Gwynedd; what factors were taken into account; and what conclusions were reached.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the Water Act 1989, the setting of discharge consents is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Rents to Mortgages
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sales have been completed under the rents to mortgages scheme.

  Mr. Grist
  Out of some 60 applications, 10 sales have been completed under the flexi-ownership scheme. The Development Board for Rural Wales estimates that by the end of the first year of the scheme about 5 per cent. of the eligible stock will have been sold to flexi-owners.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been received by his Department from schools wishing to opt out of local authority control in order to attain grant-maintained status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Two.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths by sudden infant death syndrome were recorded in Wales in each of the years 1980 to 1989; and if he will make a statement as to measures which he proposes to take to reduce the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Recommendations to secure improvements in the quality of care for new-born babies and their mothers, including the establishment of a regional perinatal intensive care service and a regional paediatric pathology service at University hospital of Wales—UHW—Cardiff, were made in the perinatal mortality initiative report in 1986. Subsequently, the Secretary of State decided that an expert advisory group would be set up to consider the operational structure of the proposed regional centre and its relationship to other perinatal services in Wales. That group, chaired by Sir Eric Stroud, professor of child health at Kings College school of medicine and dentistry, produced a report "Perinatal Intensive Care Services in Wales", which was widely distributed to interested authorities and professional bodies in Wales in February this year.

  The report makes a number of recommendations for the improvement of services and identifies in detail the manpower and other requirements for the development of the regional centre at UHW which will be associated with a number of regional sub-centres strategically located throughout the Principality.

  Action has been put in hand to secure, by central funding, the appointment of a consultant paediatric pathologist for the regional centre at UHW. Pending this appointment part-time consultant sessions are being funded centrally. Funds are also to be made available to South Glamorgan health authority in the coming financial year to secure the services of a consultant neonatologist and a registrar in paediatrics in line with the recommendations of the report. It is also intended to establish, over the coming five-year period, a programme of developments which will lead to the provision of an integrated service of excellence. As the first stage, health authorities have been asked to prepare proposals to achieve a rationalisation of services in relation to the numbers of special care costs and neo-natal intensive care costs which the report considers necessary to meet the needs in those areas.

  Available data on deaths of children resident in Wales in the years 1980 to 1989 are given as follows:

  29

  Deaths of children in Wales where the term 'Sudden Infant Death' (ICD 798.0) was:

  Year

  Mentioned on the death certificate (Column A)

  Recorded as the underlying cause (Column B)1

  1980

  75

  53

  1981

  56

  59

  1982

  66

  49

  1983

  65

  51

  1984

  51

  45

  1985

  76

  68

  1986

  74

  268

  1987

  98

  290

  1988

  83

  271

  1989

  67

  264

  1 Column B included in Column A.

  2 The introduction in 1986 of a separate death certificate for the neonatal period, that is within the period 28 days after birth, means that it is not appropriate for the practitioner to assign a single underlying cause to such deaths. These data therefore exclude deaths occurring within the first 28 days after birth.

  Hospice Movement
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce the level of funding for the hospice movement in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

HEALTH

  Haemophiliacs
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in light of the remarks made by Mr. Justice Ognall, he will reconsider his position on compensating haemophiliac HIV sufferers who contracted the disease by way of contaminated blood products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 15 October at columns 664–66.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the National Health Service in the Nottingham district health authority for staff who have been employed through agencies as nurses, operating department assistants, ancilliary and other staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Nottingham health authority has provided the following breakdown of costs to the health authority for non-NHS (agency) staff:

  1989–90

  Non NHS Staff (Agency etc)

  £

  Nursing

  71,455

  Ancillary Staff

  50,953

  All other Staff

  410,761

  TOTAL: NON NHS STAFF (AGENCY ETC)

  533,169

  The cost for operating department assistants is incorporated in the figure for "all other staff".

  Alternative Therapies
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to recompense qualified medical practitioners using alternative therapies under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no such plans. Registered medical practitioners may, within the services they provide to NHS patients, offer to use any of the complementary therapies if they consider it to be in the interests of their patients.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of places available annually for training students in physiotherapy in each of the last 10 years; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of existing places.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of pre-registration training places for physiotherapists was not collected before 1986. The available figures are for Great Britain and are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  987

  1987

  970

  1988

  994

  1989

  1,048

  The responsibility for ensuring an adequate supply of training places is a matter for regional health authorities in consultation with units providing a service. Guidance has been issued which clearly places a responsibility on regional health authorities to assess demand for training and to ensure that training places are available to meet such a demand.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospital regions of the United Kingdom have the use of air ambulances; what is the basis of funding this service; and if he will institute a study into the possible provision of such a service on a nationwide basis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. A study is being carried out into the services in two areas and the results will be considered in due course. The services provided in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will introduce guidelines indicating the attitude local authority social services departments should take over the size, unit bed limits and staffing of registered care homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so at present. "Home Life"—a code of practice for residential care—already gives general guidance on such matters.
  31
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received protesting at the interpretation of the provisions in the Registered Homes Act 1984 regarding unit size and bed limits by certain local authority social services departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A small number of letters about this has been received in the Department.

  Baby Milk
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if midwives are regarded as one of the groups of relevant health professionals which should be consulted by district health authorities about the purchase of baby milk formulas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Midwives, because of their key role in the provision of maternity care, should be among the health care professionals from whom advice is sought.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the problems which could arise from purchasing baby milk from only one manufacturer; and what guidance he has given to health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All supplies personnel are aware of the problems that may arise by purchasing any vital product from only one manufacturer.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce legislation to limit the working week of junior doctors to 72 hours; or to recommend such a maximum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The group on junior doctors' hours, which I chair, is considering a variety of changes in working practices in order to reduce onerous hours of work.

  All parties on the ministerial group are aiming to reach broad agreement in principle on specific changes by the end of the year.

  The Government have accepted an average 72-hour week for junior hospital doctors as a sensible long-term objective.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each facility providing secure accommodation for young persons for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989, and the number and proportion of young persons so accommodated on behalf of a local social services authority other than that providing the secure accommodation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 October at column 891.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local social services authority for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989 the number of placements made in facilities providing secure accommodation; and what proportion of those children in the care of the home authority such a number represents.
  32
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of placements made in facilities providing secure accommodation for the years 1985 to 1988 is published in "Children accommodated in secure units during the year ended 31 March", copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1989 will be available shortly. This information was not collected centrally prior to 1985. Figures on proportions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Adoption
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to issue a report on adoption procedures; which categories of people have and will be consulted in the process of drawing up the report; and whether procedures for adoption of children from Romania are under consideration.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Three discussion papers were issued in September in connection with the interdepartmental review of adoption law. The papers have been circulated widely for comment among groups and individuals with an interest in adoption; and are freely available to all interested parties. Further papers in the series will follow, including a discussion paper on inter-country adoption.

  New guidance was issued in September to social services departments on inter-country adoption, including adoption of Romanian children.

  Copies of the adoption law review papers and of the guidance on inter-country adoption have been placed in the Library.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list district health authorities in England and Wales, showing which of these charge private residential nursing homes for the use of incontinence pads for national health service patients who are their residents;

  (2) how many representations he has received in the current year concerning district health authorities charging private residential nursing homes for incontinence pads for national health service patients who are their residents and if he will make a statement.

  (3) if he will list the standard charges by district health authorities to private residential nursing homes for the use of incontinence pads for national health service patients who are their residents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations about the supply of incontinence pads to private nursing and residential homes. The free provision of incontinence pads under the National Health Service Act 1977 does not extend to people living in private nursing homes; the same legislation provides that district health authorities may provide incontinence materials and other nursing aids to people in their own homes and at their discretion to residents of local authority and private residential homes. The extent to which this discretion is exercised varies from place to place and information about these decisions is not held centrally.

  Infertility Treatments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures available showing the number of clinics in(a) England and (b) England and

  33
  Wales offering (i) IVF, GIFT and other procedures and (ii) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVF; and if he will also publish the total numbers of (a) single, (b) twin, (c) triplet, (d) quadruplet, (e) quintuplet and (f) sextuplet pregnancies following GIFT procedures in each category of clinic.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available centrally. Some information on these matters is published in the annual report of the Interim Licensing Authority, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  In future we expect that some of the data requested will be available from the IVF register, which has been set up by OPCS with funding from the Department.

  Childbirth
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures available showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in(a) England and (b) England and Wales (i) whose labours were induced, (ii) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (iii) who had elective Caesarean section.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The most recently available information, for 1988–89, from a sample of 173,000 births in England, is shown in the table. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Method of onset of labour

  Percentage

  Induced labour

  17

  Spontaneous onset, including accelerated labour

  73

  Elective Caesarean section

  5

  Not known

  5

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures available showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in (a) England and (b) England and Wales whose deliveries were (i) spontaneous including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous, (ii) instrumental including forceps, vacuum and breech extractions, (iii) Caesarean section and (iv) other and unspecified means.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The most recently available information, for 1988–89, from a sample of 173,000 births in England, is shown in the table. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Method of delivery

  Percent

  (i) Spontaneous including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous

  78

  (ii) Instrumental including forceps, vacuum and breech extractions

  11

  (iii) Ceasarean sections

  10

  (iv) Other and unspecified means

  1

  Wakefield Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the names, home addresses, ages and occupations of the newly appointed chairman, executive and non-executive members of Wakefield health authority

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Brian Hayward was appointed the chairman of Wakefield health authority 34
  from 14 November 1988 until 31 March 1992. The hon. Member may care to write to Mr. Hayward at the district health authority for his personal details.

  The Yorkshire regional health authority is responsible for appointing the non-executive members of Wakefield health authority. The chief officer and the chief finance officer are "ex-officio" executive members of the authority. Other executives are appointed by the chairman, the non-executives and the chief officer.

  The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact Sir Bryan Askew, chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority, for the information he requires.

  Acute Care
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued by his Department to area health authorities as to the relative priority to he granted to patients(a) over the age of 70 years and (b) under the age of 70 years who have been diagnosed as having suffered serious coronary attacks, in respect of acute care treatments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The treatment of an individual patient is a matter for the clinician responsible for his or her care.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to allow general practitioners a statutory right to buy their premises where they are owned by the public sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are at liberty to sell unneeded health centres to general practitioners, provided suitable arrangements are made for the continuing provision of any community services based there.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, further to his answer of 16 October.Official Report, column 1045, he will publish the evidence showing that the amount of time general practitioners spend with patients is increasing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's comments were based on a survey published in "PULSE" on 4 August, which showed 54 per cent. of GPs had spent more time in patient contact since the inception of the new contract. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the impact of charging to for eyesight checks on attendances for examination in the London borough of Newham.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about NHS sight tests is not collected for individual London boroughs. Figures are available, however, for regional health authorities. For North East Thames regional health authority, which includes the London borough of Newham, the number of NHS sight tests paid for in 1988–89 and 1989–90 by family health service authorities in that region was as follows:

  NHS Sight Tests

  35

  1988–89: 1,054,960

  1989–90 (after entitlement was restricted to certain groups): 468,230.

  After 1 April 1989, many patients in Newham, as elsewhere, will have had a private eye examination. Regular statistics are not kept on private sight tests.

  NHS Capital Programme
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what report the national health service management board has made to him on the impact on the capital programme of the national health service arising from the fall in property values.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Bed Closures
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with what frequency he requires the national health service management board to report on the number of bed closures by region or district; and what are the latest figures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not require reports from the management executive on numbers of bed closures since this information is not an accurate guide to the level of services to patients.

  Heracleum Mantegazzianum
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many recorded incidents there have been in the last five years of the hospitalisation of patients who have come into contact with the furocoumarins released by heracleum mantegazzianum

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Hostels
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will give social services departments overall responsibility for financing the cost of care in hostels to the extent that it is not covered by other existing funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities have powers under existing legislation to support hostels and the people in them. It is for each local authority to decide the type and level of support to make available.

  Vitamin A Supplements
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will identify the research or peer review journal which led to his Department's decision to recommend restricted consumption of liver and vitamin A supplements; and whether he has any plans to make the findings of this research more widely available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A number of pieces of research contributed to the Department's decision. The major contributing factor was the increasing knowledge of the potential teratogenicity of vitamin A and growing evidence that the consumption of high amounts of vitamin A by pregnant women may be associated with birth defects in their babies. This information is reviewed in the following publications: Rosa FW, Wilk AL and Kelsey 36
  FO (1986) Teratology 33, 355–364; Biesalski HK (1989) Toxicology 57, 117–161 and Teratology Society position paper: "Recommendations for Vitamin A use during pregnancy" (1987) Teratology 35 269–275. Results of recent measurements of vitamin A levels in samples of domestic and imported liver on sale in the United Kingdom are quoted in the Department's press release of 18 October 1990, ref 90/507. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects he has instigated into the potential health implications resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The National Radiological Protection Board is under a statutory duty to inform and advise Government and others on possible hazards to health from ionising and non-ionising radiation. The board has undertaken an extensive review of the possible health consequences of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The review, to be published shortly, will form the basis of a revision of the board's recommendations published in 1989 entitled, "Guidance on Exposure to Time-Varying Electromagnetic Fields" (NRPB-GS11), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Projects undertaken by board staff include measurement of occupational and domestic electromagnetic fields and theoretical calculation of energy absorption in people. A programme of work investigating the cancer-related responses of cell cultures to electromagnetic fields is to begin shortly.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the type of machines covered by provisions relating to industrial deafness; when that list was compiled; when it was last revised; and whether he will review the list.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply. The machines specified in the jobs prescribed for occupational deafness are listed in schedule 1, part 1, of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 as amended by regulation 2 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987. The list can also be found in leaflet NI 207 "If you think your job has made you deaf—copies of which are available in the Library. The list was first prescribed in 1975 and last revised in 1988. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reviewed the list in Cm. 817 "Occupational Deafness"—October 1989—but decisions on its recommendations were deferred pending a further report from the council on improving the administrative arrangements for dealing with claims for this disease. This report will be published very shortly. The council has asked the Department to evaluate the feasibility of the report's recommendations within six months. It should then be easier to determine whether there are orderly ways in which to extend provision for this disease to further occupations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Applications (London)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from(a) Richmond upon Thames borough council and (b) Marks and Spencers plc requesting him not to call in the planning application for a Marks and Spencers shop on the embankment beside the River Thames at Twickenham; and what arguments were advanced in each instance.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has received one letter from the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and one from the planning advisers acting for Marks and Spencers plc requesting him not to call in the application.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in respect of a planning application for a Marks and Spencers store on the embankment of the River Thames at Twickenham, he will set out the number of letters he has received either direct or via the hon. Member for Twickenham, for and against(a) planning permission and (b) calling in the application for a public inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has received 16 letters supporting and 53 objecting to the proposed development, and 120 calling for and three opposing a public inquiry. He has also received 25 representations supporting and 47 objecting to the proposed development on printed forms.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report those planning applications within Greater London which he has called in within the last three years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Applications for development at the following locations have been called in since October 1987:

  St. John's Hospital, SE13

  Stamford Bridge Stadium

  Abbey National Sports Ground, Kenton

  London Bridge City Phase II

  Noak Hill/Appleby Drive, Romford

  St. Theresa's School, Hatch End

  Land adjacent to the M11, Woodford

  Haverfield Road, Cordova Road and Clinton Road, E3

  Branch Hill, Camden

  Victoria Park Wharf, Mile End Park

  Westfield College, Brent

  PLA Sports Ground, Redbridge

  Feltham Lower School

  Galsworthy House, Kingston Hill

  43–49 Grove Road, E3

  City of London Heliport

  London City Airport

  Spitalfields Market

  North Wards Site, Harefield Hospital

  This list does not include applications in the legal precincts and for foreign embassies which are subject to special arrangements.

  Environmental Meetings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the future environmental conferences, seminars and meetings which Ministers or officials in his Department will be attending in the next three months and, where possible, the date of each.
  38
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: Ministers and officials from this Department will as usual be attending a number of conferences, seminars and meetings during the next three months.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to take account of the special responsibilities of maritime district councils in exercising their duties under the Coast Protection Act 1949; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. While I am aware of a number of cases where the interests of nature conservation have seemed at variance with the need for coastal protection under the Coast Protection Act 1949. I am pleased to be able to report that these are generally resolved by agreement between the parties involved.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why it was decided to close down the Crown Suppliers so soon after he had announced that they were to be privatised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The decision to close a part of the Crown Suppliers was taken in the light of the disappointing result of the sale competition, two and a half years after the announcement that it would be offered for sale. Discussions are continuing with bidders for other parts of the Crown Suppliers.

  Bournemouth Borough Council
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his assessment of the appropriate level of service for Bournemouth borough council which has resulted in a 13·7 per cent. reduction in real terms of support grant between 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  The revenue support grant entitlement for Bournemouth borough council was calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the revenue support grant distribution report approved by the House in January and applied equally to all authorities. Among other factors, the Bournemouth area now has to find a smaller share of the precept from Dorset county council than under the former system and this is reflected in the grant entitlement.

  Sunday Markets
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions exist governing the freedoms of Sunday markets to operate without permission; whether the Government have any plans to review the position; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988—GDO—grants planning permission for the temporary use of land for markets for up to 14 days in any calendar year. Use for more than 14 days requires specific planning permission, and a local planning authority may withdraw the GDO permission by making a direction under article 4 of the order.
  39
  Section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 enables a local authority to resolve to require both the operator and the site occupier to give not less than one month's notice of a forthcoming market. Non-compliance with this requirement is subject to a fine.

  Under section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, local authorities may serve a notice requiring the abatement or restriction of noise nuisance arising from a temporary market. Breach of the terms of such a notice attracts a fine of up to £2,000.

  I do not believe that any further legislation is needed to control the planning aspects of markets, although the GDO is kept under review.

  Paper

  Glass

  Aluminium

  Total tonnes

  Tonnes/head

  Total tonnes

  Tonnes/head

  Total tonnes

  Tonnes/head

  Belgium

  1691,000

  10·0671

  208,000

  0·02100

  2—

  2—

  Denmark

  311,000

  0·0610

  58,000

  0·01140

  2—

  2—

  France

  2,881,000

  0·0522

  760,000

  0·01300

  233,100

  0·0040

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  5,627,000

  0·0922

  1,538,000

  0·02470

  537,000

  0·0086

  Great Britain

  2,975,000

  0·0526

  310,000

  0·00560

  220,000

  0·0040

  Greece

  2—

  2—

  14,000

  0·00140

  2—

  2—

  Ireland

  2—

  2—

  11,000

  0·00310

  2—

  2—

  Italy

  1,733,000

  0·0304

  670,000

  0·01175

  390,000

  0·0068

  Netherlands

  1,488,000

  0·1026

  279,000

  0·01880

  129,000

  0·0087

  Portugal

  273,000

  0·0268

  34,000

  0·00330

  2—

  2—

  Spain

  1,591,000

  0·0412

  287,000

  0·00740

  77,600

  0·0020

  1Includes Luxembourg; no other figures are available for that country.

  2No figures are available.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from John Grooms housing association concerning investment in housing for physically disabled people; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We received a letter from John Grooms housing association signed by representatives of a number of organisations connected with the housing, support and care of disabled people, concerning the provision of housing for the physically disabled, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) replied on 5 September. I have placed copies of the correspondence in the Library.

  Food Safety Act
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money is being earmarked for local authorities to pay for the increased work load resulting from enforcement of the Food Safety Act; how and when this will be paid to local authorities; what formula is being employed to determine the allocation between local authorities; and how the resources will be divided between county and district councils.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have estimated that local authorities in England will need to spend £24·7 million, in 1991–92, to carry out the additional duties resulting from the Food Safety Act. This additional cost has been taken into account in the total of aggregate external finance, proposed to be £26·05 billion, which will be distributed to local authorities on the basis of standard spending

  Recycling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing all EEC member states' records on recycling paper, glass and aluminium(a) in total tonnes, (b) tonnes per head of population and (c) net cost per tonne for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand, from data supplied by the Pulp and Paper Information Centre, the British Glass Manufacturers' Confederation and the Organisation of European Aluminium Smelters, that the figures for 1989 are as tabulated. No information is available on the net cost per tonne of recycling these materials.

  assessments. My right hon. Friend will be announcing our proposals for standard spending assessments in the near future.

  Camden
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in regard to the London borough of Camden under part I of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  On 3 July 1990, my right hon. Friend served two notices under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 on the London borough of Camden, setting out his view that the authority had failed to comply with the requirements of the Act in carrying out refuse collection and street cleaning work. Under section 14 of the Act, he may issue directions to an authority on which he has served a notice under section 13. The London borough of Camden made a written response to the section 13 notices on 2 August 1990 and requested a meeting on the case, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), held with it on 24 September 1990. We are still considering whether to issue a section 14 direction in the light of the points made at that meeting and of further information submitted since the meeting.

  Minerals Act 1981
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what stage has been reached over his Department's review of the operation of the Minerals Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's intention to review the operation of the provisions of the Minerals Act 1981 was
  41
  announced in paragraph 6.57 of "This Common Inheritance". Some work relevant to this review is already under way. Any proposals for change arising out of the review will be the subject of full public consultation.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or officials of his Department, have been invited to participate in the conference on recycling, organised by the Institute of Wastes Management in London on 4 December.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Yes. I shall be speaking at the conference, as will two officials from the Department's local environmental quality division.

  Committee Corridor (Carpet)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state(a) the cost of replacing the carpet on the Committee corridor, (b) the origin of the carpet and (c) how the original was disposed of.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The cost was some £33,000. The carpet was manufactured in the United Kingdom and those parts of the original carpet that have any value will be sold by auction.

  Environmental Conferences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or officials of his Department, have been invited to participate in the International Business Communications conference on environmental protection in practice organised by the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association at the London press centre on 10–11 December.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or officials from his Department, will attend the international science and technology forum on environmental policy and management, sponsored by the British Council, to be held in Alfriston on 7–14 November.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. This is a British Council seminar for overseas specialists, some of whom will be visiting my Department as part of the scheduled programme of visits.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or officials of his Department, have been invited to participate in the conference "Going Green—Benefits Versus Costs", organised by the Environment Council, to be held in London on 22–23 November.

  Mr. Trippier
  Officials have been invited to attend the conference, and will be doing so.

  Environment White Paper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to obtain for his departmental library a transcript of the Radio 4 phone-in programme on the financial implications of the White Paper on the environment, broadcast on 2 October.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is aware of this broadcast and its contents. I have no plans to obtain a transcript for my departmental library.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek an early meeting with the chairman of the radioactive waste management advisory committee to discuss the proposals revealed by British Nuclear Fuels plc to the "European Nuclear Conference '90" in Lyons, on 25 September, to extend the capacity of the Drigg site in Cumbria to accommodate compacted radioactive waste presently earmarked for the repository being developed by UK Nirex Ltd.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for current Government policy on the disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) arising from the plans by British Nuclear Fuels plc to introduce a compaction plant for low-level waste, to be operational from 1993.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government remain committed to the safe and early disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The compaction plant introduced by British Nuclear Fuels plc will enable it to extend the lifetime of the disposal site at Drigg, but this does not obviate the need for a repository to accommodate both low and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman or board of UK Nirex Ltd to discuss the future development of the programme to handle low-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Development Orders
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) who is responsible for keeping copies of 1946 interim development orders; and if they can be obtained by the public;

  (2) if he will establish a national register of interim development orders;

  (3) how many interim development orders issued in 1946 are still current; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Atkins
  Interim development orders, first made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1932, continued to be issued until 1 July 1948, when the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 came into force.

  Interim development orders provided the earliest form of planning permission granted on application and aimed to establish a form of planning control until such time as the planning schemes, for which the local planning authorities were responsible, came into force.

  All permissions granted under interim development orders before 21 July 1943 have lapsed, but permissions applied for and granted on or after that date and before 1 July 1948 were preserved by section 77 of the 1947 Act and by subsequent legislation.

  No records of applications made under interim development orders were required and no information about the total number of permissions granted is currently available. Such records as there are of such permissions will be held by the successor planning authorities and we are discussing the information currently available with the local authority associations.
  43
  The Department is aware of the recent concern about interim development order permissions and is examining the issue in the review of the operation of the provisions of the Minerals Act 1981 announced in "This Common Inheritance".

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the level of the uniform business rate for 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce the proposed figure shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimates of the actual total yield from the national non-domestic rate for the current financial year.

  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that the yield from non-domestic rates in England in 1990–91 will be of the order of £10·8 billion. There are, however, several factors, such as the level of buoyancy, losses and reliefs, whose effect on the outturn cannot be predicted accurately at this stage.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimates of the additional costs faced by local authorities as a result of the decision to cut the rate of subsidy for housing and poll tax benefit from 97 to 95 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The proposal to change the proposed rate of subsidy from 97 to 95 per cent. will reduce the amount paid to local authorities in England by about £67·5 million in 1991–92. This was taken into account by my right hon. Friend in his proposals for aggregate external finance announced on 19 July. He proposed raising AEF by 12·8 per cent.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has undertaken with local authorities on(a) the impact of the cut in the rate of subsidy for housing and poll tax benefit and (b) the way in which this could be taken into account in setting the level of rate support grant for 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  We shall be consulting the local authority assocations formally about the proposals for revenue support grant for 1991–92 next month. The proposed level of aggregate external finance announced on 19 July took account of the proposed change in the rate of housing and community charge benefit subsidy.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what account is to be taken of the likely surplus in national non-domestic rate income in 1990–91 and 1991–92 in setting the totals for NNDR and RSG for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has undertaken on the use of income from the national non-domestic rate which exceeds the planned distributable amount for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  As required by schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, in setting his forecast of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 44
  1991–92 my right hon. Friend will take account of the amount of rates likely to be collected for 1991–92 and any anticipated surplus in 1990–91 in the amount actually collected over the amount distributed. The level of revenue support grant will be the amount necessary to be added to the distributable amount and the specific and special grants to bring the total of aggregate external finance to £26·05 billion. In announcing that level of AEF, which my right hon. Friend proposed on 19 July, he took account of the likely surplus in 1990–91.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will consult representatives of local government and relevant professional bodies on his determination under part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 of housing revenue account subsidy for 1991–92; and what proposals he will be making.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is today consulting local authorities, the local authority associations and other interested bodies on proposals for determining each authority's entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy for 1991–92. The proposals include tighter rules on empty properties and give details of guideline rents, management and maintenance allowances, and some important technical changes to the rules for calculating subsidy entitlement. Comments are invited within six weeks. I am placing a copy of the consultation papers in the Library together with a list of the guidelines and allowances for each authority.

  I propose to tighten the subsidy rules where councils leave houses and flats unoccupied. At present the subsidy makes some allowance for the rent income that is lost on empty properties, but this allowance takes the form of a sliding scale which also gives some extra help to authorities with higher percentages of empty property. I want to stop this. I am therefore proposing to restrict the allowance to a flat 2 per cent. of dwellings. An authority would receive the same allowance whether its empty properties are more or less than 2 per cent, so that there would be a direct financial incentive not to keep dwellings empty.

  For rent guidelines I propose an average rent increase of just 2 per cent. above the allowance for inflation. This means an average increase per week of £1·84 ranging from £1·38 to £2·50 over the guideline rents which applied this year. The increases would continue the process introduced last year of encouraging authorities towards charging sensible levels of rents which better reflect the value of property in different parts of the country, while ensuring that rents remain within the reach of tenants.

  For management and maintenance allowances, I propose introducing a system of targeted allowances which better reflects the nature of each authority's stock. This would help a group of about 20 authorities with the worst problems by means of a small re-distribution of allowances from all other authorities. Overall the level of allowances would be increased in order to maintain them at this year's level in real terms.

  The rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances are no more than the assumptions the Government will make in calculating each authority's subsidy entitlement. It is for each council to determine its own rent and how much to spend on management and maintenance of its stock.
  45
  Also included are two proposals affecting local authorities' subsidy entitlement in respect of properties held on leasehold terms. First, for leases acquired after midnight tonight, I propose that the present arrangements for subsidy towards the rents payable by authorities should he replaced from 1 April 1991 by arrangements under which subsidy is payable on discounted capital costs. The effect of the change would be to bring subsidy entitlement on new leases within the aggregate limit on subsidy for new capital expenditure. This is a sensible proposal which will replace the existing, inadequate controls on the subsidy of leases with one that would allow authorities flexibility to decide between new investment and new leases within a common control total.

  Secondly, also from 1 April 1991, for all leases with a term of less than three years, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is proposing that any rent rebate payable will be subsidised only to the extent that the claimant's eligible rent does not exceed one and a half times the authority's average rent. This would counter an anomaly in the current arrangements under which authorities may benefit from subsidy in respect of such leases in excess of their actual costs.

  Asbestos Dust (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if' he will make a statement on the measures being taken to eliminate asbestos dust from(a) the Press Gallery and (b) elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster; and what assessment he has made of the potential health hazards to Members and employees of the House of Commons as a result of exposure to asbestos dust.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: During the summer recess the Parliamentary Works Office removed asbestos from the Press Gallery staircase and other areas of the Palace of Westminster. This was done either to facilitate other jobs or as part of the asbestos removal programme, not because the asbestos was in a dangerous condition. The work was carried out in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive's asbestos regulations. The results of mandatory air tests carried out afterwards showed readings well below the minimum statutory safety levels.

  Soil Acidification
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in response to the results of research undertaken by the critical loads advisory group into the acidification of soil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The results of research undertaken by the critical loads advisory group into the acidification of soil will form an important part of the United Kingdom input to the development of the critical loads approach in Europe. This will help lay the basis for cost-effective and closely targeted future pollution abatement measures.

  Sewage Contamination
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure contaminated agents washed off in slaughterhouses are not present in sewage effluents reaching rivers and beaches; and if he will make a statement.
  46
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The levels of contaminants in trade effluents entering sewers in England and Wales are subject to strict control by the relevant sewerage undertakers. Statutory powers are available to the undertakers which enable them to set such quality standards as are necessary to ensure that their treated sewage can meet the terms of the discharge consents granted by the National Rivers Authority. The quality conditions set by the undertakers for trade effluents also ensure the structural safety of their sewers and the protection of the health of those who work in them.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: Expenditure on hospitality in my Department, including the Property Services Agency, in 1989–90 was £83,500.

  Open University
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions on 2 October at the Open university—in Milton Keynes—on the development of environmental education programmes in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: Following an interesting discussion about the Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance" with the pro-vice-chancellor and other members of the faculty of the Open university on 2 October, my officials will be meeting staff of the Open university to take matters forward.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he or officials of his Department have been invited to participate in the conference on environmental implications for the construction industry organised by ECCE and Construction News, to be held in London on 15 November.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: My Department cannot trace any invitations. I understand that the conference has now been postponed.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to include Leeds in additional measures to tackle homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: The allocation of £250 million for the present financial year and next, for schemes to house homeless families, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in November last year was targeted on London and the south-east, where homelessness pressures, particularly the numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, were greatest. Those pressures continue to be most severe in those regions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Dunsdale Securities
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to set up an official inquiry into the future of Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State does not plan an inquiry into Dunsdale Securities. This case is being handled by the regulatory authorities and the receiver in the normal way. They will take whatever action is necessary.

  Departmental Brochures
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many copies were initially printed of the brochures(a) "Design for the Environment" and (b) "Cutting your Losses—A Business Guide to Waste Minimalisation"; what has been the cost to date of publishing each brochure; to which organisations the brochures were sent; what steps have been taken to publicise the brochures; what proportion of recycled paper fibre has been used in the initial print run; and whether there are any plans to organise further print runs.

  Mr. Redwood
  The initial print run of "Cutting Your Losses" was 12,000 copies; 36,000 copies have been printed to date at a total cost of £51,448. Recycled paper was used throughout. The booklet was launched at a joint CBI/DTI conference on waste minimisation in November 1989. It was advertised in selected trade magazines and has been made available on demand and at relevant seminars and exhibitions including a series of regional seminars on waste legislation and waste minimisation organised jointly by the DTI and the CBI. More than 30,000 copies of "Cutting Your Losses" have been taken up, mainly by business organisations and higher education establishments. There is a continuing demand and it is likely that a further print run will be necessary.

  "Design for the Environment" was published for a conference of the same name, sponsored by the Design Council, the Environment Council, the DTI and the Institute of Metals, and held in March 1990. There has been one print run, of 4,000 copies, at a total cost of £8,376·50. Recycled paper has been used throughout. The booklet has been made available on demand and almost all 4,000 copies have been taken up. No decision has yet been taken on the possibility of a further print run.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the most recent meeting of the Ministerial European Trade Council, the activities of the companies Water Engineering Trading (WET) of Hamburg, Preussag of Hanover in Germany, Technology Development Group Limited (TDG) of London and Schmiedemeccanica SA of Lugano, Switzerland, in regard to trade arrangements with Iraq, were discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The matters referred to by the hon. Member have not been discussed at any recent meetings between European Trade Ministers.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department was invited to 48
  participate in the Panorama programme, "Saddam's Secret Arms Ring", broadcast on 3 September; and if he will obtain a copy of the transcript and videocassette for his departmental library.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department was invited to participate in the "Panorama" programme broadcast on 3 September and supplied written answers to written questions. I do not propose to obtain a copy of the transcript and videocassette for the departmental library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to raise at the next Council meeting of European Community Trade Ministers the export activities of the German companies H and H Metalform Gmbh and Export Union Gmbh in regard to sales of sensitive equipment and militarily useful material to Iraq since 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all restrictions introduced since 2 August on trade with Iraq agreed at international forums of which the United Kingdom is a party; and if he will set out the measures adopted to enforce the restrictions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The restrictions introduced since 2 August on trade with Iraq agreed at international forums are as follows:

  6 August

  United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 661 was adopted imposing sanctions against Iraq and Kuwait.

  8 August

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2340/90 was made preventing trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait. Equivalent provision was made as regards products covered by the ECSC Treaty.

  25 August

  UNSCR 665 was adopted authorising the multinational forces navies to halt shippping in order to inspect and verify cargoes.

  25 September

  UNSCR 670 was adopted introducing measures to tighten the air embargo, and detain or deny entry to Iraqi registered ships breaching sanctions.

  The measures adopted by the United Kingdom are as follows:

  2 August

  The Control of Gold, Securities, Payments and Credits (Kuwait) Directions 1990 were made

  4 August

  The Control of Gold, Securities, Payments and Credits (Republic of Iraq) Directions 1990 were made.

  The United Kingdom amended the Open General Import Licence to impose restrictions on the import of crude oil and petroleum products originating in Iraq or Kuwait.

  8 August

  The Iraq Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1990 was made. It prohibits activities in connection with the exportation of goods from Iraq or Kuwait and the supply
  of goods to Iraq or Kuwait or Iraqi or Kuwaiti controlled companies except under the authority of a licence.

  The Export of Goods (Control) (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) Order 1990 was made. It prohibits exportation from the United Kingdom of all goods to Iraq or Kuwait or to any other destination for the

  49
  purposes of any business carried on in Iraq or Kuwait, except under the authority of a licence.

  An amendment was made to the open general import licence of 4 December 1987 prohibiting the importation into the United Kingdom of goods originating in Iraq or Kuwait.

  29 August

  The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 1990 was made. It made minor amendments to the Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order and prohibits, except under a licence, payments under bonds in respect of a contract the performance of which is unlawful as a result of the sanctions.

  5 October

  The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1990 was made. It imposes restrictions on aircraft overflying the United Kingdom where their destination is Iraq or Kuwait. The Order also imposes restrictions on ships registered in Iraq entering ports in the United Kingdom.

  Similar provision has been made in respect of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the dependent territories.

  Within my Department's export control organisation a new licensing and enforcement unit was created at the time of the imposition of the embargo against Iraq and Kuwait. This unit has specific responsibility for the co-ordination of all export licensing matters arising from the embargo and of any information that is received about possible embargo-related events.

  Astra Holdings Limited
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when, and for what purpose, he set up the inquiry to investigate the affairs of Astra Holdings Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following an application by the company, inspectors were appointed on 16 August 1990 under section 431(2)(c) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of the company. My right hon. Friend has asked them to look in particular at the events surrounding the rights issue by the company in July 1989.

  UN Conference, Geneva
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the governing trade and development board of the United Nations conference on trade and development held in Geneva in early October, in so far as it affects United Kingdom trade policy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The first part of the 37th UNCTAD trade and development board took place from 1 to 12 October 1990. Agreement was reached on the agenda for the eighth United Nations conference on trade and development to be held in 1991, where discussion will cover international trade, commodities, technology and services, and resources for development, taking into account the need to promote economic growth and adopt good management and structural reform.

  Chemical Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he or officials of his Department have been invited to participate in the conference on the human factor in safety in the chemical and process industries to be held in Manchester on 20–21 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The safety of people at work is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he or officials of his Department have been invited to participate in the seminar on the environmental implications of a single European market to be held at the London Press Centre on 5 December.

  Mr. Redwood
  A director of the Department's environment unit has accepted an invitation to speak at this seminar.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's current attitude towards the multi-fibre arrangement and detail the preparatory discussions that have been held with textile organisations regarding the arrangement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government continue to support the EC's position that the MFA should be phased out, after its latest extension expires next year, as part of the integration of textiles and clothing into GATT on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines. Ministers and officials frequently meet representatives of the textiles and clothing industry to discuss the negotiations.

  Leak Inquiry
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he will call for information from the London International Financial Futures Exchange on dealings with the LIFFE short sterling contract market, the gilt futures market and the TSE 100 futures market in the 90 minutes immediately prior to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of a cut in base rates and exchange rate mechanism entry at 4 pm on Friday 5 October;

  (2) whether he will call for information from the London International Financial Futures Exchange on dealings in the LIFFE market in the 90 minutes immediately prior to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of a cut in base rates and exchange rate mechanism entry at 4 pm on Friday 5 October.

  Mr. Redwood
  The London International Financial Futures Exchange is conducting a review of trading on 5 October before the announcement of entry into the exchange rate mechanism. This review has not yet been completed. However, the exchange has told me that the trading records of the individual firms and of the market as a whole provide no evidence of any prior knowledge of the announcement.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will call for
  51
  information from the stock exchange surveillance department on dealings in the stock exchange in the 90 minutes immediately prior to the Chancellor's statement of a cut in base rates and exchange rate mechanism entry at 4 pm on Friday 5 October.

  Mr. Redwood
  The International Stock Exchange has conducted a review of equity trading on 5 October before the announcement of entry into the exchange rate mechanism. It has told me that the trading records of individual firms and of the market as a whole provide no evidence of any prior knowledge of the announcement.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the annual report and accounts of British Shipbuilders for 1989–90.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In accordance with sections 17(9) and 18(6) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, I laid copies of British Shipbuilders' annual report and accounts for 1989–90 before each House on 27 July 1990.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1989–90.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: In the financial year 1989–90, the Department of Trade and Industry spent £298,000 on official hospitality.

  Much of this was spent in support of the United Kingdom's trade activities, hosting receptions and meals for visiting Ministers and introducing British business to the right people from overseas.

  Timeshare Industry
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is to be taken to implement the recommendations in the Director General of Fair Trading's report concerning problems with the timeshare industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: We are currently considering Sir Gordon Borrie's recommendations.

  Dangerous Goods
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries from companies registered to handle imported toxic hazardous and special waste his Department's dangerous goods advisory service (DAGAS) has received each month since its inception; and for what proportion of inquiries DAGAS has been unable to assist.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: The dangerous goods advisory service (DAGAS) advises on the classification and labelling of packaged dangerous goods for international transport; such advice is normally sought in the country of origin. DAGAS has received only two inquiries on hazardous and special waste since its inception; assistance was given on both occasions.

  Grand Met/Elders Merger
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he has received the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Grand Metropolitan/ Elders IXL pubs-breweries swap;

  (2) when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Grand Metropolitan/Elders IXL pubs-breweries swap will be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: We have received the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the merger situations between Elders IXL Ltd. and Grand Metropolitan plc. The report was published on Tuesday 16 October.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fish
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any grilse or salmon captured in Northern Ireland waters during the last five years and the current year have been identified as salmon ranching escapees.

  Mr. Brooke
  During the past five years, three salmon identified as escapees from salmon farms have been captured in the fish traps operated by the Department of Agriculture on the River Bush. This would indicate that insignificant numbers of escapees from salmon farms are reaching Northern Ireland.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations have been carried out into stocks of sea trout in Northern Ireland waters in each of the last 10 years; whether any changes in numbers have been noted during those years; and whether the factors causing variations in population or size of fish have been identified.

  Mr. Brooke
  No such investigations have been carried out during the last ten years. General observation of sea trout runs in Northern Ireland waters have shown no significant changes in population or size of fish.

  Devolution
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the progress of his talks with leaders of the political parties in the Province about a devolved administration; whether he intends to continue with these talks; what measure of agreement has been achieved; and whether differences with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about their wish to be consulted have now been ironed out.

  Mr. Brooke
  My discussions with the leaders of the main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government have produced a significant measure of agreement on a basis for talks which would address the various relationships relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland. These discussions are continuing with a view to resolving the outstanding matters to the satisfaction of all concerned through further discussion.

  Butter
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made for the distribution of EEC intervention butter to pensioners.

  Mr. Brooke
  Fifty organisations have been designated to distribute beef and butter this year to the most needy in Northern Ireland under the EEC surplus food scheme. As in previous years the most needy in the United Kingdom have been defined as including the homeless and destitute, people in receipt of income support or family credit and people living in welfare hostels. Pensioners who fall into one of these categories will qualify for free food.

  Stevens Inquirry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, (b) the Ulster Defence Regiment, (c) the Northern Ireland Prison Service and (d) the Regular Army were questioned in the course of the Stevens inquiry in relation to (i) the loss or transfer of confidential security force files, (ii) the death of Mr. L. Maginn, (iii) the death of Mr. P. Finucane and (iv) other matters.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The information in the form requested is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I understand that during the investigations carried out by DCC Stevens's inquiry team more than 1,900 written statements were taken from witnesses and suspects, including those from members of the RUC, Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Regular Army (including the UDR).

  Pipe (Limavady)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify who is responsible for the pipe at Ruchie Park, Drumsurn, Limavady.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: I am aware that there is uncertainty about which authority is ultimately responsible for this pipeline. This uncertainty is being resolved. Meanwhile the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has undertaken to remove any blockages from the pipe which might occur.

  I will write to the hon. Gentleman once the matter is resolved.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diego Garcia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation there has been between his Department and its counterparts in the United States of America concerning the United States bases in Diego Garcia, following the publication of the national security strategy of the United States in March.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have continued our traditional process of close consultation with the United States authorities over the United States navy support facility on Diego Garcia.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining any progress made towards returning Diego Garcia to Mauritius.
  54
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The position remains that the territory will be ceded to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes. In present circumstances the defence facilities in British Indian Ocean territory continue to make a vital security contribution and we envisage no change in the status of the territory in the foreseeable future.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation there has been between his Department and the relevant departmental ministers in the United States concerning overflights on Diego Garcian territory.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We consult fully the US authorities on overflights whenever the need arises.

  COCOM
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all countries for which the policies and rules of the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Exports have been changed since January 1989.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The German Democratic Republic was removed from the Co-ordinating Committee (COCOM) list of proscribed destinations following unification on 3 October 1990 with the Federal Rupublic of Germany. This is being given effect through a change to the Export of Goods Control Order 1989 (SI 2376).

  Poland
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees have been agreed to safeguard the current western boundaries of Poland where they join those of Germany.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Under the treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany, Germany's borders, including the border with Poland, are definitive and it is stated that Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever and shall not assert any in the future. The Polish Foreign Minister, who took part in the two-plus-four negotiation on this subject, has expressed satisfaction at this outcome.

  Tibet
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet the Dalai Lama to discuss the impact of Chinese involvement in Tibet and restrictions on religious practices.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current queues for applications for entry clearance in each category for the latest available month, and the numbers in each queue, for the posts at(a) Bombay, (b) Karachi, (c) New Delhi, (d) Nairobi, (e) Calcutta, (f) Islamabad and (g) Dar-es-Salaam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 30 September, the estimated waiting times (in months) are:
  55

  Settlement

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  (a) Bombay

  1

  6

  9

  10

  (b) Karachi

  1

  4

  4

  8

  (c)New Delhi

  0

  3

  8

  10

  (d) Nairobi

  All settlement applicants normally wait 2–3 days

  (e) Calcutta

  No settlement queues

  (f) Islamabad

  3

  6

  10

  118

  (g) Dar-es-Salaam

  All settlement applicants normally wait 4–6 weeks.

  1 As at 31 August.

  The number of people waiting as at 30 September is as follows:

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Bombay

  0

  246

  490

  130

  Karachi

  8

  76

  22

  16

  New Delhi

  0

  302

  330

  117

  Islamabad

  105

  2,227

  302

  1265

  Calcutta

  Have no queues at present

  Nairobi

  Dar-es-Salaam

  1 As at 31 August.

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1—

  Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependant relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Q2—

  All spouses, and all children under 18 years.

  Q3—

  Fiancé(e)s and others applying for the first time for settlement.

  Q4—

  Re-applicants.

  During periods of seasonal high demand applicants for visit visas in Islamabad requiring a full interview can expect to wait up to five days. Elsewhere they are dealt with on the day of application.

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff have been transferred from DG VIII in the European Community to work on PHARE, or other forms of European Community assistance to eastern Europe; and how many of these have been replaced.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A total of three members of DG VIII in the Commission applied for transfer to work on the Community's assistance programme for eastern Europe. All three positions vacated in DG VIII have been re-filled.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the proposed sale of 7 tonnes of lithium hydride by the North China Industries Corporation (NORINCO) to Iraq in October, in contravention of United Nations resolution 661 on trade with Iraq agreed in August.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made representations about the reported activities of this company to the Chinese Government, who have assured us that they are applying the UN trade embargo fully and have not acted in contravention of UNSCR 661.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has raised with his 56
  counterpart in the Federal Republic of Germany the role of German companies in the covert provision of technologies to Iraq that have uses in chemical or nuclear weapon production.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in constant touch with the Governments of Germany and other friendly countries exchanging information about the practical implementation of UN Security Council resolution 661. We are closely co-operating on this shared objective.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to his counterpart in Chile concerning the role of the Cardoen Company in Chile in providing military equipment to Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This matter has been raised with the Chilean Government and we have received assurances that they are complying with the terms of UNSCR 661.

  Romania
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current guidelines in Romania for the adoption of children by applicants from the United Kingdom, including the guidelines for the adoption of mentally handicapped children.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am arranging for a translation of the relevant Romanian Act of Parliament to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any request for funding from the Romanian Government to permit the operation of a second television channel in their country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has given to the Romanian health authorities concerning the trials of a drug invented by Mr. David Hughes with children suffering from AIDS in Colentia hospital, Bucharest.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have passed on to the Romanian authorities information received from British medical experts about Mr. Hughes' background and the drug that he has been testing.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers of the 35-nation conference on security and co-operation in Europe, held in New York on 1–2 October.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The CSCE Foreign Ministers conference provided a useful forum to review the preparatory work being carried out for the CSCE summit, to be held in Paris on 19–21 November. Ministers' discussions reflected a convergence of views regarding the scope and objectives of the summit and the major new steps which are now possible for the CSCE process. They agreed that the role of the CSCE must be enhanced to
  57
  respond to new opportunities for co-operation. We look forward to measures for such enhancement being endorsed at the Paris summit, enabling us to turn the CSCE from a process into an organisation.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government to encourage South Africa to become a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have urged South Africa to accede to the NPT on numerous occasions, notably at meetings between South African and NPT depository powers representatives. The most recent such meeting was held in Vienna on 11–12 December 1989.

  I raised this matter with the South African Government during my visit to South Africa on 19 September.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have called on any non-proliferation treaty signatory state to complete subsidiary safeguard arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency since the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline any changes in Her Majesty's Government's policy on the responsibilities of the non-proliferation treaty signatories between the disarmament committee of 23 February 1967 and the present day.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy on the responsibility of NPT signatories remains that they should abide by their commitments under the treaty. As regards the clauses relating to disarmament, we welcome the progress made in this direction since 1967 through SALT and the INF and CFE treaties, and we look forward to an early conclusion of the START negotiations and the ratification of the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's position on article VII of main committee II in the recent fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference relating to South African nuclear capability.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A proposal to establish a nuclearweapon-free zone in Africa was discussed in main committee 2 of the fourth NPT review conference. In principle we are in favour of such a zone because of its nuclear non-proliferation benefits. We have called upon South Africa on many occasions to submit all its nuclear installations and facilities to IAEA safeguards and to accede to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence he has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the European proliferation information centre concerning the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.
  58
  Mr. Waldegrave
  This Department has received several letters from members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament about nuclear non-proliferation issues since the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference. To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any recent correspondence from the European proliferation information centre.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east since the adoption of paragraph 13 in article VII of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom has since 1980 joined consensus in the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly on successive resolutions sponsored by Egypt calling for a middle east nuclear-weapons-free zone, making clear that our support is conditional on such a zone being acceptable to all states in the region.

  Middle East
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments relating to British hostages held in Beirut.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 15 October at column 752 to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).

  Military Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any companies have contacted his Department to seek approval for the provision of military training for foreign military forces.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  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 record of any request of this nature being made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications for visits to the United Kingdom are outstanding in respect of(a) Poland, (b) Czechoslovakia, (c) Romania and (d) Hungary; how many have been refused in the last 12 months; what is the fee payable by applicants in each of the countries listed; and what happens to the fee if an application is refused.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 October]: Visas were abolished for Czechoslovakia and Hungary on 1 October 1990. Information in respect of applications lodged at our embassies in Warsaw and Bucharest is as follows:

  59

  Country

  Visa applications outstanding

  Refusals (October 1989-September 1990)

  Poland

  17

  2,484

  Romania

  1371

  23

  1Includes other foreign nationals.

  The visa fee is £20 world wide, payable in local currency. The fee is charged when an application is formally lodged, and is non-refundable in the event that the application is refused. Visa fees contribute to the administrative costs of processing visa applications, which are incurred whether or not a visa is issued.

TRANSPORT

  Dartford Bridge
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction of the southern approach to the Dartford bridge to be completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Full completion is due by the end of 1991.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the quality of service currently being provided by Network SouthEast.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have set tough quality of service objectives. Network SouthEast is making every effort to meet them and is investing £1·2 billion over this and the next two years.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the likely implications for businesses in the north-west of England of the British Railways Board's proposals for direct freight and parcels rail services to Europe on completion of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is still working up its plans for freight and parcels services. It hopes to clarify the position on freight services for the north-west around the end of the year. We recognise that tunnel freight service to the north-west is of great importance to business in the region.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to respond to the proposals contained in the draft European Community directive for investment to provide high-speed rail links between Scotland and the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The draft directive makes no such proposal, but a full electric service between Edinburgh and London is expected to start in 1991, and British Rail's plans for the channel tunnel include services between Scotland and the continent.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to respond to 60
  the proposals contained in the draft European Community directive for investment to provide high-speed rail links between Scotland and the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to respond to the proposals contained in the draft European Community directive for investment to provide high-speed rail links between Scotland and the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) earlier today.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has supplied to the European Commission on arrangements concerning the transport of nuclear fuel and waste through the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my written reply of 14 June, at column 304. There has been no change since then.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had on regional transport connections to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received a number of representations to the effect that road and particularly rail services to the tunnel should be improved. The Government are confident that road and rail links to the tunnel will meet both passenger and freight demand.

  London Underground (Crime)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures for crimes committed on the Northern line of the London Underground.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I understand from the British Transport Police that in the first nine months of 1990, the number of reported crimes on the Northern line was 1,977. During that time the Northern line carried over 150 million passengers. The introduction of pilot schemes at six stations at the southern end of the line, financed from a £15 million Government grant, has brought about a major reduction in robberies—from 52 in 1988 to eight in 1989.

  Manchester Metro-link
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress there has been on plans to build the Manchester metro-link.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Agreement to this important project was given by the Government last year with approximately £50 million of grant and additional revenue support will be given. The track bed has been laid in a number of streets in central Manchester, and we look forward to seeing services begin late next year.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent estimate he has made of the increase in traffic he expects to occur on the A1 north of Morpeth when the A1 south of Newcastle becomes a motorway.
  61
  Mr. Chope
  Traffic models prepared as part of the routes south of Edinburgh study took into account potential high growth and the upgrading of the A I south of Newcastle. The predicted flows are substantially below the threshold criterion for dualling.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional arrangements are being planned regarding the safety of the section of the A 1 road which straddles the Scottish border after the A1 becomes a motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has commissioned Borders regional council to carry out a feasibility study for a short extension within Scotland of the proposed A1 Marshall Meadows dual carriageway scheme.

  Rail Electrification, Bradford
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received recently about the electrification of railways in the Bradford area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The West Yorkshire passenger transport executive has proposed the electrification of the railways between Leeds and Bradford Forster square and on to Shipley, Ilkley, Keighley and Skipton. We are considering this project for credit approvals.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the privatisation of docklands light railway.

  Mr. Freeman
  The private sector already has a significant role in the expansion of the railway and that involvement will continue to be encouraged, but we have no plans at present to privatise the DLR.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is being invested in the docklands light railway over the next three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The docklands light railway plans to invest more than £250 million, mainly on completing the extensions to Bank and Beckton.

  Greater London Stations
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements are under way or are planned for stations in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Freeman
  Network SouthEast has a programme of improvements for all stations including those within the Greater London area. Since 1986 NSE has rebuilt or modernised 370 stations—nearly 40 per cent. of the total. A continuing programme of improvements is planned.

  East Coast Electrification
  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in electrifying the east coast route.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The electrification of the east coast main line has made excellent progress. The line is 62
  electrified as far as Leeds, beyond York to Northallerton, and from Edinburgh to Berwick. Electric services have already been introduced from London to Leeds. British Rail plans to start electric services to Edinburgh in May 1991.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport is he will make a statement on the proposed Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Freeman
  Proposals were received from the three tenderers at midday today. The Government expect to select a successful tenderer as soon as possible after a proper evaluation of the proposals.

  Rail Transport, East Midlands
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had recently with British Rail and European Transport Ministers concerning rail transport in the east midlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are keen to see good rail transport throughout the country. It is for British Rail to develop any specific proposals for further improvements in the east midlands.

  London Transport
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was invested in London Transport last year.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1989–90 London Transport invested £443 million—an increase of 35 per cent. in real terms compared with the previous year.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to improve transport for the disabled.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he is taking to improve access to public transport for disabled passengers.

  Mr. Freeman
  Improving transport for people with disabilities is a continuing priority. Our plans are set out in "Transport and Disability—a Statement of Aims and Priorities.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the monthly average number of movements and volume of radioactive materials carried by ships in British coastal waters

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not collect data of the kind requested.

  The safety regulations for the transport of all radioactive materials in this country are based on stringent internationally agreed standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In brief, these require safety to be "built in" to the design of the

  63
  container used for transport so that the contents would not present a significant radiological hazard even in the event of a severe accident.

  Rail Freight Services
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future financial prospects for freight services within the British Rail network.

  Mr. Freeman
  Much of rail freight is profitable and has good prospects, but BR's Railfreight distribution business, which includes the Speedlink wagon service, continues to make very heavy losses. BR is currently reviewing the future of Speedlink in consultation with its customers. We have set Railfreight an overall objective of earning a profit of £50 million in 1992–93 (at 1989–90 prices), and we are backing new investment in rail freight wherever it offers sound commercial prospects.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on road signs along single carriageway A roads in rural areas.

  Mr. Chope
  Our policy is that traffic signs should be erected so as to convey clearly all relevant warnings, restrictions and prohibitions, together with other important information such as directions. Traffic signs are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and the Traffic Signs (Speed Limits) Regulations, which are approved by Parliament.

  Policy on driver information such as brown tourist signs is covered in administrative arrangements notified to highway authorities.

  Advice to highway authorities on the design and siting of signs is given in the traffic signs manual, published by HMSO.

  Transport Investment
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what amount transport investment in the United Kingdom has changed in real terms over the last three years; and what are the projected figures for investment over the next three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1989–90 investment in transport through the Department of Transport's programme and the nationalised industries for which it is responsible was nearly 40 per cent. higher in real terms than three years earlier. In three years hence, on the basis of the plans shown in the public expenditure White Paper, it will be about 40 per cent. higher again.

  Horses
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to protect horses and horse riders who use the road.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the recent enactment of legislation requiring children under 14 to wear protective headgear, we are about to consult on regulations to bring the Act into force. We have also entered into discussions with the British Horse Society on measures to extend road traffic law to cover ridden horses and on possible amendments to the highway code to provide better advice to horse riders and motor vehicle drivers.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are planned to improve the flow of buses in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government plan to propose legislation to implement a majority of the recommendations of the roads and utilities report on public utilities street works. We shall also be implementing the proposals in our consultation paper on "Traffic in London". London Transport has formed a new bus priority team to identify practical solutions to the bottlenecks which cause the most serious delays to buses.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a new edition of the "Highway Code" is planned.

  Mr. Chope
  We updated the "Highway Code" earlier this year to take account of the new requirements for children to wear rear seat belts. We will include some improvements to the artwork when we next reprint in early 1991. We will consider a complete revision of the "Highway Code" in the light of future legislative changes arising from the North report on road traffic law.

  MOT Enforcement Inspectors
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many enforcement inspections of MOTs were carried out last year.

  Mr. Chope
  The vehicle inspectorate carried out 27,441 standard control inspections at MOT testing stations and investigated 2,728 individual appeals against the outcome of MOT tests in the year up to 31 March 1990.

  London Traffic
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are planned to improve the flow of traffic in London.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) earlier today.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Civil Aviation Authority will invest in new air traffic control equipment and facilities over the next three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority currently has plans to spend about £319 million on air traffic control equipment and facilities, in the three years 1990–91 to 1992–93. This includes expenditure on the new en route centre (a major new air traffic control centre for the southern part of the United Kingdom), and the central control function (a substantial reorganisation of southeastern airspace). Both these projects will lead to significant increases in airspace capacity.

  Cycle Routes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress has been made towards the provision of a network of cyclist routes in London and Greater London.

  Mr. Chope
  The London Cycling Forum, of which the Department is a member, has been consulting recently all London highway authorities on a proposed 1,000-mile network of cycle routes.

  The Department has organised a seminar to be held on 7 November on "The Next Steps" in the development of the cycle network.

  Car Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to check exhaust emissions from cars.

  Mr. Chope
  We are now consulting interested parties on draft regulations to introduce an emissions check in the MOT test. Consultation ends on 9 November 1990.

  British Rail
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the development of equality of service indicators for British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Quality of service standards for the passenger sectors were first agreed in 1986. Some were revised earlier this year, as set out in my right hon. Friend's letter of 19 December to the chairman of British Rail, (Official Report, 19 December 1989, column 227). British Rail is required to report progress in its annual report and accounts. More detailed reports are provided regularly to the Transport Users Consultative Committee.

  Rail Electrification, Scotland
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of ScotRail to discuss electrification in Scotland.

  Mr. Freeman
  We welcome proposals from British Rail for further electrification where that would offer good value for money.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his discussions with ScotRail about the options for railway electrification of the(a) Edinburgh-Fauldhouse-Shotts-Glasgow, (b) Edinburgh-Carstairs-Glasgow and (c) EdinburghLinlithgow-Falkirk-Glasgow railway lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The £12·5 million electrification of the line between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Carstairs is under way and due to be completed by the spring of 1991. ScotRail is to introduce the new class 158 express diesel units on the route from Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh via Falkirk and Linlithgow. A full service using these new trains will be in operation by the end of this year. I understand that ScotRail is still considering whether a case can be made for electrifying the route via Shotts.

  Highway Schemes
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of highway schemes began construction last year.
  66
  Mr. Chope
  In 1989–90 construction work commenced on 125 miles of national motorways and trunk roads. In addition, 93 miles of local authority road schemes costing more than £1 million were started.

  London Underground
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London Underground stations are currently being modernised.

  Mr. Freeman
  Modernisation works are currently going on at 20 underground stations. By the turn of the century London Underground intends that every station will have been modernised.

  Roundabouts (Accidents)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of road traffic accidents occurring at roundabouts for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects only information on road accidents involving personal injury. The number of injury accidents occurring at roundabouts and mini-roundabouts was 11,831 in 1987, 13,037 in 1988, and 13,952 in 1989. The percentage of these accidents in which at least one person was killed or seriously injured has fallen from 15 per cent. to 13 per cent. over the period.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to tighten up the supervision of learner drivers.

  Mr. Chope
  Since 1 October, those accompanying L-drivers have had to be at least 21 years old and to have held a full licence for at least three years.

  "Safety on the Move"
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many safety campaigns his Department is running under the new "Safety on the Move" campaign; and what areas they cover.

  Mr. Chope
  "Safety on the Move" is an umbrella campaign, bringing together the Department's existing safety initiatives and incorporating several new ones. To date, it embraces six campaigns, covering the following areas:

  Child road safety

  Coastal safety

  Drinking and driving

  Aviation security

  Motorway litter

  Bus safety

  Further campaigns are being developed in co-operation with transport operators and the private sector.

  Coach Parking, London
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has undertaken about the problem of coach parking in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  As part of the Government's role of encouraging positive co-operation among organisations
  67
  with direct responsibilities for coach parking in London, I chaired a discussion with the main organisations involved on 16 October. We agreed the need to take a fresh look at six main topics: the provision of off-street parking facilities; the provision of on-street parking arrangements; the standard structure of the typical sightseeing tour route; the arrangements for purchasing parking permits for the changing of the guard ceremony; codes of operating and parking practice for British and foreign tourist coaches; and coach terminal arrangements. Consideration of these issues will be taken forward by appropriate organisations with a view to the conclusions being studied at a further meeting in January.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to support regional airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government encourage the maximum use of regional airports, both to meet local demand and to relieve pressure on the London airports.

  Over the past decade some £450 million of capital expenditure has been facilitated, through special borrowing approvals, for the development of local authority airports. Special borrowing approvals totalling £59 million are available for 1990–91, facilitating investment which the airports concerned estimate could total some £149 million this year.

  We also very much welcome the contribution to the development of local authority airports which the private sector already makes through direct investment and joint venture schemes; and we continue to look to the airports concerned and their local authority owners to take full account of the opportunities for private sector involvement as they formulate their plans for further expansion.

  The working group now being established to take forward the Civil Aviation Authority's recent advice on long-term United Kingdom airport capacity is to examine regional airports' role in meeting overall growth in demand into the next century.

  We are continuing to pursue liberalisation policies, both in the European Community and in bilateral negotiations, which increase further the scope for services from our regional airports.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much traffic through the regional airports has grown in the last 10 years; and how much it is forecast to grow.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Passenger traffic through United Kingdom regional airports grew by 90 per cent. between 1979 and 1989 (from 17.8 to 33·8 million). The Department of Transport's most recent forecasts for this traffic, published in December 1988, set out figures based on different assumptions about the growth rate of the United Kingdom economy:

  (million passengers)

  1995

  2000

  2005

  Low forecast

  42·1

  52·4

  62·6

  High forecast

  51·0

  68·2

  87·4

  Note: The statistics and projections include Northern Ire' and and Isle of Man airports; they exclude Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted, and also the Channel Island airports.
  68
  By comparison with 1987, the 2005 figures represent an increase in regional airports' share of total United Kingdom traffic from 33·2 per cent to between 37·3 per cent. and 38·2 per cent.

  Midland Line Electrification
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future plans for the electrification of the midland railway line.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to develop worthwhile future plans for the midland main line. I understand that BR is continuing discussions with the local authorities in the area.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses will be started this year.

  Mr. Chope
  Fifteen bypasses are planned to start in 1990–91. They will relieve cities, towns and villages throughout England of intrusive and polluting through traffic, bringing major environmental benefits to their inhabitants. The places being bypassed include Norwich, Brighton, Axminster, Whitchurch and Egremont in Cumbria.

  Aviation Liberalisation
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when full liberalisation of European aviation will begin.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  EC Transport Ministers, meeting in June 1990, committed themselves to complete a single market in aviation by the beginning of 1993. In the interim, a second package of liberalisation measures, building on a first package in 1987, will apply.

  Coach Fares
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the relative cost of coach fares in 1989 and 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that we do not have information on a national index basis for coach fares.

  Motorway Construction
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new motorway construction in each of the past four years, at constant prices.

  Mr. Chope
  Spending on motorways changes with the balance in the national roads programme between motorways and trunk roads. Expenditure on motorways, including structural maintenance, for the last four years at 1990–91 prices was as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  466

  1987–88

  398

  1988–89

  459

  1989–90

  576

  British Rail Investment
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current level of investment by British Rail; and when this figure was last equalled in real terms.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's latest forecast for railway investment in 1990–91 is some £820 million, which is the highest level in real terms since 1962. This includes investment in track, signalling, locomotives, rolling stock, stations and railway facilities, but excludes investment in non-railway items, pre-payments for channel tunnel-related items and expenditure on continuously welded rail (CWR).

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the British Rail investment projects currently approved by him including in each case the source of funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Current British Rail investment projects approved by my right hon. Friend include:

  East coast main line electrification, and associated rolling stock and locomotives

  31 additional mark IV coaches for the east coast main line

  100 class 60 freight locomotives

  700 deepsea container wagons

  324 class 319/321 electric multiple units for Network SouthEast services north of the Thames and Thameslink

  Cambridge to Kings Lynn electrification

  180 class 165 Networker vehicles (for Thames and Chiltern lines)

  400 class 465 Networker vehicles for Kent and inner suburban lines (with purchase of a further 276 vehicles approved in principle)

  48 class 456 electric multiple units for Network SouthEast south central

  Rail link to Stansted airport and associated rolling stock Waterloo resignalling.

  Chiselhurst to Folkestone resignalling

  British Rail's share of the Heathrow express project 447 class 158 vehicles for Provincial

  Manchester airport rail link

  Birmingham cross-city electrification and associated rolling stock

  30 new passenger trains for channel tunnel services

  20 class 92 freight locomotives for channel tunnel services Tonbridge to Redhill electrification

  Construction of Waterloo international terminal and maintenance depot

  British Rail has of course approved many other investment projects itself.

  We do not apportion expenditure on particular projects between different funding sources.

  Speed Limits
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any proposals to increase the observance of the 70 mph limit by drivers of vehicles coming off motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  We are concerned to improve observance of speed limits on all types of roads. Motorways, including the sliproads, are among our safest roads. They carry 14 per cent. of all traffic but account for only 2·5 per cent. of those killed and seriously injured. Drivers leaving the motorway are advised in the "Highway Code" to adjust their driving to suit the new conditions and to check their speedometers since an incorrect perception of speed can Occur.

  Duty-free Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has considered the effect on United Kingdom airlines, ferries and airports of the elimination of duty-free sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Policy on any proposals which the European Commission might bring forward to eliminate duty-free sales would, of course, be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are considering very carefully the evidence that has been, and continues to be, put forward by the United Kingdom industry on the effects of abolition.

  Aircraft Safety
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, following the decision of the United States civil aviation authorities that no seats should be allowed to block the safety exits from aircraft, and the immediate implementation of that directive by Pan-American and others, he will ask the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out an immediate and comprehensive review of the current practices of all airlines operating to and from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Neither the Department of Transport nor the Civil Aviation Authority has any knowledge of any recent decision of the United States Federal Aviation Administration amending its requirements related to aircraft seating.

  However, new rules were introduced by the United States Federal Aviation Administration on 5 October concerning the physical abilities of persons to be seated in exit rows and the display of instructions for opening emergency exits. Such rules are already in force for United Kingdom-registered aircraft.

  The practices of airlines operating to and from the United Kingdom may differ to some extent, but all subscribe to the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Ports Police
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals for reviewing the operation of the ports police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department wrote on 3 August 1990 to interested bodies in the ports industry and organisations representing the police seeking their views about the future of harbour authorities' powers to operate private police forces. They were invited to reply by 1 December. A copy of the consultation letter was sent to my hon. Friend; copies are being placed in the Library.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the role of Jayship Limited of London in the export of equipment to Iraq, following the detention of the vessel the Gur Mariner, managed by Jayship Ltd., on 13 September by the Dutch customs authorities at Flushing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am fully aware of the circumstances of the detention of the Gur Mariner. The vessel, which had
  71
  been en route to the middle east with cargo for Iraq at the time of the introduction of sanctions, returned to northern Europe on the initiative of Jayship Ltd. Its subsequent arrest was due to an action in Dutch civil law brought by Iraqi authorities. The arrest order has since been lifted. There was no question of the vessel or Jayship Ltd. attempting to break sanctions.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to propose an amendment to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to end sexual discrimination over the minimum age at which bus passes may be issued.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements which link eligibility for travel concession for elderly people to state pensionable age.

  M20
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set a target for the M20 Ashford to Hollingbourne motorway, now under construction, to be open to traffic by next Easter.

  Mr. Chope
  The M20 motorway under construction between Maidstone and Ashford comprises two contracts. The contract completion date for the first from Hollingbourne interchange to Lenham is April 1991, but it cannot be opened to traffic before completion of the second contract from Lenham to Ashford interchange. That contract is due for completion in July 1991. As these are contractual dates I can give no assurance that an earlier opening will be achieved.

  Roadworks
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is taken by his Department in advising highway and street authorities on the specification for reinstatements following work carried out by public and private utilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  At present specifications for reinstatements following utility street works are a matter for agreement between highway authorities and utilities. The Department recognises the unsatisfactory nature of much reinstatement work, and has been working with highway authorities and utilities on the production of a code of practice to establish a national specification and performance standards for reinstatements. These standards will be prescribed under the legislation it is proposed to introduce to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to provide for stiffer penalties for drivers who cause the deaths of other road users.

  Mr. Chope
  Our proposals for the reform of road traffic law are set out in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576). These include the creation of a new offence of"causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink or drugs"
  72
  and the reformulation of the reckless driving offences. Legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Ports Consultation Document
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations were received by his Department on the British Ports Federation consultation document proposing a flat rate light dues charge for pleasure craft; and when he expects to announce a decision on the proposals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  About 90 representations have been made by bodies and individuals, generally opposing registration of pleasure craft for light dues purposes. Over 40 hon. Members have written on behalf of sailing clubs and yachtsmen in their constituencies. My right hon. Friend is still considering the matter.

  Hydro-electric Barrier (Solent)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether any environmental ecological or tidal impact studies have been carried out by his Department for the hydro-electric barrier proposed for the western Solent between Hurst Castle and Fort Victoria; and whether any consultation has taken place between his Department and the Royal Yachting Association, the Solent Protection Society and the Commercial Fishermen's Association;

  (2) Whether any public expenditure is planned for the proposed tidal barrage between Hurst Castle and Fort Victoria.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No approach has been made to my Department about this proposed scheme, for which my right hon. Friend's consent would be needed. His concern is with safety of navigation and the right of innocent passage through the Solent. I am not aware of any plans for public expenditure on the scheme.

  Isle of Wight Ferries (Signs)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his decision on mainland signs to the Isle of Wight ferries.

  Mr. Chope
  Signing on roads within the boundary of the city of Southampton is a matter for the city council.

  We understand that Southampton city council intends to erect signs to Department of Transport standards reading "For Ferries Follow Waterfront". The Isle of Wight ferry will be clearly signed in the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1989–90.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The Department spent £114,016 on official hospitality in 1989–90.

SCOTLAND

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places were available annually for training students in physiotherapy in each of the last 10 years; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of existing places.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number of places for training physiotherapy students in Scotland is available only over the last four years and is as follows:

  Number

  1987

  153

  1988

  155

  1989

  154

  1990

  160

  Physiotherapy courses are heavily oversubscribed and there is no longer a limit on the number of student places. There is no indication that the number of physiotherapists qualifying each year is insufficient to fill vacant posts in Scotland. Recruitment and retention of staff in all the professions allied to medicine including physiotherapy is being examined by a paramedical manpower steering group recently established by the National Health Service management executive.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any recent information from UK Nirex Ltd. in regard to any changes in projected volumes of radioactive wastes that may be disposed of at Dounreay, should the site prove suitable after assessment and all planning consents have been obtained.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Dounreay is, of course, only one of the sites currently under investigation as a possible location for the proposed national deep repository.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual sums of money committed since the inception of the European regional development fund to each recipient local authority and each regional council and the annual amounts paid to each from the fund.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Infertility
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the most recent figures available showing the number of clinics in Scotland offering(a) IVA, GIFT and other procedures and (b) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVA; and if he will also publish the total number of (i) single, (ii) twin, (iii) triplet, (iv) quadruplet, (v) quintuplet and (vi) sextuplet pregnancies following GIFT procedures in each category of clinic.
  74
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that this information is not held centrally. Some information on these matters is published in the annual report of the Interim Licensing Authority, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Rents to Mortages Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sales have been completed under the rents to mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  By end September, 23 sales had been completed and a further 40 missives had been concluded with an entry date of 31 October or earlier.

  Giant Hogweed
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the past five years Scottish district or regional councils have used the provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 to serve notice on landowners to remove a nuisance, or to recoup losses for the removal of a nuisance from privately owned land; and, of these, how many are related to the removal of Heracleum Mantegazzianum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No record of local authorities' use of these powers is held centrally.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recorded incidents there have been in the last five years of the hospitalisation of patients who have come into contact with the furocoumarins released by Heracleum Mantegazzianum.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of patients admitted to hospital suffering from the effects of Heracleum Mantegazzianum (giant hogweed) is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the origin and number of representations he has received in the last 12 months about problems created by Heracleum Mantegazzianum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Six such representations have been received—three from Moray and one each from Edinburgh, Kyle and Carrick and Nithsdale.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in each of the years since 1981 under section 14(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act against landowners who have planted or caused to grow in the wild a plant listed in schedule 9 of that Act; and whether any of these prosecutions related to Heracleum Mantegazzianum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Electricity
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he plans to take to ensure Scottish generators of electricity from renewable sources are able to compete on equal terms with those in England and Wales
  75
  in respect of qualification for inclusion under the non-fossil fuel obligation quota; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Arrangements for the non-fossil fuel obligation are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Scottish generators from renewable sources can sell their electricity in England and Wales on a levy exempt basis.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he spent on fees to advisers on electricity privatisation in 1989–90; and what is the budget for the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1989–90 the provisional outturn expenditure on advisers' fees and other expenses relating to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland is £3,811,000. The final outturn figure will be contained in the appropriation accounts to be published on 26 October. The supply estimates for 1990–91 included provision of £5 million for such fees.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present cost equivalent of the £10 Christmas bonus to pensioners paid in 1972.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If the Christmas bonus had been increased in line with the movement in the retail prices index since December 1972 it would be worth over £50 at December 1990. To pay the Christmas bonus to all recipients at this rate would cost more than £600 million.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled women will benefit from the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Evelyn Thomas of Caldicot, Gwent and others; and what action he has taken to trace those who are made eligible for invalid care allowance by the decision.

  Mr. Scott
  We are considering the implications of this decision.

  Hostel Dwellers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will examine whether there are delays in income support payments to hostel dwellers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Arrangements for paying benefit to hostel dwellers were kept under close scrutiny following the October 1989 changes which removed from them the special board and lodging rate of income support, and this continues as part of the Department's general monitoring activity. Where problems have arisen and where central action could help, that action has been taken: for example, the restoration of the facility for certain income support payments to be made directly to hostels.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will take steps to allocate responsibility for paying for care costs in hostels; and if he will make a statement.
  76
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since October 1989 people in hostels, like people in other types of rented accommodation, have been able to claim income support specifically to help with day-to-day living expenses. From the same date help with accommodation costs has been available through housing benefit. These arrangements replaced the old income support special board and lodging rate for hostel dwellers, although financial support from social security for existing claimants and the hostel places they occupied has been maintained at the October 1989 level by means of payments to hostels from a central unit in the Department of Social Security.

  The money being paid out by the central unit broadly represents payments from social security under the old arrangements towards the cost of the care provided in hostels. It will be transferred to other funding sources from April 1991, as explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 15 October. Within income support, vulnerable people such as those who are disabled can qualify for a premium in addition to their personal allowance which can of course go towards meeting hostel charges.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will carry out research to establish whether people in hostels need extra benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no current plans to undertake such research.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given by his Department to local adjudication officers with regard to the payment of income support to temporary residents of unregistered care homes with fewer than four residents who are occupying the bed of a resident away from home on a period of leave.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Eligibility to income support is defined by regulations. Independent adjudication officers are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer, but no specific guidance has been given on this point.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he plans to increase income support for hostel dwellers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since October 1989 accommodation costs for people in hostels have been met by housing benefit in the same way as they are for people in other types of rented accommodation. Income support provides help for other normal day-to-day living expenses. These and other income-related benefits are reviewed each year and a statement about next year's uprating will be made shortly.

  Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he held prior to his decision to cut the rate of subsidy for housing and poll tax benefit from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 19 July at column 698 that we would that day be consulting the local authority associations on a proposal to change the basic rate of

  77
  direct benefit subsidy from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. from April 1991. The associations were invited to comment on the proposals by the end of August, and a number of them submitted written representations.

  Following requests from the associations, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met their representatives to discuss the proposal on 24 September and the final deadline for comments was extended until one week after that date.

  Family Credit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole are presently in receipt of family credit; and what percentages these are of those families estimated to be eligible for such support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow

  1934

  (b) Strathclyde

  115,828

  (c) Scotland

  239,000

  Notes:

  1 Number of awards actually in payment on 21 September 1990, ie excludes awards on claims made before that date but not decided at that stage.

  2 Provisional caseload at end of July 1990, ie including backdated awards. Information on this more comprehensive basis is only available for Scotland as a whole.

  Information about the total number of families eligible for family credit can be obtained only for Great Britain as a whole, and only retrospectively, from Family Expenditure Survey data.

  Elderly People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total annual amounts paid in supplementary benefit, income support from April 1988, and board and lodging payments to elderly people of limited and no means living in private or voluntary residential care and nursing homes in each year from 1979–80 to 1989–90(a) at current prices and (b) at 1989–90 prices.

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

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his intention to trawl the attendance allowance computer programme to inform recipients and carers of its existence.

  Mr. Scott
  I am unable to answer the question as its meaning is not clear. If the hon. Member would care to write to me, I will give a full reply.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals to the social security commissioners were lodged in the last year for which statistics are available concerning attendance allowance; what proportion of all attendance allowance claims in that year they represented; and how many such appeals resulted in the case being remitted to the Attendance Allowance Board for reconsideration.
  78
  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply. The information is not readily available and I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Income Support Deductions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East of 15 October on income support deductions to cover debts arising from the poll tax, what information he has as to the breakdown by office of the 9,000 deductions being made at 31 August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest count showed that 40 offices had income support cases with a deduction to clear community charge arrears. The number deductions for each office is shown in the table.

  Annex

  Local office

  Number of deductions

  Scotland

  Airdrie

  24

  Ayr

  320

  Bathgate

  65

  Bellshill

  295

  Campbeltown

  5

  Clydebank

  100

  Coatbridge

  125

  Cowdenbeath

  91

  Cumbernauld

  447

  Dumbarton

  193

  Dumfries

  3

  Dundee East

  11

  Dunfermline

  71

  East Kilbride

  101

  Falkirk

  983

  Galashiels

  308

  Glasgow (Anniesland)

  343

  Glasgow (Bridgeton)

  315

  Glasgow (City)

  172

  Glasgow (Craigton)

  29

  Glasgow (Laurieston)

  416

  Glasgow (Maryhill)

  311

  Glasgow (Partick)

  251

  Glasgow (Provan)

  394

  Glasgow (Shettleston)

  504

  Glasgow (Springburn)

  992

  Greenock

  121

  Hamilton

  86

  Irvine

  75

  Johnstone

  18

  Kirkcaldy

  75

  Motherwell

  593

  Oban

  15

  Perth

  1

  Port Glasgow

  32

  Stirling

  1,196

  Subtotal

  9,081

  England

  Goole

  24

  Halifax

  1

  Newcastle (Staffs)

  5

  Rugby

  1

  Subtotal

  31

  Total

  9,112

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the number of outstanding cases in the pneumoconiosis byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases
  79
  benefit branch at the Department of Social Security central office, Blackpool; and what is the average number of weeks taken to finally process these claims.

  Mr. Scott
  Some 85 claims are outstanding. It takes an average of 19 weeks to clear such claims.

  Mobility Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals to the social security commissioners were lodged during the last year for which statistics are available concerning mobility allowance; what proportion of all claims for mobility allowance in that year they represented; and how many such appeals resulted either in the case being remitted for reconsideration by the Medical Appeal Tribunal or in the commissioner substituting his or her own decision for that of the Medical Appeal Tribunal.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply. The information is not readily available and I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the present regulations so that 19-year-olds in full-time relevant education will be able to claim income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am aware of the hon. Member's interest. We are continuing to keep the position under review.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) pensioners, (b) lone parents, (c) unemployed, (d) sick-disabled and (e) two parent families on benefit have no income from national benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to those on income-related benefits. The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage

  Pensioners

  1

  Lone parents

  7

  Unemployed

  85

  Sick-disabled

  53

  Two parent families

  69

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will direct the expression child allowance to be used in place of child benefit in all official usage.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the reasons for having a child benefit scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The reasons for having a child benefit scheme were clearly set out in the Prime Minister's80
  reply to my hon. Friend on 17 March 1981 at column 55 when she said that it has long been the view of all parties that our tax and benefit systems should recognise the needs of families with children, and should differentiate between such families and those without responsibilities for children. Child tax allowances achieved this but gave no help to families below the tax threshold. Family allowances did not recognise the first child. Child benefit, which replaced both allowances, was introduced in 1977 with the support of all parties.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his plans to monitor other EEC member states' enforcement of the regulations of the common fisheries policy;

  (2) what plans he has to secure agreement of all EEC member states to strengthen the numbers and role of the EC fisheries inspectorate and gradually to phase out individual national inspectorates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Monitoring the enforcement arrangements of other member states is the job of the EC fisheries inspectorate. Each member state has the responsibility to enforce the common fisheries policy in its own territory and fisheries limits. The United Kingdom co-operates with other member states through the exchange of information on the landings and activities of vessels.

  I see no need to press for any change in the present role of the EC fisheries inspectorate. Member states' inspection services should continue to perform their present functions and penalties should continue to be applied under national legislation.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom share of the total cost of the EEC common fisheries policy for the last year for which figures are available(a) as a percentage of the total and (b) the actual amount spent.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to separate the United Kingdom's share of the costs of individual EC policies from the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC budget as a whole.

  Total EC payments to the United Kingdom under the EEC common fisheries policy in 1988 (the most recent year for which figures are available) was 10·7 mecu (£7·3 million). This was 4·1 per cent. of the amount paid to all member states.

  Source: European Court of Auditors report, 1988.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future role he plans for the common fisheries policy; and whether he will make it his policy to consider alternative ideas for the management of fish stocks after 1993.

  Mr. Curry
  The common fisheries policy was agreed in 1983 to last for at least 20 years with a mid-term review. The Government are wholly committed to the present framework. It provides a firm and clear basis for the allocation of fishing opportunities, and allowable catch levels take full account of scientific advice. At the same time it provides flexibility for the introduction of further
  81
  essential conservation and other measures. We intend to continue to develop and improve fisheries arrangements within the existing framework.

  EC Intervention Stores
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the location, foodstuff and quantity of European Economic Community intervention stores in Greater London; and what was the position 12 months previously.

  Mr. Curry
  There were no stores in Greater London holding United Kingdom intervention stocks 12 months ago and there is none holding United Kingdom intervention stocks currently.

  Free Food
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for eligibility to free European Economic Community butter and meat to include those whose income support is paid quarterly.

  Mr. Curry
  All citizens who are in receipt of income support, and produce means of identification, are eligible under these arrangements.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of BSE cases that have been confirmed on a county-by-county basis in England, Wales and Scotland since the disease became notifiable, until the end of September 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Number

  Avon

  332

  Bedfordshire

  49

  Berkshire

  107

  Borders

  19

  Buckinghamshire

  138

  Cambridge

  65

  Central

  20

  Cheshire

  411

  Cleveland

  25

  Clwyd

  177

  Cornwall

  1,287

  Cumbria

  302

  Derbyshire

  247

  Devon

  1,916

  Dorset

  1,522

  Dumfries

  99

  Durham

  69

  Dyfed

  662

  Essex

  83

  Fife

  39

  Glamorgan Mid

  41

  Glamorgan South

  50

  Glamorgan West

  7

  Gloucestershire

  563

  Grampian

  123

  Gwent

  127

  Gwynedd

  50

  Hampshire

  733

  Hereford & Worcestershire

  334

  Hertfordshire

  85

  Highland

  29

  Humberside

  79

  Isle of Wight

  125

  Kent

  401

  82

  County

  Number

  Lancashire

  356

  Leicestershire

  417

  Lincolnshire

  141

  London

  7

  Lothian

  14

  Manchester

  11

  Merseyside

  9

  Norfolk

  260

  Northamptonshire

  144

  Northumberland

  70

  Nottinghamshire

  106

  Orkney

  7

  Oxfordshire

  287

  Powys

  157

  Shropshire

  419

  Shetland

  1

  Somerset

  1,424

  Staffordshire

  340

  Strathclyde

  155

  Suffolk

  211

  Surrey

  182

  Sussex East

  231

  Sussex West

  456

  Tayside

  45

  Tyne & Wear

  1

  West Midlands

  12

  Warwickshire

  188

  Western Isles

  1

  Wiltshire

  1,080

  Yorkshire North

  637

  Yorkshire South

  54

  Yorkshire West

  78

  Total

  17,817

  Poison Gas, North Sea
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring is carried out to determine whether(a) fish stocks and (b) sea mammals in the North sea are contaminated by poison gas dumped after the first and second world wars, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The Ministry and the Scottish Office undertake a national programme of monitoring fish and shellfish round our coasts for contaminants which could present a hazard to public health. The sea mammals research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council, on contract to the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are undertaking contaminant analysis of small cetaceans stranded around the United Kingdom coastline.

  This work, however, is not directed specifically towards identifying contaminants arising from the dumping of poison gas at sea. Scientific advice is that these materials pose no risk of contamination of fish and sea mammal population.

  EC Agriculture Spending
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount which was spent by the European Economic Community on all its agricultural activities, including the storage and disposal of surpluses, in each of the years from 1973; what is the estimate for 1990 and 1991, respectively; and if he will also publish a table showing the percentage increases in each year.
  83
  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Total Capital

  Increase Over Previous Year Percentage

  (mecu)

  (£ million)

  1973

  3,785·5

  1,901·54

  —

  1974

  3,225·1

  1,644·17

  -14·80

  1975

  4,701·3

  2,632·85

  45·77

  1976

  5,811·1

  3,612·05

  23·61

  1977

  7,139·7

  4,667·23

  22·86

  1978

  9,018·8

  5,986·31

  26·32

  1979

  10,884·2

  7,066·41

  20·68

  1980

  11,942·8

  7,231·84

  9·73

  1981

  11,578·4

  6,447·91

  -3·05

  1982

  13,106·3

  7,310·71

  13·20

  1983

  16,610·8

  9,743·58

  26·74

  1984

  19,097·4

  11,152·29

  14·97

  1985

  20,547·8

  12,083·15

  7·59

  1986

  23,028·4

  14,918·97

  12·07

  1987

  24,003·9

  17,266·49

  4·24

  1988

  29,100·4

  19,740·05

  21·23

  1989

  30,076·3

  19.692·31

  3·35

  1990

  30,216·6

  21,058·07

  0·47

  1991

  33,563·4

  23,390·47

  11·08

  Source: 1973–1988:Budget (outturn figures)

  1989–1990: Budget

  1991:Draft Budget

  Note: The budgets for the years 1989–1991 include an additional 1,000 mecu (£700 million) monetary reserve which has not been included in the above totals.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 October 1990, c. 830]: I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Agriculture Council on 19 October which was specially convened so that the Council could continue its discussion of the Commission's proposal for a Community offer for reducing agricultural support and protection in the current GATT round.

  I continued to make clear that I could endorse the Commission proposal as a basis for taking negotiations forward. There was support for this view from a few other Ministers, but a majority pressed various objections and were unwilling to agree.

  The Council again failed to reach agreement and discussion will now pass to the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 October.

  I much regret the further delay in the adoption of a Community position and the absence of agreement in the Agriculture Council on such an important issue for the Uruguay round. It is a pity that the United Kingdom's support for the Community position should not have been followed by the other nations which, with Britain, agreed the basis for this negotiation under the French presidency last December.

DEFENCE

  Battle of Britain
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of post-war examination and research, he will redefine the official time for the end of the battle of Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The term "Battle of Britain" refers to the threatened invasion in 1940. German plans never got beyond the first phase, an air assault intended to pave the way for the invasion by driving the RAF from the sky. By 17 September the heavy Luftwaffe losses forced Hitler to put off his invasion plans. Photo-reconnaissance on 20 September showed the German invasion fleet dispersing, and an Enigma decrypt on 25 October confirmed that invasion units had been disbanded. On 31 October the Defence Committee under Winston Churchill confirmed that the danger of invasion was over, and this day became the official end-date for the battle of Britain. All subsequent evidence has confirmed this decision and there would be no grounds for a redefinition.

  Nuclear Testing
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of the United Kingdom nuclear testing activities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It would not be in the national interest to reveal the cost of the United Kingdom's nuclear testing programme.

  Public Accounts Committee (Information)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those categories of information withheld from the Public Accounts Committee by his Department on the grounds of (i) commercial confidentiality or (ii) military sensitivity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence does not withhold information from the Public Accounts Committee on the grounds of commercial confidentiality or security classification, except where there is a requirement to protect the confidences of other Governments, or under the established arrangement by which the Department informs the National Audit Office, but not the Public Accounts Committee, of any projects which, but for their high security classification, would have been included in the Department's annual statement on major projects. Parliament was informed of this arrangement on 2 February 1987 (Official Report, column 517); and it is further described in a memorandum by the Comptroller and Auditor General which was published with the Committee's 47th report of Session 1987–88 (HC 371).

  Military Equipment (Iraq)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the likely benefits to accrue to United Kingdom arms manufacturers and defence material producers as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent military developments since 2 August.
  86
  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of this and previous Administrations not to comment on matters of this kind.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy of the transcript or cassette of the feature investigation broadcast on Channel Four news on 28 August on Iraqi acquisition of high technology weapons and other military equipment from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost incurred by his Department for the contracting of external consultants to implement assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, since they came into force on 1 October 1989; and if he will list the consultants taken on in respect of this work to date by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No central contracts have been placed for external consultants to implement assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) 1988 Regulations. Details of contracts placed locally by units and establishments are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Military Equipment (UAE)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent discussions held with the United Arab Emirates for the sale of British defence equipment.

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

  Beryllium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the serious toxic contamination caused by the dispersal of beryllium oxide after the accident at the Ulbinsky metallurgical factory in Ust Kamenogorsk, in the Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan in September, he will review the present safety of facilities operated by, or contracted to, his Department that use beryllium.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The recent reported incident in Kazakhstan is understood to have involved a production process in which beryllium metal is obtained from ores. Such processes are not carried out at any United Kingdom facilities operated by, or contracted to, the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all defence facilities where beryllium is stored, fabricated or fashioned for military purposes; and when the assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 was conducted at each such establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Beryllium is used at the atomic weapons establishment sites at Aldermaston, Burghfield and Cardiff. Safety assessments, as required by the Control
  87
  of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, have recently been completed for all beryllium facilities within those sites.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with his Soviet counterpart regarding health and safety procedures in beryllium machining plants for weapons applications since the fire and explosion at Ust Kamenogorsk.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. I understand that the recent reported incident in Kazakhstan involved a production process in which beryllium metal is obtained from ores. Such processes are not carried out at any United Kingdom facilities operated by, or contracted to, the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with Hunting-BRAE as the nominated contractor for managing the atomic weapons research establishments regarding the appropriate health and safety procedures for the safe machining of beryllium since the fire and explosion at Ust Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan, USSR.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. I understand that the recent reported incident in Kazakhstan involved a production process in which beryllium metal is obtained from ores. Such processes are not carried out at any United Kingdom facilities operated by, or contracted to, the Ministry of Defence. The atomic weapons establishment management contract requires that established health and safety procedures are fully adhered to at Cardiff and all other atomic weapons establishment sites.

  Lithium Hydride
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department holds stocks of lithium hydride; and what military uses there are in the United Kingdom defence programme for this chemical.

  Mr. Carlisle
  Stocks of lithium hydride are held by the atomic weapons establishment and are used in the nuclear weapons programme.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision on the replacement for the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 15 May at col.727.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors he will take into account in making a decision on the replacement for the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 20 December 1988 at cols 259–60 and the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 15 May at col 727 et seq.

  Military Equipment Exhibitions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he possesses in regard to the attendance of agents for the Iraqi Government's military equipment 88
  procurement network at the arms and military equipment exhibitions held earlier in 1990 at Aldershot, Portsmouth and Farnborough, respectively.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our practice to comment on the representation of specific countries at defence-related exhibitions.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the criticisms made of actions taken by his Department in the report on Mr. Colin Wallace produced by David Calcutt QC in September.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 13 September to the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Equipment Sales (Saudi Arabia)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he has received from the Comptroller and Auditor General for information in regard to his Department's payment practices on the 1986 agreement with Saudi Arabia for the sale of Tornado aircraft and other military equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence co-operates fully in providing information to the NAO within the terms of the National Audit Act 1983. It is not our practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence sales.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mines technology has been made available to the Cambodian resistance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on allegations of this nature.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations Astra Holdings has made to him about trade with Cambodia.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the availability of desert-related spare equipment for tanks and armoured vehicles of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in the middle east meets target requirements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Sufficient spare parts and major assemblies are available to meet anticipated requirements.

  Strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards a reduction in strategic nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We fully support the bilateral START negotiations between the United States and the
  89
  Soviet Union. The Government's position on the inclusion of the British strategic deterrent in negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons is set out fully in paragraph 124 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 (Cm. 1022–1).

  Ministry Accounting Procedures
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to appoint independent financial consultants to review accounting procedures in the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is currently no intention to appoint independent financial consultants to review accounting procedures in the Ministry of Defence.

  Computers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department in its purchase of computers and computer equipment in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  During the last five years the Ministry of Defence has spent £345·5 million on the purchase of administrative computers and associated equipment and services. The expenditure for each year is as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £ million

  1985–86

  39·2

  1986–87

  62·2

  1987–88

  58·8

  1988–89

  76·5

  1989–90

  108·8

  Details of expenditure on computers for weapons systems are maintained only as an integral part of expenditure on such systems as a whole, and could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will institute an inquiry into the potential for RAF low-flying training to take place other than over mid-Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The United Kingdom low-flying system is kept continuously under review with the aim of spreading activity more widely so as to reduce disturbance in busier areas and improve overall safety.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will institute an inquiry into the potential for RAF low-flying training to take place outside the United Kingdom on flying ranges leased from or licensed by foreign Governments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The majority of operational low-flying training, at heights below 250 ft, is already carried out outside the United Kingdom. Further opportunities for low-flying training abroad will continue to be given very careful consideration. In each case, however, a balance has to be struck between the advantages of the particular overseas location and the extra cost and dislocation resulting from overseas deployment and the need for aircraft to carry out adequate training in the theatre where they are based.

  Thai Army
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom military personnel have been attached to the Thai army since 1984.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 30 November 1989 at col.358. No loan service personnel have served with the Thai armed forces in the period in question. Further specific details of military assistance provided are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Thailand.

  Princess of Wales RAF Hospital, Ely
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the capital improvements, additions and alterations to the Princess of Wales Royal Air Force hospital, Ely for each of the last five years giving details of the sums involved in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will write to my hon. Friend.

  Captain Anthony Leigh de Normann
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the military career of Captain Anthony Leigh de Normann, including countries where he was stationed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to reveal personal details of this nature.

  British Troops (Gulf)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of the total operations in Saudi Arabia at the most recent date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 15 October 1990 at column 688.

  Victoria Barracks, Windsor
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that the precautions provided for residents whose houses are in the vicinity of military installations, such as the Victoria barracks, Windsor, are satisfactory in view of the recent terrorist attacks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The responsibility for countering the threat of terrorist attacks at large lies with the police and is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. At a local level, the Ministry of Defence co-operates closely with police forces in order to maintain the security both of its establishments and of its personnel. We are putting in place a major package of enhanced security measures and are constantly looking at ways to improve security further. I appreciate that my hon. Friend is concerned for the security of his constituents. By reducing the likelihood of an attack, our security improvements benefit both those who work or live in a defence establishment, and those who live nearby. Awareness of the risk and personal vigilance is a key
  91
  element in security; members of the public who see unusual or suspicious activity should report it to their local police as soon as possible.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 17 October, when he hopes to complete the work on refining the detail of the broad proposals he put forward on 25 July; and whether he will make a statement on this work when it is completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is too early to say when the work will be completed. The House will be kept informed of our progress.

  Civil Servants (Qualifications)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept of the recognised qualifications acquired by his civil servants.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department keeps records of all educational and professional qualifications obtained by individual civil servants.

  Service Personnel (Qualifications)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept of the recognised qualifications acquired by service personnel through their pre-release training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The main purposes of pre-release vocational training are to prepare service personnel for working life in a civilian environment and to convert existing skills or to provide new ones, in preparation for the employment opportunities available in the civilian labour market. The acquisition of qualifications of the nature referred to by the hon. Gentleman is subordinate to these purposes, not least because of the difficulty of doing so in the 28 days allowed for this training. Successful completion of courses at Ministry of Defence resettlement centres and of Ministry of Defence sponsored courses elsewhere is marked by the issue of certificates, records of which are held by the institutions concerned for a minimum of one year. The possibility of qualifications for those who undertake their pre-release training in the form of attachments to outside organisations does not generally arise, since the purpose is to gain experience of work with civilian companies.

  Military Training Assistance
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 17 October, what are the circumstances in which details of military training assistance provided by British service personnel may be released.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of military training provided to overseas Governments are normally confidential. Any exception would be considered on its own merits and would be subject to the agreement of the overseas Government concerned.
  92
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has contacted the Belize Government regarding the release of detailed information on the provision of military training assistance by British service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of military training assistance provided for the Belize Government, as set out in my answers to the hon. Gentleman of 7 November 1989 at columns 542–43 and 14 November 1989 at column 189, updated information published in the eighth report of the House of Commons Defence Committee (HC 624, Session 1987–88). Prior permission for the publication of that information was sought and received from the Belize Government.

  Community Charge
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the percentage of service personnel of the rank of(a) major and above, (b) captain and below, (c) warrant officer and senior non-commissioned officer and (d) corporal and below, in service accommodation in Britain who will be responsible for community charges above the average, as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement, and will be eligible for reimbursement of accommodation charges;

  (2) what is the percentage of service personnel in (a) grade 1, (b) grade 2, (c) grade 3, and (d) grade 4 service accommodation in Britain who will be responsible for community charges above the average as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement, and will be eligible for reimbursement of accommodation charges;

  (3) what is the percentage of service personnel in (a) grade 1, (b) grade 2, (c) grade 3 and (d) grade 4 service accommodation in Britain who are liable for community charges below the average, as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement;

  (4) what is the percentage of service personnel of the rank of (a) major and above, (b) captain and below, (c) warrant officer and senior non-commissioned officer and (d) corporal and below, in service accommodation in Britain who are liable for community charges below the average, as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement;

  (5) what is the percentage of service personnel of the rank of (a) major and above, (b) captain and below, (c) warrant officer and senior non-commissioned officer and (d) corporal and below, in service accommodation in Britain who will be responsible for community charges above the average, as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement, but are not eligible for reimbursement of accommodation charges;

  (6) what is the percentage of service personnel in (a) grade 1, (b) grade 2, (c) grade 3 and (d) grade 4 service accommodation in Britain who will be responsible for community charges above the average, as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement, but are not eligible for reimbursement of accommodation charges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Military Training Assistance
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report those countries or groups within countries to which either British service men or other employees in his Department, or individuals privately contracted via his Department, have provided military assistance, training or advice, in the last two years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the two-year period to 1 October 1990, the following states have been provided by Her Majesty's Government with military training assistance in-country, or military training courses in the United Kingdom:

  Algeria

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Peru

  Philippines

  Portugal

  94

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Somalia

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America

  Venezuela

  Yemen

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Details of training provided are normally confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

  Procurement Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 17 October, what are the financial implications of his decision to(a) cancel the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft and (b) slow production of the Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicle and its variants.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I estimate that the cancellation of the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft will save around £400 million in total. The details of the financial implications of slowing down production of the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle and its variants are commercially confidential.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which equipment procurement programmes, whose total value is expected to be greater than £100 million, have been either delayed, cancelled, or reduced in size since 1 June.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In addition to the two projects named in my answer of 17 October, I have decided since 1 June that the delivery programmes for two others with a total value of over £100 million should be extended. These are the Challenger replacement armoured repair and recovery vehicle and demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the approximate production rate of the Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicle and its variants prior to his decision to slow production; and what it will be as a result of his decision.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The effect of the decision to slow production of the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle and its variants on the rate of production is commercially confidential.

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

European Central Time
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to bring forward legislation to enable the United Kingdom to adopt European Central Time in view of the positive response to the Green Paper Summertime: A Consultative Document (Cm 722, 27th June 1989).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans for legislation on this matter.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I find it difficult to thank my noble friend for that rather inexhaustive and incomplete reply. Is he aware that more than 96 per cent. of the people of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland have responded positively in favour of adoption of European Central Time? Despite the fact that on the other side of the coin 86 per cent. of those who live in Scotland take an opposite view, is he not aware that approximately 25,000 of those responses came from England and Wales and only 5,000 from Scotland? Should not the Government take note of those observations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we take note of such observations. The trouble is that views are held with a certain amount of keenness on both sides of the argument. Because of the strong feelings expressed against the idea in Scotland and other places the Government do not consider there is sufficient support as yet for an immediate change from the present system.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister please take note of the fact that I am one of the small minority mentioned who is opposed to any change?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall take note; I have taken note.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is it not a fact that we tried this out a few years ago? It was not universally popular and some people disliked it heartily.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is one of those situations where one will never do the right thing. A good many people are in favour of change and a good many people, as has been expressed today, are against it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the main reason why we should not adopt European Central Time is that the United Kingdom, like Greece, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland, is not geographically situated in central Europe?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be one of the reasons but I should not have thought that it was the most important reason.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, in view of the fact that some 500 deaths or very serious accidents would be prevented by adopting continuous British Summer Time, which is perhaps a better way of putting it, and as the Government have now taken us into the ERM, might this not be the right moment to adopt European Central Time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not quite see the connection between the ERM and summer time. I can only tell my noble friend that road safety is one of the many aspects that have to be considered in the light of possible change. I quite agree with him.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, however much one fiddles about with the time, there is not any more light? If one wants more light in the morning, one has to get up earlier.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is, if I might say so, another example of rare Scottish wisdom.

Electricity Generating Capacity
2.40 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of existing United Kingdom electrical generating plant will be time-expired by the year 2010 and by the year 2020; and how many megawatts of capacity this represents.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, assuming nominal lives of 35 to 40 years for fossil-fuelled plant, 30 years for Magnox and 25 years for AGRs, 57 per cent. of the existing plant in England and Wales will be time-expired by 2010 and 84 per cent. by 2020. That is equivalent to 33 gigawatts by 2010 and 49 gigawatts by 2020. Noble Lords will appreciate that, in a competitive market for generation, the actual life of the plant will depend upon commercial decisions by the companies concerned.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he not aware that time seems to be running out? Many of us feel that time is so short that it is quite probable that with privatisation we shall not achieve the desired extra capacity or replacement capacity by the time it is required. Does he not agree that it seems unlikely that the privatised companies will go in for very large stations and that therefore a large number of the smaller combined systems will not easily make up for the deficiency of the larger plants?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot agree. Several generators are building or are planning to build new plant. In addition to projects promoted by National Power and PowerGen, a number of independent projects are coming forward. Planning consents already exist for more than 3 gigawatts of new gas-fired generating capacity. Most of the applications are for gas-fired capacity. Applications

1137
for a further 6 gigawatts are with the department and there are indications that there may be applications for a further four gigawatts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord reassure us on one point? Is it not the case that National Power is now closing down capacity? Is it not also the case that neither National Power nor any other generator has responsibility for security of supply and for ensuring that demand will be met at the beginning of the next century? Given that, ultimately, whatever the legislation says, this is a government responsibility, how will they ensure that that demand is met?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in the new structure of the industry a competitive market will provide the capacity needed. Suppliers are required by their licences to meet the existing standards of security and to purchase sufficient electricity from the pool to meet the needs of customers. Generators will respond to the pool price and consequently will have an incentive to build sufficient capacity. Suppliers may also enter into long-term contracts with the generators as well as buying from the pool.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord further. Can he say whose responsibility it is to ensure security of supply? As the noble Lord will be aware, under the previous regime it was the CEGB. No doubt he will recall that under present arrangements it was originally proposed, when we discussed the Electricity Bill, that this should be transferred to the distribution companies. Therefore, can he advise us precisely who has the responsibility at present?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the distributors now have this power. There are further powers vested in the Director General of Electricity Supply. He will monitor the security of supply provided by suppliers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how it is proposed that the director general will supply electricity and guarantee supply?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, of course the director general cannot supply electricity himself. But the system in other industries involving people occupying similar roles has proved effective.

Local Authority Spending
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the working of current legislation for local government finance, in particular the community charge and the unified business rate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the straight answer is yes. The new arrangements are already increasing public awareness of local authorities' spending and making them more accountable to their charge payers. As with any new
1138
system there are detailed improvements that can be made. Her Majesty's Government set out a number of proposals for this in a recent series of consultation papers. We shall be announcing our final conclusions on these shortly, in the light of consultations and in good time for the 1991–92 settlement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I and many other people await the Government's conclusions with interest, especially bearing in mind that the latest figures show that at the present rate of payment local authorities will be owed £4 billion in respect of the non-payment of the unified business rate at the end of the financial year and £1.7 billion in respect of non-payment of the poll tax, mainly by people who wish to pay but who cannot do so and also by a minority who choose not to pay?
Is the Minister saying that the Government are satisfied with the situation? If that is the case, how do they expect local authorities to function as regards their responsibilities in respect of housing, education and looking after some of the more unfortunate members of our society?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord exaggerates the amount of money which has been collected; indeed, 85 per cent. of people across the country have paid something. However, he raised an important point. I hope that he will join with me in condemning those who can pay but who choose not to do so. In defence of the Government, I must point out that a raft of measures have been put into place—amounting to £2 billion—in order to abate the difficulties for people at the lower income end of the scale.
However, the shortfall in income and the question of those who do not pay—the matters mentioned by the noble Lord—impact on the provision of services and that in turn impacts upon the most vulnerable in the land. The cost of non-payment will fall upon those who do pay.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whereas the community charge is carefully calculated to enable people to vote or not to vote regarding expenditure which they will have to meet, the same is not true of the unified business rate which falls very heavily on small businesses, especially those in the south of England?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point about the community charge; namely, that accountability is increased. As regards the uniform business rate, he will know that business and commerce across the country were treated very unfairly—some more unfairly than others—and that the people concerned called for stability. I should point out that revaluation, which accounts for much of the distortion during the interregnum, has been dealt with by promising regular updating of revaluation. There is no increase of yield in real terms from the business community.
By law, rate poundage cannot be increased to a greater extent than the rate of inflation; indeed, it can be decreased. During one year in my own authority business and commerce had a rate increase of 33 per

1139
cent. which raised the annual business and commerce bill from £40 million to £60 million. Under the new arrangements that could not happen.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, how does the Minister equate her policy of accountability and fairness with the fact that she has just said that the shortfall will fall on those who pay? Further, how does she equate the same two items—that is, accountability and fairness—with the Government's current policy of capping those authorities who go against the wishes of the electorate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord misinterpreted my answer. I said that the charging system was fair but that not paying was decidedly unfair and impacted on the most vulnerable and those who pay. I hope that all noble Lords will join me in condemning those who do not pay.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister advise me what should be done about Lambeth Council, to which I have applied at least five times to be sent the poll tax bill and which will not send it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that Lambeth is now sending out its bills for the reduced level of community charge. Of course there is an obligation upon all people to meet their community charge even during the interregnum when that case was before the court. The Government have not yet taken a final decision on what to do about Lambeth.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords—
Lord Mulley: My Lords—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may suggest first my noble friend Lord Selkirk, then the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, and then the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, in so far as the tax falls on houses rather than people, at what stage in the building of a house does liability for community charge arise?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend appears to have it wrong. The tax liability falls on people and not on houses.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to the problem faced by many district councils which are not getting money in at the rate that they expected and are having to borrow substantially at high rates of interest to meet the precepts? As she is well aware, the biggest local authority spenders are the county councils, which are not the rating authorities. I am told that the district councils are having to borrow, and those interest charges are adding to the bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, charge payers who owe local authorities money continue to have a liability to pay. Local authorities continue to have the responsibility for collection. I understand that there have been numerous scare stories about the levels of collection. While they are not ideal, they are not much worse than the level of rate collection this time last year. The more efficient local authorities, and the more
1140
responsible people paying the charge will, I hope, ensure that that is not a problem at the end of the financial year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage of the poll tax Bill last year the Government's official estimate was that the cost of collection would be roughly twice that of the rating system? Will she tell us what the up-to-date figures are? Does she agree that the cost of collection is a major criterion for deciding whether the system is working?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that the Government said that collection would cost twice as much, and that was recognised when provision was made for local authority spending. Some local authorities are making a more efficient attempt at introducing the community charge. Of course in the early stages the costs of introducing such major changes will inevitably be greater than they will when the system settles down. The greater the efficiency the lower the cost.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was not an answer to my question. The question was: what is now the official estimate of the cost?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have talked about the estimated figure, which was twice as much. We do not have the actual figures. For those figures we shall have to await the outturn from local authorities.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the unified business rate is causing a great deal of unease because of the difference in payment for identical places? Is it possible to have a more detailed explanation as to the way valuations are arrived at and the formula to be applied so that people can see how the result is achieved?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the valuation system is applied in all parts of the country in the same way. There is of course a system of appeal against revaluation and many business people have taken that up. The area of anxiety about the business rate that we share is that of the small businesses where the owner may live over a shop. That issue is under consideration at present.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister kindly answer the question put by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey? What is the current cost of collection relative to the cost of collection of the rates?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not detract from my first answer, that the estimate at the beginning of the year was that it would cost twice as much to introduce the charge. We do not indulge in speculation beyond that point. We are now interested in the actual expenditure of local authorities. We know that some local authorities have laboured the introduction of the charge while others have made an effective and efficient start towards introducing the changes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may intrude upon my noble friend's question. Is not the department putting forward—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing his noble friend out of his question, if I may say so. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, was on his feet. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord stays on his feet and then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, when answering my first Question the Minister implied that the Government were satisfied with the rate of collection. The figures that I have show that for the first quarter there was a deficit of £1 billion in the amount expected by local authorities due to the non-payment of the unified business rate. The point I was making was that if that goes on for the rest of the year local authorities will be £4 billion in deficit. Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of small businesses have already been driven into bankruptcy due to their inability to pay the charge? That is not because they will not pay it but because they cannot pay it. Is it the Government's intention to drive tens of thousands more small businesses to the wall? If it is not, will they do something about it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have determined that the new rates system for the business community is much fairer than the old one. However, there is an interregnum which is difficult for business and commerce. To allow for easier implementation of the new system, a gradual move towards it over a period of five years has been determined. That will help businesses to absorb the changes. When that system is in place, it will be fairer than any system that has preceded it.

The British Transport Police
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for restructuring the British Transport Police.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that the British Transport Police has recently undertaken an internal review of its deployment. The recommendations of that review are matters for the police themselves, the Police Committee and the transport operators, but I am advised that they do not amount to a restructuring of the force.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are we to understand from that Answer that the Government abdicate all responsibility for having any influence in the matter? Is the Minister aware that, with the rising incidence of crime on British Rail, any attempt to reconstruct the nature of the police force on British Rail which will, in effect, mean a diminution in the services provided can lead only to considerable consternation on the part of the public, bearing in
1142
mind that crimes are increasing by 5 per cent. overall per annum and that sex crimes have increased by 60 per cent. over the past year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is why the number of British Transport Police is being increased at the moment. I understand that the police hope to recruit 150 additional policemen by the end of the year. The figure at the end of last year was 1,857. It is right that the police should review their activities to obtain the maximum value for whatever money is spent. It is not a question of restructuring the force.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, despite the Minister's answer, is it not the case that the proposals involve withdrawing transport police from some 20 towns and cities, which will affect the position in those towns and cities? Have not the Government some responsibility for law and order? Is it not also the case that the final decision is to be taken in January? Will the Government ensure that discussions are held between the transport operators and the British Transport Police Federation, which opposes the proposals, before any final decision is taken?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as has been made clear, the proposals are at an early stage. It is for the British Transport Police, the operators and the Police Committee to advise upon them. I understand that the final report is due to be made to the chief constable early in 1991.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, arising out of that reply, does the Minister agree that the consultation process suggested by my noble friend Lord Underhill is imperative in this instance? After all, we are talking, are we not, about the public's interest in any form of restructuring, which might involve, according to the internal report, the shutting down of something like one third of all the police stations related to the railways? That could lead to considerable delays in the calling out of police to deal with criminal activities.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, the report is in its fairly early stages. That is why it has been circulated for consultation within the force, the railway industry and outside. I hope that by the time the final proposals come forward it will reflect some of the points made.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that subject to the progress of business, the Third Reading of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 will be taken.

Broadcasting Bill
3.1 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Licences under Part I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:

1143
Page 3, line 46, leave out ("throughout the remainder or) and invert ("which would have effect during").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. Where a licence is transferred, the commission must give consent and can do so only if it is satisfied that the licensee would be in a position to comply with all the conditions included in the licence which would have effect during the period for which it is to be enforced. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [General requirements as to licensed services]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 3, leave out from beginning to second ("in") in line 6 and insert ("as to the rules to be observed").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 28, 34 and 35.
Your Lordships will recall that on Report I introduced amendments which became known as the impartiality amendments. Some of your Lordships found difficulty with them, as did the shadow Independent Television Commission. We had discussions with the commission before the Report stage and I indicated that if noble Lords were minded to approve the amendments which were tabled in my name at Report, I would introduce amendments to those amendments at Third Reading. They would result in the new insertion into the Bill being one with which both the Government and the Independent Television Commission were content. I told your Lordships what those alterations would be.
Your Lordships understandably felt that this would be an untidy way of proceeding, so I withdrew the amendments with the undertaking that I would bring forward the revised amendments afresh at Third Reading. These are the amendments. They are essentially the same as those which I introduced on Report, but amended as I indicated that they would be.
I said that there would be three changes of substance. Your Lordships may therefore be surprised to find that the main Amendment No. 4 looks to have been more substantially altered. The reason is that the other changes were required in order to make the amendment grammatically correct. They make no alteration in substance at all. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships, therefore, of what we seek to do.
There is and always has been an obligation written in the statute for broadcasters to be impartial. It is written in this Bill. There is already a code of practice issued by the Independent Broadcasting Authority saying how that obligation for impartiality should be carried out. The requirement for a code of practice is now written into this Bill. At Committee stage, we thought it appropriate that, as we were putting an obligation on the Independent Television Commission to draw up a code of practice for impartiality, we should indicate the sorts of subjects to be covered. So we have produced these amendments.
This is what the amendments seek to do. Paragraph (a) of new subsection (4A) relates to due impartiality
1144
being achieved for each major matter of political or industrial controversy, or of current public policy. The wording of the amendment is not designed to imply that there are some minor matters of political or industrial controversy or of current public policy where it would be acceptable for programmes to be completely biased. The purpose of the wording, which is different from the wording on Report, is to make it clear that we do not expect impartiality to be achieved over every nuance of a matter of political or industrial controversy. As I said on Report, we would expect that treatment of the Gulf issue, for example, should be handled in an impartial way. But that does not mean that every statement or sentiment expressed about the Gulf should receive some kind of equal and opposite rejoinder.
It will, of course, be for the Independent Television Commission to determine what might be regarded as a major matter of political and industrial controversy or current public policy and we would expect it to set out some guidelines in its code. This is nothing new. The Independent Broadcasting Authority has to make these kinds of judgments now in fulfilling the obligation to achieve due impartiality. It must already give effect to the spirit of the provision.
I know that many lawyers have been working overtime giving opinions on the drafting. I am aware that there are a number of legal opinions which suggest that these amendments will make litigation more likely. I find it hard to understand why that should be thought to be the case. The Independent Television Commission is required to draw up a code having regard to these matters. Provided that it does so reasonably, I cannot see that any judge will say that it has acted wrongly. Similarly, provided the Independent Television Commission enforces its code reasonably, I cannot believe that there is anything to fear from judicial review.
Paragraph (b) of subsection (4A) requires the code to take account of the need to define what is meant by a series of programmes. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate what due impartiality requires in particular circumstances. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4B) sets out that the code should indicate the manner in which impartiality is to be achieved for different programme types. Paragraph (c) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate the timescale within which programmes must be included if impartiality is to be achieved over a series. Paragraph (d) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate the means by which the audience is informed that impartiality will be achieved over a series rather than in a single programme. Subsection (4B) indicates that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.
Amendment No. 87 also makes provision for the rules to cater for different cases or circumstances. We also propose to require the Independent Television Commission to draw up and publish a code for licensable programme services. These services are subject to the lighter undue prominence test rather than the due impartiality requirement.
Further minor technical amendments will be proposed to the provisions relating to S4C. They will not change the substance of the provision for S4C, which requires the Welsh authority to apply the Independent Television Commission code on impartiality to programmes broadcast on S4C. In short the amendments list—but not exclusively—the subjects which the Independent Television Commission should cover in its code. But how the subjects are covered, what wording is used, the strength or leniency of the coverage and the severity of the enforcement are matters wholly and exclusively the prerogative and the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission. Government cannot interefere. Parliament cannot interfere.
Many of your Lordships were, I know, concerned on Report that the shadow Independent Television Commission had said that it considered the words then proposed unworkable. We were concerned too. I am glad to tell your Lordships that the Independent Television Commission considers that the words I now propose are fully acceptable. It is the commission who will have to implement and enforce the code, and it is content with the words in the amendments. It is content that it can draw up and enforce a code which would be based upon them.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw is also content with these amendments. Unfortunately, he is unable to be in your Lordships' House today. Your Lordships will recall that he expressed reservations on Report. However, he has told me personally that the reservations which he expressed on Report do not apply to these amendments because the ITC is content with them and finds them workable. I hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve the amendments. I know that they are controversial in so far as the very term "impartiality" is controversial in terms of broadcasting and Bills.
Parliament is not being invited to draw up the code. Nor is it going to be entitled to approve it or to disapprove of it when it is drawn up. It is entirely the ITC's responsibility. We have merely proposed a list of items which shall he covered by the code. I read how one influential gentleman in the broadcasting world said the other day that he did not like the amendment. He said, "It is so important to get the wording right". I agree with that. I think that we have got the wording right, and so does the ITC.
I am afraid that some people who say, "We must get the wording right" really mean to say, "whatever words you produce we shall not like them". If there are those of your Lordships who are that way inclined, I am bound to say that it is difficult to find a meeting of minds. To hold the view that the Bill should not state what the code of practice should include is an entirely respectable view to take. But I hope that those of your Lordships who do not take such an intransigent view—even if it is a respectable one—will agree that the Government have done with this subject what they have been at pains to do throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses. We have listened to opinions, both inside and outside Parliament. We
1146
have adjusted our proposals. We have produced proposals with which the ITC is content. We have produced proposals in these amendments which are workable. It is on that basis that I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister explained the amendments today in a persuasive manner. I am sure he is glad to come to the end of this difficult, rocky road. This is the third bite that we have had at this difficult and important subject. We should remember today that the Bill passed through the Commons without any change in this area at all. The Minister in charge of the Broadcasting Bill in the Commons made it clear in speeches both inside and outside the House that he thought it was quite wrong for Parliament or government to interfere in laying down detailed codes of practice on impartiality for broadcasting authorities. He made a much better case against what the Government are trying to do today than many of those of us who are speaking against the measure now.
We on this side of the House have always supported the statutory obligation on broadcasters to maintain due impartiality throughout independent television. Therefore we support the new statutory requirement in the Bill as originally published, that the ITC should be obliged to draw up a code on impartiality. That is a shift in statutory responsibility from the position adopted in broadcasting legislation since 1954. It can be justified by the change in the status of the ITC. That body will be a regulating authority, but will no longer be a broadcasting authority. That differentiates it from the present IBA. This shift can be justified by the change in status of the ITC, but the government amendments cannot be justified as they would alter even further the fragile balance between government control and the editorial independence of broadcasters.
This matter came about because a small group of noble Lords tabled some amendments in Committee which did not meet with the satisfaction of the Chamber. If they had been voted on, the amendments would have been defeated by a considerable majority. Unfortunately the Government took fright at that point. They should have allowed the amendments to be voted on. The Government had enough support from all round the Chamber to defeat the amendments. However, instead of that, the Government promised that they would return at a later stage with a different measure. That is where the problem started. The Government set themselves an impossible task. They tried to do the impossible. They tried unnecessarily to turn the most undesirable provision into something positive. The result is before us today.
I suspect that Ministers in the Home Office are themselves not happy about this measure. I more than suspect that many of their advisers wish that it had not been embarked upon. I am sure they wish that it had not ended in this way. The Minister has returned with a measure which is the best that he can do in the restricted circumstances in which he has had to work.

1147
He has tried to produce something which is acceptable. However, I am afraid it is not acceptable. I hope that other noble Lords will take the same view.
The amendments stem from prejudice against broadcasters whose natural instinct and democratic function is to be critical of the establishment and many of those in public life. I admit that that has always been the case. That is the way the noble Lords who tabled the original amendments expressed it. Criticism by broadcasters is a sign of a healthy democracy. When a Labour government are in power, the broadcasters have a go at that government, but they equally criticise a Conservative government. Each government, no matter what their political leanings may be, are critical of broadcasters. They often want to try to muzzle them. However, when a different government come into office, the whole thing goes into reverse.
These government amendments wreck the principle that government should remain at arm's length from the editorial decisions of broadcasters. The precedent of existing broadcasting legislation directly charges the IBA and the BBC's Board of Governors with the responsibility for regulating all aspects of editorial policy including the due impartiality requirement. Both those bodies are publicly accountable to Parliament. Members of their boards are appointed by the government of the day. Therefore if any bricks are to be thrown, they could be thrown at those who appoint the members to the boards. But, there again, that is in the lap of the—I was going to say the gods, but it is in the lap of the Prime Minister.
The maintenance of this balance is vital not only to freedom of expression in our democracy but also to sustain the independence and quality of our broadcasting system which, if not always fully appreciated by the British public, is held in high esteem by all other nations of the world. There must be many broadcasters in other countries who are wondering what on earth we are trying to do and why we appear today to be trying to wreck something which they consider to be precious. They consider the policy of arm's length broadcasting to be precious and worth preserving.
The Government say they fully accept the principle that Parliament should not attempt to define due impartiality in statute and that Parliament should be the arbiter of,
"what was or what was not impartiality"—[Official Report, 11.10.90; co1.421.]
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, used those words on Report. However, we are presented today with government amendments which attempt to set out in detail on the face of the Bill what impartiality should mean in practice and what actions should be taken by broadcasters to ensure that due impartiality is maintained. I repeat that the noble Earl put his case over persuasively. Nevertheless the Government's measure specifies areas of attention that the code should cover. That should not appear on the face of the Bill.
That attempt to particularise the areas which the ITC code should follow leads inevitably to
1148
parliamentary definition and interpretation of the due impartiality requirements. That is where many of us in this House—and I hope that it will turn out to be the majority—part company with the Government. We believe that it should remain a duty of the ITC without the unnecessary constraints imposed by the amendment. The ITC should be bound by statute to draw up a code, as it is in the Bill as it stands. However, any attempt to specify in detail the provisions of the code undermines its regulatory authority and represents a departure from the principle that the Government should remain at a distance.
It is unfortunate for the Government and the Bill that they have not decided to leave well alone. In seeking to define the areas to be laid down in the code, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said at Report on 11th October (at col. 423 of Hansard) that impartiality is "essentially a matter of objectivity".
I argue that by its very nature the formulation and interpretation of impartiality is and has to be a highly subjective matter which is best left to the discretion of the ITC and the day-to-day experience of broadcasters. If broadcasters are given free rein, these matters will balance each other out. As a magistrate I have always believed that there is a great advantage in having magistrates' courts composed of three magistrates. It enables us to cancel out each other's prejudices. We all have prejudices, and it should also be acknowledged that we are all subjective; but if we are able to balance our subjective views against those of other people, we can achieve, as nearly as possible, an objective opinion.
This is not a matter on which politicians or governments should pontificate. We believe that the existing provisions of the Bill provide the necessary safeguards to ensure that broadcasters comply with the due impartiality requirement. If the amendment is rejected today that is the end of the matter and we are back with what is in the Bill at present.
Since declaring its serious doubts about the workability of the government amendment in July and in early October, the shadow ITC now appears to believe that it can live with the new provisions. I believe that its enthusiasm for the amendment is not quite as expressed by the Minister. The expression I heard was, "We think we can live with it", which is not the same as being extremely happy about it.
In its briefing paper dated 5th October the IBA said:
"We prefer to see the matters covered by the Government's amendments left to the ITC's judgment in drawing up the code".
The IBA still would prefer to maintain only the statutory requirement for due impartiality, backed up by a new statutory code which is worked out by the ITC itself.
However, we must be realistic. Most Members of your Lordships' House are realists. The IBA's judgment must to some extent be coloured by the unequal relationship which must exist between a government-appointed regulator and the government of the day. That is the position for most quangos. Even if it is done in the most discreet way, there is a

1149
certain amount of arm twisting or the people feel that they are under some obligation to bend backwards in order to accept what they feel the Government want.
The broadcasters, who will have to put the details of the code into practice, are still extremely concerned about both the principle and the practical effect of the revised amendments. Richard Dunn, chairman of the ITV Association, believes that the best solution would be to leave the Bill unamended. John Birt, the Deputy Director-General of the BBC, said that the amendment should still be abandoned. It should be remembered that if the amendment goes through for ITV, the BBC's turn will come in the future. Michael Grade, the Chief Executive of Channel 4, has said that the impartiality amendments were wrong in principle and should be dropped.
We should feel much happier about the amendments if it were not just the shadow ITC which was saying that the code might be workable. All of the broadcasters who were consulted when the first amendment reached this House and who saw Mr. Mellor, the Minister for broadcasting, told him how they felt. As I understand it, they have not been consulted since the second draft was drawn up. There has not been much time for any of us to consider it since it was not published until Thursday or Friday.
The broadcasters feel extremely strongly about the matter. Although the Minister said that he could not understand why that should be so, they are very clear about the matter. They have all taken legal advice at a very high level. With the exception of the advice given to the IBA, the advice has been broadly the same, although it was independently sought and given. John Finnis, Professor of Law at Oxford, acting for the ITV Association says:
"There can be no doubt that the phrase 'take account of' has an unsatisfactory elusiveness. It could be interpreted by a court as requiring that the ITC's rules conform to some judicially conceived standard about what matters are and are not major, and/or about what is or is not a due standard of impartiality".
He goes on to say that the phrase 'major matters' in Clause 4A(a) is
"elusive in meaning and pregnant with ambiguity … Any such uncertainty creates the live possibility of legal challenge to the ITC's eventual code".
The opinion concludes:
"It is one thing to 'trust the ITC' to draw up a code on impartiality in the relevant matters when the whole approach and content of the code is left to their good judgment. It is quite another to be asked to trust the ITC to draw up a workable and satisfactory code when they are required to do so under the threat of litigation based on inherently ambiguous concepts inappropriately given full and direct statutory force".
Anthony Scrivener, QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, who is the counsel acting for Channel 4, believes that the rewording of "individual issues" to "major matters" will still give rise to serious problems of definition. He says that:
"The plain answer is that the new wording does not make any improvement at all. The words 'major matters' are not going to bring clarity".
1150
Goodman Derrick and Co. has said that the amendment is "virtually legally unworkable". The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who is here today, described it as "a lawyers' picnic" and will no doubt have something to say on the matter later. Christopher Beaumont, the counsel acting for ITN, also said:
"It would be most undesirable in my view if either initially when the code is first drafted or at a later stage after a court decision, the Commission were put in a difficult position of laying down criteria for news editors. It would be an appalling burden on broadcasting companies … to have to consider such rules in relation to every item. In my view that would be an unwarranted interference in the independence and judgment of news editors and their companies".
He went on to make the following damning statement:
"It is one thing for the Government to require that a code shall be made. It is quite another for it to lay down just what the code shall contain".
I apologise to noble Lords for going into some detail, but this is a matter of great importance and this is the last chance that this House will have to discuss it.
The IBA, referred to by the Minister, has not taken counsel's opinion but relied upon legal advice from its own very reputable solicitors, Allen and Overy. That advice appears to run counter to the broad spectrum of leading counsels' opinions given to the broadcasters. It does not express any clear legal opinion on which the IBA can support its view that the redrafted government amendment is the basis of a workable code. It seems that the view is that it may be possible that it will work. I have seen the letter and it is not extremely clear to me what it is saying. One has to weigh that against the overwhelming weight of the other legal advice.
We strongly support the principle that government and Parliament should not interfere at all in the detailed formulation and interpretation of editorial policy in broadcasting. Any attempt, however much modified, to specify the areas which the impartiality code should "take account of" or "indicate as the Commission consider appropriate" will lead to greater government interference and more misunderstanding in the courts.
Once something starts going to the courts—and all the advice appears to indicate that it will—the lawyers themselves will want to go to appeal and one could end up with the unfortunate situation in which the judges become the regulators of our broadcasting system, not the broadcasters or even the Government. Is that what we want? I do not think it is. The ITC must be trusted to carry out its statutory responsibility to draw up a code unfettered by all that.
The principle on which we stand—that the Government should remain at arm's length from matters of editorial policy—can only be preserved by rejecting the Government's amendments outright. That is the only way that these amendments should be dealt with, even the new rather polished-up version at which we are looking today. We have to go back to the way described in the Bill at the present time and stick to it. These amendments are highly dangerous both to our society and to broadcasting. I do not think it is our job to create a great deal of work for a great many lawyers. That in fact is one of the things that this Bill

1151
will do. I say that as the wife of a solicitor. On this side of the House we intend to vote against these amendments. We hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will also do so.
3.30 p m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has made every point that needs to be made in opposition to this Bill. The Bill is something of a mystery to me. The Government have pursued it with an iron determination and must have some motivation that has not been expressed in this House.
It is perfectly clear that it is a serious interference with liberty of speech. Why the Government wish to pursue this legislation with such determination is to me an absolute mystery. As has been said, in broad terms the requirement of impartiality has been in the broadcasting legislation since 1954. Why it cannot be left in that situation also defeats me.
The noble Earl who is conducting the debate has, if I may say so, a most ingratiating manner. He sought to convey to us and almost persuaded me that this Bill had no vice of any kind. The vice is its uncertainty. It will operate against the creative people who are making programmes. It will be suspended over their heads like a sword of Damocles, and undoubtedly referred to constantly by the management, who are more timid than the programme makers. They will be at a serious disadvantage and many a programme will be abandoned or seriously changed because of this provision.
I recollect some of the difficulties connected with a code that arose some years ago when most of your Lordships were children. I think it formed part of the trade disputes Act. There was an attempt to introduce a code to regulate the behaviour of journalists. The first effort to produce a code was a brave one. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, who is one of the distinguished lawyers of that generation, was asked to preside over a committee which was composed of the various elements concerned with newspapers.
The editorial element, proprietary element and printing element all gathered together at the office of the Newspaper Publishers Association. After a year's argument not a smell of a code was to be found. If one referred to the Act it stated that in default of a code emerging from that hybrid group, it would be the duty of the Ministry of Labour to produce such a code within a year.
I do not know how many years have since passed. I have not traced a smell of a code and nor has anyone else. It is clear that those people were undertaking an impossible task. I believe that something approaching that task is to be found in these provisions. I wonder why the Government are not prepared to leave these matters to the controlling bodies of the television companies or the BBC who, as has rightly been said, will be threatened with the same code within a few minutes.
I speak with some authority about the BBC. I believe that at the moment it has a chairman of singular power. Certainly he will not be persuaded to
1152
allow any programme to appear that he regards as contrary to impartiality. So far as the commercial companies are concerned, it is to be remembered that each of them gained a licence. They gained a licence by establishing to the broadcasting authorities that they were a group of people who could be relied upon to act responsibly. What has happened to disenfranchise them in this way since they were granted their licences? It defeats me totally.
I do not believe that this code can be anything but damaging. In saying that I am perfectly convinced that the noble Earl is totally sincere when he says that it cannot do any damage. But one does not have to think very long to understand how important it is that people who are in a creative medium should not be threatened with something that is indefinite and ambiguous. Therefore I hope very much that the House will see its way not to accept this particular provision and to send the Broadcasting Bill in its existing state out to the world without any further reference to impartiality. As I said, that provision has been there as a bold requirement since 1954 and up to now no one has thought it necessary to amplify it.
I should like to make one further point. If there is a simple, bold statement of something, one does not add to its force by elaborating it. This code will produce an elaboration of something that is already simple and can he interpreted by any reasonable man.
There have always been long arguments about what is and what is not impartial. However I do not believe that now and subsequently the people in charge of our vast broadcasting apparatus are people who cannot be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on what I have said. If your Lordships are in agreement with it, join me in voting against the Bill. If your Lordships are not in agreement, join the noble Earl in voting for it. However noble Lords should think very hard before doing so.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, we have already been round this course a number of times before and I have not heard anything new. Nor, I believe, have your Lordships. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out, there has always been a requirement in the legislation for due impartiality. That is why the IBA drew up a code explaining how that should be carried out; the BBC has a code in a similar vein. Otherwise they would not have done that.
We are now told that if the Bill spells out the kind of items that ought to be covered, in some mysterious way it will make the code of the ITC unworkable. If that were so, it is unworkable now. For example, the IBA code about the qualifications regarding the way in which a series is to be balanced states quite clearly:
"This presupposes that the presentation, over a series of different points of view is planned in advance, and that the intention to achieve impartiality in this way is made clear so that the viewer of one programme is not misled into thinking that he has seen the whole story".
That is the gravamen of the amendment. Why is it there? It is there because many people employed by the ITV and BBC television companies are totally unaware of their own code. I have heard of

1153
indignation being voiced only recently at a meeting of programme makers denouncing the amendment. One said, "I have just heard something terrible. Have you heard? The BBC has a code stating how one has to obey due impartiality. That is monstrous. We have never done it before; we do not intend to do it in the future". The programme makers had not even read their own code.
I hope that at least one thing will happen if this House and another place pass the amendment—everyone who makes a programme will be made to read the code on due impartiality provided by his own organisation. That apparently does not happen. He might be asked to sign a copy to say that he has read it. Such people would not then be so startled to find after many years of making programmes that they have always been governed by due impartiality in Acts of Parliament. The poor dears will not think, "My goodness, this will kill my creative instinct".
The supporters of the amendment do not want any programme censored. I must reiterate that again. No programme will be prevented from being made in the future. All that we ask is that when people put out a slanted, biased programme they should allow some form of reply to show that there are other views from that which has been broadcast. It is not the amendment that seeks censorship; it is those who oppose the amendment. They want to be able to suppress any opposite view from that which is put out on a controversial matter. That has happened again and again. If it had not occurred so often under the IBA or the BBC no one would have suggested that the provisions of this amendment should appear in the Bill.
I should certainly not have done so. I have done much broadcasting and televising. When we began, although everyone knew our political views, we were scrupulous in maintaining impartiality. We had very few complaints—I never heard of any. Noble Lords may laugh but it is quite possible to be impartial if one wishes. I do not always wish to be impartial when I write a column in the newspaper. However, I do not have a protective monopoly given me by the state and I have no duty for due impartiality. But when I act as a broadcaster, as I still do, I observe the rules about due impartiality. It is perfectly easy to do so if one wishes.
We are told that the amendment will lead to a terrifying amount of litigation. Why on earth should it? At the moment anybody is entitled to bring an action against either the television company concerned or the BBC if he feels that it has not observed the legal requirements for due impartiality. Nothing in that respect has changed. The reason why a person does not bring such action as a rule is that the process is so expensive. We have had cited the names of dozens of lawyers who want to have a picnic time for lawyers. It is no wonder that people do not readily go to law against one of these giant corporations.
In fact the amendment will produce less litigation —if that were possible, because there has been none so far—because it lists the items which the code will
1154
cover. Someone wishing to bring litigation against the IBA or the BBC which concerns a point not covered by the code will have no cause for action according to the Bill. Much potentially vexatious litigation will vanish because it will not come under the heading of the items categorised in the code.
I believe that it is absurd to suggest that there will be more litigation and less free television. Of course there will not. The position will be just the same. The only difference will be that the people who run the ITC and the BBC—I have remarked before that they are not the most forceful people in ensuring that their own rules are carried out—will at least be able to say, "These rules now have parliamentary backing. They are no different in substance from what you should have been doing all the time and if you do not wish to obey them you had better not make television programmes; or if you make them you must allow the opposite view to be put". I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Government and support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, as at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I declare an interest as chairman of TVS Entertainment plc and of its subsidiary TVS Television Limited, which holds the independent television franchise for the South and South East of England.
I had hoped that it might have been possible to deal with these matters fairly shortly today. However, despite the excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Birk, who explored some of the legal points involved, and the very persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who further explored some of the legal problems, I feel that your Lordships would not wish to pass over this matter without thoroughly debating what some of us consider to be the very considerable programme difficulties which would be faced if the amendment were passed. I refer also to the considerable legal difficulties which would arise. Some have been touched upon but by no means all. I believe that it is necessary to explore those issues before we leave the matter today.
We all start with the same aim: to preserve due impartiality and accuracy in our programmes on television. That is the Government's aim. It is the aim of those who are opposed to the various amendments put down on impartiality. It is also the aim of those noble Lords who tabled earlier amendments seeking more detailed legislative provision for impartiality. I have not found at all attractive the graceless, somewhat unseemly and rather personal criticisms levelled in some quarters at those noble Lords who have promoted those earlier amendments. I accept their good intentions and good faith.
Although involved in other aspects of the Bill, I had not intervened until last Thursday week on the issue of impartiality partly because I work in the television industry and because I would have found it a little awkward to speak against an amendment sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Had the rules of the House been otherwise I could have referred to him

1155
as my noble friend. We have known each other for many years. We have worked for an organisation for which we retain feelings of affection—the BBC.
Perhaps I could cite this example as an illustration of relationships which help the work of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, chaired several meetings in the Palace addressed by leading broadcasters during the Bill's passage. He heard that I was unable to attend a meeting for Members on this side of your Lordships' House and immediately invited me to a parallel private meeting for Members on the Government Benches. That might be a tiny incident but it is such acts which facilitate the workings of this House. People outside do not tend to hear about them; it is time that they did. There are times when those acts of friendship matter more than scoring a point to win an argument. I now feel a little easier in my mind in speaking against the amendment because it is not in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I suppose that both of us can say that we have been served well by the Government.
I am in no doubt that those working in broadcasting are among the most concerned people to maintain the highest standards in broadcasting. That means accuracy and impartiality. Indeed, their professional reputations depend upon it as do those of their companies. They would soon suffer if that were not so As the shadow ITC re-emphasised this month, it is also the case that the requirements for due impartiality have, with rare exceptions, been honoured fully throughout the 35 years of independent television. There have been transgressions but they have been rare. When they have occurred action has been taken. If the view of the shadow ITC is sought in respect of one matter relating to the amendment it is right that its view should be sought in relation to all matters. No doubt it would be unrealistic to expect no transgressions in the future. Equally, there is no reason to think that they will be other than rare. Therefore, the present system has worked well.
As has the shadow ITC, one can accept wholeheartedly the provisions in Clause 6 of the Bill requiring due accuracy in news programmes and due impartiality:
"on the part of persons providing a service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy."
There is also the proposal for the ITC code on due impartiality to give clear and unequivocal guidance to licence holders and their programme makers.
Although it is excellent that the Government have confirmed that the code will be an ITC code, the detailed provisions in the Government's amendments still go much further than the Government originally indicated, as my noble friend Lady Birk pointed out. They are likely to have effects which perhaps the Government have still not fully appreciated. Indeed, there is no sign that they have taken into account the legal arguments and opinions which have been advanced. This morning I understood from Mr. Michael Grade, Chief Executive of Channel Four, that all the opinions running to a total of 20 pages
1156
have been sent to the Home Office for consideration. Therefore, no secret has been made of the advice given to the programme companies. The provisions are likely to have effects which the Government still have not fully appreciated and which still less they intended. With those provisions it is unlikely that the code will be workable.
The Government's new amendment is marginally better than the last, especially in dropping the provision on the prominence to be given to material intended to ensure due impartiality in a series of programmes. But in some ways it is actually worse. As I said on Second Reading, I have not always been at one with all of my ITV friends and on this occasion I now part company with the IBA and the shadow ITC. I am most sad about that. However, as the sponsoring body for outlets for free speech in this country, I am sure that it will not only forgive me for expressing my view but will expect me to do so.
As a practitioner in the industry, and one who some years ago had editorial experience of news and current affairs programmes, I am among those who are most worried about the amendment's requirements on "major matters". That term is open to a variety of interpretations, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. They could have serious effects on programmes. It may be helpful briefly to give several examples of the way in which programmes are likely to be affected by the provision. If there is a news item on a particular day involving, say, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition in another place that must be balanced by comments from the other party on the same matter. It is true that that sometimes happens in any event and perhaps the best example is the Budget. The views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his counterparts are invariably covered although there are, of course, in addition the special Budget broadcasts—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, there never has been a provision such as the noble Lord has described. The matter has always been covered by the interviewer asking the intelligent questions that an opponent might have asked. Just because one has Mrs. Thatcher being asked questions on the news one does not also have to have Mr. Kinnock being asked questions. It is the interviewer's job to create balance.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is entitled to his view. I am basing my views on those of three leading counsel and another authoritative lawyer who has already spoken to your Lordships this afternoon. The very fact that there are differences of view underlines the fact of the problem here.
I shall give a more topical example. When the announcement was made about our entry into the ERM it would have been unthinkable to run an item with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to have comments from spokesmen of the other parties. But it would also be unthinkable to have to have such coverage every time a spokesman appears. It is likely that if a spokesman appears the matter ipso facto must be major. Again, an interview with the Prime Minister on the economy could not be balanced by one with the

1157
Leader of the Opposition on defence. That would contravene the major matters rule. Perhaps I may take another topical example. It would be almost impossible to cover properly the party conferences, for how could one balance a major matter when the parties tend to debate different matters and give different priorities to what might be major matters?
It is also possible that the requirement of balance on major matters could become a villains' charter. The ITV programme directors point out that the consumer programmes deal regularly with public policy matters. They are widely acclaimed for exposing malpractice. The proposed provision could kill those programmes and these days I do not believe that any viewer would regard consumer matters as being other than major. The ITV programme directors also point out that even Jonathan Porritt's "green" series would need to be balanced by a non-green series. All parties in your Lordships' House now recognise that green matters are major.
Before giving a final example of programme effects I shall turn to the legal advice that I have received. I shall refer to four opinions. The first has already been quoted by my noble friend Lady Birk. It came to me from the director of the Independent Television Association, Mr. David Shaw, and is by Professor John Finnis, leading counsel. My noble friend Lady Birk quoted passages from his opinion and therefore my speech can be truncated to that extent. Professor Finnis also stated:
"Legal advice given to interested parties is not unanimous on the question whether 'major matters' is an improvement on 'individual issues'. In my opinion it is, but the opposite view is strongly held, and this fact alone is sufficient to indicate that each of these phrases is, in its own way, elusive in meaning and pregnant with ambiguity. Any such uncertainty creates the live possibility of legal challenge to the ITC's eventual code, and such a challenge might be joined to challenges to particular programmes".
After exploring further difficulties Professor Finnis states:
"The only sure cure would be to get rid of (4A) (a) or indeed to drop (4A) and (4B) altogether".
The second opinion came to me from Channel Four and it is by Mr. Anthony Scrivener who is another eminent Silk. He refers first to the replacement of the words "make provision" by "take account of". He states:
"This should be considered to be an improvement but it is not a matter of great significance."
He explains why it is "only an insignificant alteration". He says that the vice in the original wording remains. Mr. Scrivener welcomes the deletion of the prominence provision to which I have already referred: subsection (4A) (f). He goes on to say that of greater significance is the failure to address the main point which underlies subsection (4A) (a). After referring to the scope for harassment, litigation and interlocutory injunctions he says that the question is whether the new wording—"major matters" replacing "individual issues"—makes any difference. He states:
"The plain answer is that the new wording does not make any improvement at all. The words 'major matters' are not going to bring clarity. There is no definition of what is meant
1158
by the term. There will be endless debate as to what the words mean and of even greater significance: whether they apply to a particular programme or even part of a programme. The words involve making a judgmental decision in a context where there is and can be no guidance as to how the words should be defined. It is obvious that what one person may consider to be a 'major matter' would be considered by another to be a matter of little importance".
He goes on:
"Since only the courts can make the final decision on the matter the result will be that the courts will decide whether a particular matter in a programme is 'major' or not! Since the words are not capable of consistent application the courts will take on the rôle of regulating the media. Further since the perception of what is a 'major matter' may well differ as between individual judges as it involves making a judgment without guidance, any lawyer acting in such a case will advise an appeal".
That is the point on appeals to which my noble friend Lady Birk referred.
I must quote this final passage from his opinion. He says:
"I do not believe that the courts are the appropriate body to be exercising control over the media in this way nor do I believe that the courts would wish to take on this thankless task but they will have no option. The scope for interrupting planned programmes is not altered in any way by this proposal. The only persons who should be expressing any pleasure at the new proposal should be the legal profession as the scope for endless litigation is preserved by this new wording".
The third opinion has been referred to; therefore, I give it only a passing mention. That is the opinion of Mr. Christopher Beaumont who is again leading counsel advising ITN.
The final opinion was sent to me by Mr. David Plowright, chairman of Granada Television. It comes from a firm of solicitors familiar to your Lordships whose principal partner we have heard this afternoon. At the head of the firm's writing paper is the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I quote briefly from that opinion. The second sentence—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me drawing upon the opinion: he did not quote it himself—states:
"The amendment proposed is virtually legally unworkable".
The arguments in the opinion are very close to those which I have quoted. It also notes that the Government's amendment implies gradations of impartiality. It states:
"the aim is to impose what is described as due impartiality with regard to major matters … and that as 'due' apparently means proper or requisite, some partiality is apparently to be tolerated … How any judgment is to be made on where the line is drawn on due impartiality or individual major matters would seem virtually impossible to divine".
On a practical point it states:
"to be on the safe side a television producer will be advised to prepare strictly scripted pre-filmed programmes and/or to avoid controversial items wherever possible".
The opinion concludes:
"Quite apart from the legal difficulties (including applications for injunctions before transmission; applications to the Divisional Court; and post transmission complaints and litigation) the practical difficulties are insuperable".
As a lawyer I am all too conscious that we cannot always be accused of giving such clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, unqualified and unreserved guidance.

1159
I turn to my final example. There is at least one other way in which the term "major matters" creates greater difficulties than "individual issues". It is that "matters" can cover not only policies but also events.
The Prime Minister frequently receives coverage on the basis of the news value of the story involved. The Prime Minister is often the creator of the story and, indeed the reason for it. Not infrequently the Prime Minister heads the news bulletins of the day. The Leader of the Opposition in another place is sometimes in that position also but less so than the Prime Minister, and that is quite right because of their relative positions. The news value is assessed by editors acting independently and exercising their professional judgment. In my view it is inevitable that the Prime Minister will tend to feature more in general —of course, different rules apply at election time—than any other leader simply because of the position as the head of the government of our nation.
In referring to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, your Lordships will note that I did not use the words "she" and "her" or "he" and "him" because, although I have great respect and admiration for both the present incumbents of those offices, I am talking about the offices themselves in this context. The principle is what applies here.
If in their independent professional editorial judgment my editors concluded that an activity or statement of the Prime Minister was of news value, perhaps made the news on that occasion, and merited lead story treatment, as editors frequently do, I should find it intolerable if on every such occasion that item had to be followed by coverage of the Leader of the Opposition and vice versa. And yet, that is exactly what must happen if these provisions apply.
Perhaps I may be personal for a few moments. My right honourable friend in another place knows of the regard I have for him. However, I do not see any reason why I should he forced to require my editors to give coverage to the Leader of the Opposition just because, on one view of the situation, it looks right to do so I do not just want it to look right; I want it to he right.
What does one do in those circumstances? Of course we should seek to comply with the law. As a lawyer, how could I do otherwise? However, my problem is that I shall not know what is the law with which I am seeking to comply. Your Lordships may say that that is not a unique situation, that we do not know what is the law, otherwise why do we have lawyers and courts to help us to interpret it. It is one thing to find ourselves with an unclear law, it is quite another to go in with our eyes open and create a law which we know before we create it will be unclear, will be open to interminable attempts at interpretation and will be uncertain. We do not want to have to resort to lawyers and courts.
I hope that we shall not have to reject this amendment. I hope that we shall not have to trudge through the Division Lobbies. I hope that even now the Government will see that although we believe they acted in good faith without appreciating all the
1160
consequences they will gracefully withdraw their amendment in the charming way we know the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is capable of.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am unencumbered by the same depth of broadcasting knowledge as those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. Therefore, I shall have no difficulty in keeping my remarks very brief. The amendment moved by my noble friend leaves me in a state of puzzlement. First, I accept that it is an improvement. In that I am guided and influenced by the opinion of the chairman of the present IBA. I am comforted by the inflexion, as my noble friend said, that neither government nor Parliament can interfere with it.
I accept also that there is a problem and that partiality creeps in, and more than creeps in. That is not always to be excused simply on the basis that it is anti-establishment. However, I am worried what the amendment will do to benefit anybody. What will it provide which is not already provided for in the Bill? That question has not yet been answered to my satisfaction. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, in the course of his eloquent and persuasive remarks, was honest enough to say—almost in these words—that the provision is not new. If it is not new, I ask why we need it.
I undertake not to detain your Lordships for long. But I must ask what the effect of the amendment will be, and who it will benefit. I find it difficult to give a positive answer to either of those questions. That being the case, I find it difficult to support the motion that an amendment of this kind, in which even its sponsors place so little confidence, should be placed on the statute book, even though it would find in that place plenty with which it could be fairly compared.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene briefly. Some noble Lords, with great sincerity, believe that broadcasting as it stands is entirely impartial. But the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was entirely right when he said that although there is an injunction to be impartial, television is usually biased simply because many broadcasters like to tilt against the establishment, and every government, whether Labour or Conservative, find themselves up against that tilt.
Those words struck home to me because that is exactly what we found when, 13 years ago, the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting looked at the problem. Two distinguished broadcasters in current affairs on television told us that there ran through the output a strain that was anti-establishment, anti-institution, anti-free enterprise and anti-American. We thought that that was somewhat nearer the mark than Professor Stuart Hall and the Communist Party. They said that the output was the result of a conspiracy between the broadcasters, the politicians and the police.
Our committee found that then, as today, there was concern that broadcasters were not taking due impartiality seriously enough. But that did not deter

1161
us from saying that there must be programmes that took a biased and a personal point of view. Without such programmes, television would not fulfil its role of stimulating public discussion. We not only praised investigative journalism. We went further. We noted that there were programmes which seemed to indicate,
"This is what occurs, surely it is wrong, must be condemned and needs to be changed".
Often such programmes went on to say that those in top positions responsible for such matters, "ought to be identified as dunderheads standing in the way of a more progressive and efficient system". We said that we would deplore any attempt to stifle such programmes. But at the same time we received much evidence of bias against management in industrial disputes and hostility to industry. We heard of inexpert research assistants, indeed of research assistants being told by a producer of the line that the programme would take and being ordered to produce material to illustrate that line. We said it was important that not only different kinds of programmes but different views should be expressed. That was why due impartiality was so important. We concluded in that report that,
"While a programme might be biased towards the Palestinian cause and be committed to a particular political viewpoint, it should indicate that Middle Eastern affairs are complex and cannot be depicted in black and white. At some later date, not immediately but not all that distant, we would expect the Authority concerned to see that another [public affairs] programme, not necessarily in the same format, but looking at the matter from a very different angle, would be presented".
When that report was published I never heard a single protest from the broadcasters. Indeed, Lord Swann (the then chairman of the BBC governors) told me that he thought so well of that chapter that he circulated it to the top brass in the BBC. During the 1980s I intervened in various debates in this House on broadcasting. I gave examples of why I thought all was not totally well. In the end the governors of the BBC recognised that that was so. They sacked the director general. No doubt there are still some complaints, but it is my impression that the present director general and Mr. John Birt have produced a marked change in the BBC's approach to controversial matters. I wonder why the IBA does not appear to be so concerned.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred to bias in "World in Action". "World in Action" is a fine series and unquestionably should continue. But the right reverend Prelate did not deny that the programme was biased. Where in the ITV output is there any balancing series? If "World in Action" is to be exempt from due impartiality, then surely some other programme looking at current affairs from a different angle should be commissioned. If Channel 4 makes "Death on the Rock", another programme which explores Britain's attempt to contain the IRA, a programme showing the problem through the eyes of the RUC and the Army, should be made.
I am all for a celebrated playwright like Mr. Harold Pinter being invited to give his personal view on
1162
television. If he chooses, as he did, to denounce American policy in Nicaragua, that is his right. It may be that the public's appetite for Nicaraguan affairs is somewhat limited, and therefore Channel 4 may have been right not to commission a programme to explain how the size of the Nicaraguan army rose from 5,000 in 1982 to 119,000 in 1988, and why the quid pro quo for arms from Cuba and the Soviet Union was the erection of four Sigint bases for the KGB.
As I say, there is no need to produce another programme on Nicaragua. But if there is not to be such a programme, was there any attempt within "Personal View" to invite another writer—shall we say Sir Kingsley Amis—to appear in the interests of due impartiality? Channel 4 is consistently partial. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was very dismissive of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and his supporters at Report stage, but I wonder if she might invite Ms. Liz Forman of Channel 4 to be given some tutorials in her college by Professor Roger Scruton. Ms. Forman might lighten her ignorance about conservatism, and perhaps the good professor might learn something from her.
The question is not whether the BBC and IBA codes on impartiality are adequate. Of course they are. The question is not even whether they are applied. The question is whether the inevitable tilt to which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, referred has gone too far. The Government, in this amendment, are saying, "Please watch the tilt. Remember the injunction on due impartiality. We have no intention of interfering. The authorities and the authorities alone are the arbiters. But there is some disquiet". That is the message.
What the effect will be, I cannot say. It takes a lawyer as distinguished and as charming as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, to make one's flesh creep, but I am perhaps more cynical than the noble Lord. I expect matters will go on just as they did before; but it may be that the breaches of due impartiality will be a little less flagrant and a little less numerous. The broadcasters should take heed. A government which becomes exasperated now has a new remedy at hand. It could widen the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Council to include news and current affairs.
The noble Earl said that the Government have no intention whatever of doing that. I am very glad to hear that. I would be very sorry indeed to hear the reverse. I hope that this evening the noble Earl will reiterate his statement. I hope therefore that the ITC will follow the example of the BBC and consider this problem anew.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I intervene very briefly in this discussion because I had an experience in this area some years ago from which important lessons can be learnt. In the difficult situation in which we are now placed I feel I have a duty to inform your Lordships of that experience.
It is my considered opinion that it is quite impossible to frame a statute defining due impartiality in such a way as to satisfy everybody or in such a way as to meet all possible eventualities or difficulties. I am

1163
not altogether happy with these amendments, though I accept that they have been very carefully worded. Personally, I should have preferred them to have no words!
I was much struck by what the noble Earl said in his speech on Report, to which he has referred, in which he told us that after discussions with the shadow commission he found that his original amendment was not satisfactory. He went on to say that he would devise much better amendments as a result of further discussions with the shadow commission. That seemed to me to be an acknowledgment by the noble Earl that it would have been better to have left the whole business to the shadow commission rather than seek to put it in the Bill. That remains my opinion.
Of course we have an obligation to have due impartiality enshrined in the Bill, and it has always been in previous legislation, as has been said. However, as regards independent television, the position has developed and evolved over a period of years. Originally there were certain difficulties. In the early days of Granada, when it was first on the air in the late 1950s, I was about to present a programme about clean air, the medical benefits of clean air and about smokeless zones. Noble Lords will remember that Manchester pioneered smokeless zones; it led the world and became the first city to be entirely covered by smoke-free zone provisions. It needed to be!
I proposed to present a programme on the subject and was about to do so when I was approached by the ITA's northern officer (as he then was) and told that I could not do the programme unless I could find and drag along a reluctant representative of a backward local authority which did not believe in smoke-free zones. That was a ludicrous situation.
I accept that with time things changed and that the rules of due impartiality were differently applied—largely, I believe, as a result of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who later became chairman, and who required balance not in individual programmes but overall. That seemed to me to be a great improvement. However, if we once put back words of the kind proposed we will have to evolve a system all over again. I honestly believe that the path down which the noble Earl is seeking to lead us could lead us back to the kind of situation which I have just described. I am sure that none of us wants that.
I believe that it is people who should be controlling the situation—yes, people with responsibility who are appointed by the Government and who can handle matters their own way. They can do so while watching the continuing development of matters rather than by having a whole set of words which we try to devise now to cover situations that have not yet occurred and which we cannot envisage. I hope that we will leave the Bill as it was, in the form in which Mr. Mellor, the Minister responsible, found it wholly satisfactory. We would be wise to do that, and I hope that we do so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I believe that this is the twelfth day on which we have discussed this Bill and therefore I shall endeavour to be briefer than some noble Lords opposite who have spoken. I am grateful
1164
for the nice remarks made about me by the noble Lord. Those of us who worked for the BBC—it was our Alma Mater—will always have a certain affection for it. Because I sometimes criticise the BBC, it does not mean that I have lost my affection or respect for it, merely that I believe the BBC occasionally goes astray. In my Second Reading speech I gave examples of where I thought there was immoderate bias—four from the BBC and four from the ITA as I was seeking to get a balance between the two.
My noble friend who spoke earlier—he has now left the Chamber—was very well answered by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who appropriately explained the position. My noble friend was not able to be with us during the previous 11 days and had not heard all the arguments. I assume that most noble Lords present have heard them all and I shall just pick out one or two aspects.
First, there is the accusation that the amendments will give rise to massive vexatious litigation. That viewpoint is strongly held by Michael Grade, the head of Channel 4, who is quoted as saying that he could be in court every five minutes. Who is to pay for this? The only case I can recall is a libel suit brought against the BBC and related to a Panorama programme on Maggie's militant tendency. The case was brought on behalf of two of my honourable friends in the other place, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Howarth. Duke Hussey rightly brought the whole matter to an end, saying that the nonsense must stop and a settlement reached. I believe that each of my honourable friends received £20,000 but their legal fees took the total to over half a million pounds. It took a long time to reach that settlement. Therefore, I repeat my question: where is the money to come from to settle such litigations? Who is in the enviable position of having the limitless resources necessary to bring these numerous cases?
Cases have been quoted from all sorts of lawyers —many perhaps working for the Campaign for Quality Television and others for the programme companies. The noble Baroness referred to that aspect. However, I remind the House that the Government also have some very good lawyers. Every government have good lawyers. Those lawyers have been carefully consulted and they have come to the conclusion that the Bill is perfectly justiciable.
If legal action is contemplated it must be as a last resort. The ITC is now armed with all sorts of ways of penalising transgressors. Obviously they will be verbally penalised in the first case and by fining for subsequent transgressions. I notice that in New Zealand one company that continued to disobey the impartiality laws was told that for one week it would not be permitted to carry advertisements in its programmes. That idea seems to have some merit. It did not lead to blank screens because the money had been spent on the programmes, but no money was forthcoming from the advertisers. I recommend that method of dealing with the problem.
I should like to make one further point on which I have some concern. Noble Lords who have attended all our debates on the previous 11 days will remember that we have been puzzled by the "individual issues"

1165
phraseology and have wondered whether it was satisfactory. The Government have now changed the wording to "major matters". I am also in some difficulty here. What is a "major matter"? We want to avoid having every tiny passing reference to a controversial issue dealt with separately. That is thoroughly undesirable. There is a danger that broadcasters may now have another loophole. We have tried to close six existing loopholes and that is why we now have the Bill and its amendments. Broadcasters may claim that certain matters are not sufficiently major to warrant balance or impartiality. That is a danger.
However, I took some soundings of the Home Office and it came up with a very good point: the fact that a substantial proportion of a programme is devoted to a politically contentious issue should automatically suggest that the issue concerned is sufficiently major to warrant impartial treatment. I am not altogether happy about this, but that gives me some conviction. I see that it is going to be difficult, and I hope that when my noble friend replies he will try to make rather more distinct or quotable judgments on what are likely to be major and minor matters.
My noble friends and I have worked very hard on this Bill, as has everyone in the House. Personally, I had considerable faith in the codes which the BBC and the IBA used. The BBC's was slightly more thorough, but I read them all, and they were very good. As my noble friend Lord Wyatt said, the trouble was that people just disregarded them. They said, "I know it is written in the code, but see what happens. I am going to make this broadcast", and they did. So I think we are strengthening the hands of the management and the governors by writing into the Bill rather stricter codes and facts, and laying it upon the ITC to cover certain issues. We had contentious discussions on that recently. I believe we are making life easier for the managers to carry out due impartiality. That is why I earnestly hope that after much discussion, much alteration and thousands of amendments, this House will pass the amendment in its present form.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, as someone who is not a former producer, manager or lawyer in the media, perhaps I may say why I think that the passing of the amendment will not add one jot or tittle to the amount of impartiality on television.
Contrary to what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, it does not seem to me that the points made by my noble friend Lord Peyton have been answered. In particular, my noble friend asked what this amendment would achieve that is not in the Bill already. I do not think one can do better than look to the words of the Bill which provide that due impartiality is to be preserved and that the commission is to draw up a code as to the rules to be observed with regard to due impartiality, and make sure that the provisions of the code are complied with.
1166
Once one starts to embroider the concept of due impartiality it is weakened. One gets to the position which we have seen repeatedly whereby impartiality is only looked at in one way; that is, as the amendment seems to suggest, that to be impartial you have to make sure that one grossly biased viewpoint is balanced by another equally biased viewpoint.
Due impartiality goes beyond that. It includes aspects of judgment and objectivity and regard to the truth that are not even hinted at in the matters to be taken into account contained in the amendment. In the circumstances I believe that the other place had it right; I shall not support the Government on this matter.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I support the amendment for a different reason; that is, because the power of television has been increasing, is increasing and is going to increase so enormously that it must play a different and greater part in the life not only of this country but of the whole world. Governments will have to address themselves to the limits to which a giant adolescent of this kind can be allowed to go.
I do not know what impartiality is. I have lived my life in politics. Impartiality does not mean anything in politics. It would be a recipe for the status quo, for breaking no new ground, and for doing nothing. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is a very diligent observer, and he has noted that broadcasters have often been biased. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. said, the bias has really not been against the Tory party but against any government who happen to be in power. That is natural enough. Journalists and broadcasters are acutely aware of how much cleverer they are than the average Member of another place or even than most of your Lordships. One must face the fact that life is unfair to them. Slow-witted politicians collect the power and honours while they, with their egregious brains, have very little of either. I do not mind about that kind of resentment. It is part of human nature which you cannot control by legislation. But if it goes too far the excesses should cause us to do something.
Against that background this amendment is not perfect. It could not be perfect because its object is due impartiality, and that is an illusion. It seems that the main difference between the other side and this side is whether Parliament should take a hand in trying to secure that this enormously powerful medium does not get out of hand, and that there are no satellite terrorists, which there very easily might be.
The amendment does something which has not been done before. It recognises the responsibility of Parliament. Ought we to leave it only to the commission because the commission has had responsibility for it in the past? I do not think so. The scale of the power of doing good and doing harm by television is growing at such a rate that Parliament must pay some attention to it.
Therefore I shall back the amendment although I do not think it is perfect. In fact, when I back it I am reminded of what I was told when I was very young: "Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding

1167
something worse". I am going to keep hold of my noble friend Lord Ferrers and his amendment since it would be so easy to find something worse.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right to say that television is a very powerful medium, but when he goes on from that to say that the issue before your Lordships' House today is how Parliament should regulate the content of television programmes I think he is mistaken in putting it in that way.
The question that arises for the House today concerns the way in which Government and Parliament play their role in relation to the regulation of the great broadcasting organisations of this country. I very much agree with the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, on the dangers of Parliament seeking to define impartiality and establish the regulations for imposing impartiality on programme makers. The noble Lord was absolutely right to underline the difficulties.
Therefore, I hope that even at this late stage, and in the light of what has been an extremely interesting debate your Lordships may yet find it right to reject the Government's latest proposals on the admittedly difficult issue of due impartiality.
I reiterate, as others have done, that there is no issue between us in any quarter of the House about the importance of the ITC and the BBC doing "all that they can", to use the words of the Bill, to secure due impartiality in matters of public controversy. However, those qualifying words are worth pondering for a moment. The words "all that they can" are the words in the Bill. In the current Act, the words are "so far as possible". They are important in recognising the difficulties and limitations in defining and then securing impartiality.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said pungently a few moments ago, there are bound to be difficulties as to where impartiality lies on any subject. On occasions, errors of judgment are bound to occur on the part of both regulators and broadcasters. However, successive boards of both the IBA and the BBC have given the highest priority to doing "all that they can" to ensure due impartiality.
A certain element of confusion has crept into the debate with regard to the approach to the amendment. A number of your Lordships have perfectly understandably and properly expressed the anxieties that all of us feel from time to time about the way in which programmes have been dealt with by the broadcasting authorities. That is not the issue that is before your Lordships' House in terms of making a judgment about the amendment. The issue before the House is the relationship between government and Parliament on the one side—the constitutional relationship—and the broadcasting authorities that government appoint on the other. I have no doubt that the long debates that we have had on due impartiality will have been listened to extremely carefully by the board of governors of the BBC and by
1168
the IBA and the shadow ITC. It is no bad thing that the concerns that have been expressed should be listened to carefully and taken on board.
However, the amendment does not deal with that problem. If the amendment is passed, the broadcasting authorities will still have the problem of dealing with the individual programme issues as they come along. As Parliament will have trespassed on what were previously regarded as the responsibilities of the independent broadcasting authorities, a new situation will be created both for the broadcasting authorities, about interpreting the responsibilities of programme regulators, and, above all, as a number of noble Lords have said, for the courts of this country.
As I sought to say at Report, the House should remember that the disputes about due impartiality, although they are often well publicised and on important issues, occur in a minuscule part of the vast news and current affairs output of the broadcasting organisations of this country. Those who complain are a tiny, although potentially influential and litigious, minority of the multi-million viewing public of this country.
Against that perspective, it is wrong and dangerous in our pluralistic society to upset the well-tried, arm's-length relationship between government and the independent broadcasting authorities that they appoint and to trespass on their responsibility for what they put in their codes. In a comprehensive opening speech in answer to the noble Earl, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, called it a very fragile balance. It is a fragile and important balance and I do not think that the case has been made out for upsetting it in the way that is now proposed.
Although, technically, the amendment relates to the future ITC, it also affects the BBC and the whole of British broadcasting. In asking the House to reject the amendment, we are not in this case, as has been said, asking the Government to go against the grain of the Broadcasting Bill as we have felt conscientiously obliged to do on a number of aspects of the Bill. It is the Government's amendment which goes against the grain of what is supposed to be a deregulating and liberalising measure. The light touch of which we have heard a great deal has suddenly, at the tail end of all our debates, become the heavy hand. We simply ask the Government to stick to the text of the Bill as it stands before us today on the very eve of its Royal Assent, as they have vigorously defended it for the past nine months, perhaps particularly so in another place, in the elected House.
The noble Earl, whose courtesy is so totally disarming that it is almost impossible ever to get cross with him, suggested that, after all the efforts that had been made with the amendment, it would be not merely ungracious to persist in the position that I seek to put, but a case of intransigence. I think that was the word he used. With respect to the noble Earl, I should have thought that the intransigence is to be found on the Government side in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, put a totally devastating case on the likely legal consequences of

1169
going ahead with the amendment. Here again, I believe that there is a genuine misunderstanding on the part of such noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. He complains that, in his experience, broadcasters have not been sufficiently aware of the code. He therefore wants these provisions to be written into an Act of Parliament. If the broadcasters of whom he complains—I think that he will at least agree with me on this point—do not sleep with the code under their pillow, they do not read Acts of Parliament before they go to bed either. That is not the issue.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is under a misunderstanding about the implications of the matter. He seemed to think that to have the provision written into the legislation would strengthen the hands of the broadcasting authorities. To do that would bring about a fundamental change. When I was chairman of a broadcasting authority, I went through the ordeal of judicial review. It is not a particularly agreeable experience, although it is a necessary one in our society. When I went through it, the test for the courts lay in the text of the existing Broadcasting Act and in whether the regulatory authority had performed its duties in a reasonable way.
If the amendment is accepted, the test for the courts will be widened and will be very different. I am a layman, but I gather from what has been said by noble Lords who are lawyers that the ambiguity and uncertainty of the amendment make it totally unknown territory as regards the final outcome. That is the difference that will be brought about by the proposal.
I have the sense—I hope that it is not unfair—that the Government, and certainly the Front Bench in your Lordships' House, are not totally easy about the position that has emerged. As we all know, the matter began with an amendment of a much more radical and, to use my phrase, at times mechanistic character from the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Orr-Ewing, who, as my noble friend Lord Boston said, are absolutely entitled to the point of view that they expressed with great sincerity. However, when we on these Benches—it is worth reminding your Lordships of that fact—sought to force a vote on their amendment, the Government, aware presumably that they were likely to be defeated, allowed the House to negative it.
Since then, the Government have plainly found it difficult to come forward with a satisfactory form of words of their own. At a late point before the Report stage, they finally produced an amendment which immediately aroused the unanimous opposition of broadcasters who might have been expected to react in that way. But it went much wider. It aroused the passionate opposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. It aroused—and, as far as I know, still arouses—the unanimous opposition of the serious Conservative press. At that time it also aroused the opposition of the shadow ITC which had made its preference clear throughout for the present text of the Bill. As the noble Earl rests a good deal of his case on
1170
the fact that the shadow ITC has now said that it is content with the amendment, which I do not think there is any doubt that the Government have pressed on it hard, it is worth returning to what the ITC said in its briefing to your Lordships in July:
"In our view, the Bill as drafted offers appropriate safeguards for impartiality".
The proper question to ask the shadow ITC is not whether it feels duty bound as a statutory body to come to a compromise agreement with a Government who are determined to make this fundamental change in these constitutional arrangements but whether it would prefer to go back to what was its considered position in July. Now we face a further amendment to the amended government amendment.
I am a relative newcomer in terms of re-entry into your Lordships' House, having been away for many years on other matters, but it must be rare, on an important constitutional issue raising questions of freedom of speech in our society, to see the Government treating the House in this manner by bringing forward a major proposal at this stage of an important government Bill. Those affected have had little time to take the views of learned counsel on what has become a moving target. The legal opinions quoted today by a number of noble Lords have made it clear that there are serious doubts, both in principle and in practice, about the final amendment. Although the Government have very distinguished legal advice we have not yet heard from them a legal opinion. I doubt whether they could obtain an opinion of the same weight as those before the House today.
As I said on Report, compromises—the noble Earl has done his level best to produce a compromise—always appeal to reasonable people, but they have to be examined on their merits. This amendment has now been rewritten four times. That kind of frantic scribbling at the last minute is rarely satisfactory, and in the battle of legal opinions as expressed in the debate today the Government's amendment has lost heavily on points. If the amendment passes, the result is likely to be bad for the viewer in terms of a less courageous quality of current affairs programming; but it is certain beyond a shadow of doubt that it is going to be extremely good for the lawyers.
I seriously ask the noble Earl and the Government whether the game is worth the candle. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boston. Is it worth abandoning what the Government believed until very recently—and I am sure believed genuinely and deeply —was the right relationship between government and broadcasting authorities for a cobbled together compromise which may poison that relationship and do great damage to the quality, virility and international reputation of British broadcasting?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not claim that the amendment is perfect or that, if enacted, it will work miracles. But I should like at any rate to express appreciation of the care which my noble friend Lord Ferrers has taken both at this stage and at previous stages to consult opinion on all sides of the House, to listen to argument and to adjust the earlier amendment in the light of those comments. Your

1171
Lordships generally have good cause to be grateful to him for that. I do not think the amendment will work miracles but the broadcasting agencies will, in the future as in the past, rather follow the principle of the provincial mayor who on being elected to office pledged himself to steer between partiality on the one hand and impartiality on the other without actually falling into either.
I ask the House to consider the practical effects of a decision on the amendment. If the House rejects it at this final stage or if it is withdrawn, it will be clear to all concerned in the broadcasting industry that the Government's efforts to secure a greater degree of impartiality have failed and that opinion in your Lordships' House and therefore for practical purposes in Parliament is against worrying very much about impartiality. That would be extremely dangerous. It would be dangerous to our political system because the great power and influence of the broadcasting system and particularly of television would appear to be going unchecked. Those concerned with broadcasting would believe that there was no great need to worry about the old rules, the old provisions and the old charters on impartiality because Parliament had rejected an attempt to bring them up to date and to impose them. For those reasons, whatever imperfections may be found in the amendment—I think that I could find one or two myself—I would regard it as quite disastrous if the amendment were rejected. I shall warmly support it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, which has gone over ground covered many times, but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, require a response from someone who has had something to do with broadcasting. He grossly underestimates and is deeply insulting to those we have entrusted with the oversight of our broadcasting authorities. We have with us the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, but we do not have Mr. Duke Hussey or Mr. George Russell. Is the noble Lord seriously saying that if we maintained the system which has existed in this country for so many years those gentlemen would say that this House had decided that the broadcasters could neglect impartiality? That is a travesty of the position.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way as he has been good enough to refer personally to me? Why he should regard it as an insult to say to people that they prefer to act in one way or another I cannot follow. All of us in this House speak sometimes with considerable partiality: certainly the noble Lord does. I was trying to say that, if one undermines the legal framework, it is no insult to those operating inside it to say that they will act more freely and express more partiality than if they know that legal duties are being properly imposed upon them. That is the point. It is no good the noble Lord trying to stir up excitement by saying that I was insulting anybody. I am not even insulting him.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am deeply gratified by the noble Lord's compliment. All I was trying to suggest is that on countless occasions in this debate noble Lords on both sides have reiterated that
1172
we are absolutely committed to the importance of impartiality. All we have argued is that the due impartiality law as set forth in previous Acts of Parliament has worked very well and that the proposed amendment which has come forward at the last moment undermines the authority of those who heretofore have been expected to regulate and to carry out that law. To say that if we reject the amendment they will conclude that impartiality is less important, or is in some way undermined, seems to be a travesty of what their reaction is likely to be.
5 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it may be of service to your Lordships' House if I very briefly reiterate the position of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and that of the shadow ITC, on both of which bodies I serve as deputy chairman. An opinion has been expressed on several occasions during the debate on this amendment today. Sometimes it has been represented not entirely accurately and on other occasions people have sought to interpret it, to place glosses upon it and to refer to the advice upon which it was based. It is not my intention at this late stage to rehearse any of the arguments about the history of the amendment or to go into any detail. I simply wish to reiterate precisely what is the position of the shadow ITC and the IBA.
When the Government first brought forward these amendments, the IBA and the shadow ITC, having taken legal advice, gave their opinion to the Government that this particular amendment was not workable. A subsequent amendment was drafted by the Government in consultation with the shadow ITC. The position of the ITC now is that if this amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill it would produce a workable code on impartiality which the shadow ITC could make work, as required by the Broadcasting Bill. That is the position of the authority.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so without being in any way patronising, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to which we have just listened, was masterly in its presentation, in its conclusions and in its brevity. Indeed, it said everything. We have had an exceedingly interesting debate this afternoon during which the sole issue has been the method by which we achieve impartiality. We are all concerned to try to achieve that aim in the best possible way.
I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did me such an unbelievable honour—indeed, I could not quite believe my ears—when he said that I had almost persuaded him. The thought that I should almost have persuaded a person of the eminence of the noble Lord, bearing in mind his legal background, made me feel as if I had swallowed a bowl of cream. However, he then went on to say that I had not actually persuaded him and hence my ego dropped back to its low normal point.
There is a curious aspect to this matter. My noble friend Lord Coleraine said that the amendment would not add one jot or tittle to the Bill. My noble friend Lord Peyton said that he did not think it would add

1173
anything and, in that case, asked what was the purpose of putting it in. I shall deal with that point later. On the other side of the coin we had the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, saying that what is proposed could be an infringement of the freedom of speech with the sword of Damocles hanging over producers. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that this would wreck the present position where the Government are at arm's length from editorial policy and that what is proposed alters the fragile balance between independence and government control. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was in agreement with that view. Therefore, we have two totally separate views: one states that what is proposed does nothing at all and therefore why worry about it and why put it in the Bill; and the other states that it does such terrible draconian things that we should all make sure that it is not included.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points of concern which were raised during the course of the debate. Many important issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, was concerned about several matters. He started his speech by saying some justified and pleasant things, not only to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, but also about the principles upon which the House operates. It was most helpful that he did so; indeed, the House has its own way of operating for the mutual benefit of all concerned. However, having said that in such nice tones I thought, "My goodness, there is trouble coming". Sure enough, he proceeded to do a monumental rugger tackle on the Government's amendment. He did so in the most impressive way.
Nothing in the present amendment imposes any different or greater requirement on the broadcasters than that which arises at present under the existing requirement for due impartiality. This point troubled the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and many others. If anything, the amendment helps the broadcasters by allowing the ITC to indicate the circumstances under which a strict interpretation of impartiality need not be maintained. If the noble Lord, Lord Boston, is correct in his argument, I think that that could be regarded as a criticism of the existing law rather than of the present amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing were worried about "major matters". It will be for the ITC code to define what is a major matter. I believe that my noble friend asked whether I could define what was a major or a minor matter. I shall not be so sufficiently stupid as to do so. That is precisely what the ITC has to do. Matters of political or industrial controversy are not defined in the existing law; they are left to the IBA to determine. That situation has not led to any rash of legal proceedings; indeed, quite the reverse.
Due impartiality has always been the test which has been set by broadcasting legislation. It is, therefore, false to suggest that our amendments create some new and unworkable test. Since 1954 due impartiality has applied to matters of political or industrial controversy. All the opinions which have been quoted today about the difficulties of defining major matters could apply equally to the definition of the word
1174
"matters". However, this has not been a problem until now. For example, the IBA has found it possible to broadcast interviews given by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on different subjects, despite the need for all matters to be treated impartially. I do not understand why it should be found any more difficult to broadcast such interviews in the future when the requirement will relate to major matters.
In his trenchant speech the noble Lord, Lord Boston, mentioned many different legal opinions which he had received. He said that he had sent them on to my department and I am indebted to him for doing so. He pointed out that there were many different opinions and quoted them with some force. I must say, with deference to the noble Lord and to his profession, that it is a fact that if you ask 12 lawyers for their views you will end up with 13 different opinions. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are a number of views.
I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head. However, during the course of his speech I wondered whether he had forgotten those occasions in this House when we have been debating a matter of legal content and when we have had contributions from the Law Lords. They sometimes set about each other like fighting cocks; there is no unanimity of view among those noble and learned gentlemen. Therefore, when the noble Lord says that there are various views stating that what is proposed is unworkable, I must point out to him that there are other views which say that it is workable. The IBA and the Government have received such legal advice and I think, therefore, that the score is 30:15 to us.
We do not accept that the amendment will necessarily involve the courts in deciding what is a major matter. In such circumstances it will be for the ITC to indicate what constitutes such matters. In the event of litigation, the question will be whether the ITC has taken a reasonable view of what is a major matter. That is very different from the court imposing its own view about what is a major matter. It has been suggested that litigation will be more likely in the future. I believe that what is proposed will make litigation less likely. Without the amendments there could well be doubt as to the degree of discretion which the ITC could have in drawing up its code.
I turn now to deal with the agitation expressed by my noble friend Lord Peyton. He said that he could not see what this amendment would add to the Bill. I shall give him some examples. Our amendments make it clear that the rules can make different provisions for different circumstances.
The ITC can determine what constitutes a series. Due impartiality can require different approaches according to circumstances, and the ITC can indicate the timescale within which due impartiality should be achieved. Without the amendments there could be serious doubt that the ITC could reflect those points and it would have no statutory backing to the provisions in the code. In that respect the amendments help rather than hinder the ITC and will make litigation less likely. The amendment gives the ITC

1175
statutory backing in drawing up its code and makes clear what it can cover and how it can exercise its discretion where otherwise there might be doubt. It also makes clear to the broadcasters and the public that there are certain matters that the code must cover and therefore guarantees that the broadcasters will be informed what is expected of them. Members of the public will be reassured as to the subjects that the code must cover.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, in a delightful way, paraphrased the effect of the code. It will say, "There is a problem". To the broadcasters it will say, "Think about the code". Broadcasters should take heed. That was a good encapsulation. A code already exists. There is provision for a code in the Bill. All we are doing is laying down some of the subjects which must be covered in the code. I can only say to your Lordships, including those like the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who said that the provision would be an infringement of the freedom of speech, that how the subjects are covered, what wording is used, the strength of leniency of the coverage and the severity of the enforcement are matters wholly and exclusively the prerogative and the responsibility of the ITC. The measure is not a draconian one. It is a clarifying one. I hope that your Lordships will approve of it.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Annan, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V

Digby, L.

Atholl, D.

Dilhorne, V.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Balfour, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Elles, B.

Barber, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beloff, L.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Blyth, L.

Foley, L.

Beardman, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bolton, L.

Gainford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gibson, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goold, L.

Brightman, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gridley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Carnock, L.

L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hastings, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Cox, B.

Holderness, L.

Croham, L.

Hood, V.

Cross, V.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Howe, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

1176

Iddesleigh, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Perth, E.

Kimball, L.

Porritt, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Radnor, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Reay, L.

Kitchener, E.

Rees, L.

Knollys, V.

Renton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Renwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Rodney, L.

Long, V.

Romney, E.

Luke, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mancroft, L.

Shannon, E.

Manton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Slim, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strange, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Middleton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Milverton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Terrington, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mountevans, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Tranmire, L.

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Moyola, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wise, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wolfson, L.

Orkney, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wynford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Galpern, L.

Aldington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ardwick, L.

Goodman, L.

Attlee, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

[Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Birk, B.

Gregson, L.

Birkett, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hanworth, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hooson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Briggs, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hunt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carter, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Craigavon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Crook, L.

Kearton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Leatherland, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ennals, L.

Longford, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Fitt, L.

McNair, L.

1177

Marsh, L.

Sharples, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stockton, E.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Peston, L.

Thurlow, L.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Richard, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Walston, L.

Rochester, L.

Whaddon, L.

Roskill, L.

White, B.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Russell, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seebohm, L.

Winstanley, L.

Serota, B.

Woolton, E.

Shackleton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5:
Page 7, line 10, at end insert:
("and the Commission may make different provision in the code for different cases or circumstances.").
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("(c)").
Page 7, line 16, at end insert:
("(4A) The rules specified in the code referred to in subsection (3) shall, in particular, take account of the following matters—

(a) that due impartiality should be preserved on the part of the person providing a licensed service as respects major matters falling within subsection (1) (c) as well as matters falling within hat provision taken as a whole; and

(b) the need to determine what constitutes a series of programmes for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4B) The rules so specified shall, in addition, indicate to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate—

(a) what due impartiality does and does not require, either generally or in relation to particular circumstances;

(b) the ways in which due impartiality may be achieved in connection with programmes of particular descriptions;

(c) the period within which a programme should be included in a licensed service if its inclusion is intended to secure that due impartiality is achieved for the purposes of subsection (1) (c) in connection with that programme and any programme previously included in that service taken together; and

(d) in relation to any inclusion in a licensed service of a series of programmes which is of a description specified in the rules—

(i) that the dates and times of the other programmes comprised in the series should be announced at the time when the first programme so comprised is included in that service, or

(ii) if that is not practicable, that advance notice should be given by other means of subsequent programmes so comprised which include material intended to secure, or assist in securing, that due impartiality is achieved in connection with the series as a whole;

and those rules shall, in particular, indicate that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 to 5. They were spoken to under the previous amendment.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this section or in sections 7 to 12 has effect in relation to any licensed service which is an additional service other than the teletext service referred to in section 49(2).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 77. The amendments fulfil the commitment which I gave to my noble friend Lord Swinfen in Committee that we would apply the provisions of Clauses 6 to 12 in the Bill to the designated teletext service. The amendments to Clauses 150 and 203 are necessary in order to ensure that teletext comes within the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's remit and to make clear that teletext transmissions come within the definition of "television programme" for statutes which are amended by this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [General provisions as to advertisements]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 20, leave out ("this Act or of the code under").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 48, 49 and 50. These are minor technical amendments. It is unnecessary to set out that a licensee should not act as an advertising agent since this restriction already exists in Schedule 2.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before we leave this amendment, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to expand a little on it. It is true that an advertising agent is totally prohibited from owning a television contract. Is there any reason why the words about the television contractor being an advertising agent are to be omitted? He might perhaps advertise his own programmes, or that kind of activity.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, certain people can be advertisers; they can purchase advertising or sell advertising. The point is to get the right people. For instance, the Rank Organisation has argued that it could be held on analysis to be an advertising agent in connection with the provision of advertising space for cinema advertising. The organisation argues that this should not prevent it from becoming a licensee. The Bill precludes any person who is defined as being an advertising agent from having a controlling interest or an interest of more than 5 per cent. in an ITV licence. The definition of "advertising agent" in subsection (1) refers to subsection (4); it should refer to subsection (6). This is a printing error which will be amended in due course. It does not need a formal amendment to make the change. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for spotting the misprint which I came across this morning relating to the interpretation of the clause. I am also grateful to him for his clarification. It means that the position of an

1179
organisation such as the Rank Organisation, for example, which does not engage in television advertising but does engage in cinema advertising will be safeguarded under this provision.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond to that. Provided the Rank Organisation engages only in selling advertising space, it would not come within the definition of the Bill. However, if the Rank Organisation were to act as an advertising agent purchasing space in cinemas for persons wishing to advertise, it would be caught by the provision in Clause 202(6). It would be right and we have felt it appropriate to prevent advertising agencies from holding a stake of more than 5 per cent. in any licensee because of the possible conflict of interests between the provision of the service and representing person; who wish to advertise, no matter in which media he might purchase space. The close tie with the advertisers could result in a conflict of interest, even though the advertising agent was not purchasing space on the broadcasting services.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("Neither the Commission nor the holder of any licence shall") and insert ("The Commission shall not").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Control of advertisements]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("their general responsibility for") and insert ("a general responsibility with respect to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Failure to begin providing licensed service and financial penalties on revocation of licence]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("(as") in line 30 and insert:

("(a) where—

(i) the licence is revoked under this section, or

(ii) the first complete accounting period of the licence holder falling within the period for which the licence is in force has not yet ended,

7 per cent. of the amount which the Commission estimate would have been the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as determined in accordance with section 19(2) to (6)); and

(b) in any other case, 7 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for the last complete accounting period of the licence holder so falling").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10 and speak to Amendments Nos. 11 to 17, 26, 27, 29 to 33, 36 to 43, 51, 59 to 61, 63, 64, 67, 74 to 76, 90 and 114. These amendments are all minor drafting improvements to various provisions in the Bill resulting from the final look through the Bill. None of them raises any issue of substance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Restriction on changes in control over Channel 3 licence holder]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 23, line 43 leave out ("body to which") and insert ("person to whom").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Nomination of bodies to provide news for regional Channel 3 services]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15:
Page 32, line 1, leave out from ("to") to ("invite") in line 4 and insert ("enabling them to nominate bodies corporate as nominated news providers for the purposes of section 31(2), the Commission shall").
Page 32, line 11, leave out ("before or after the commencement of section 31(2))") and insert ("in pursuance of any such invitation or not)").
Page 33, line 2, leave out ("or (5)").
Page 33, line 4, at end insert ("; and they shall not terminate a body's nomination under subsection (5) unless they have given the body a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Networking arrangements between holders of regional Channel 3 licences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 38, line 35, leave out ("that, by the relevant") and insert ("(in the case of a licence granted before the relevant date) that, by that").
Page 38, line 40, after ("(b)") insert ("(in any case)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 39, line 36, at end insert:
("(10A) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this section, the Commission shall discharge their functions under this section in a manner which they consider is calculated to ensure that a suitable proportion of any programmes which any participant in networking arrangements in force under this section makes available under those arrangements are made within the area for which that participant is licensed to provide a regional Channel 3 service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was thoroughly debated at Report stage and I have no wish to speak to it.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, is the amendment not moved?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I did not wish to take up the time of the House on a matter on which I had already spoken. However, I now realise that other noble Lords wish to speak on it so perhaps I may formally move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few moments. As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said, the matter was explored on Report and to an extent, although perhaps using slightly different words, in Committee as well. I hope very much that since our debate on this matter last Tuesday the Government will have reflected further and will see that they have no cause whatever to fear that a quota system will be needed for this proposal to be implemented. The Government have been under a misapprehension on this matter both in Committee and on Report. The ITVA has made it quite clear—both the association and the IBA shadow ITC support this amendment —that there is no question whatever of guarantees or quotas for the supply to the network. The noble Earl,

1181
Lord Stockton, made that point during the course of our previous debates on this matter and my noble friend Lord Thomson has also made that point.
The words "suitable proportion" in the amendment follow the use of the same words in Clause 16(2) (f). Those words place on the ITC a duty to ensure that,
"a suitable proportion of the regional programmes included in the service in accordance with paragraph (e) are made within the area for which it is to be provided".
The ITC will be well able to interpret and is used to interpreting that phrase. The Government have also shown themselves to be happy with that phrase by including it in the Bill. The discretion given to the ITC will allow it to choose a proportion best suited to the needs, abilities and capacity of each region. The proportions may vary from region to region. The IBA is used to this matter—and therefore the ITC will have no difficulty with it—because the authority has for many years worked out for each region the amount of local interest programming that should be shown. That programming comprises regional news and current affairs, and other programmes of regional interest. It has set a minimum number of hours of regional programming especially for the region concerned to be broadcast each week. It has reviewed those numbers of hours annually. Many companies exceed that amount because they like to provide more than the minimum.
That experience and the exercise of its discretion by the IBA is not dissimilar from what would be required under the terms of this amendment. If a particular region does not wish to produce programmes for the network, or is not able to do so, that will be permissible because no proportion will therefore arise in those circumstances. The essential point is that whatever the amount of programming a licensee manages to get on the network, a suitable proportion must be made, either by the licensee or independent producers, within the region.
The only other point that I wish to make is the following. The Minister will recall the great campaign which the Government initiated and conducted to get a proportion of output from both the BBC and all of the ITV programme companies made by independent producers. Eventually the Government settled on 25 per cent. of output to be produced both by the BBC and by the ITV companies from independent producers. I am happy to say that some broadcasting companies are on the point of reaching that target, if it has not already been exceeded. That campaign was supported by the IBA. I believe that all the ITV companies joined in it enthusiastically, once it was instituted. There were a few complaints at the beginning, however, as we well know. But now that the campaign has been instituted, they have flung themselves into it most enthusiastically.
The purpose of that government campaign, as the noble Earl will recall, was to ensure that production was spread from independent producers around the country, and was not centred on London and perhaps one or two other metropolitan areas. This amendment is designed to do precisely that. It is entirely in line
1182
with those purposes of the Government. Therefore it is difficult to understand why the Government should not accept this amendment. As I said at the outset, there is no question of quotas so there is no problem for the Government there. There is no question of guarantees, so there is no problem for the Government there either. This measure is entirely in line with the Government's purpose of spreading work throughout the regions of this country and throughout Scotland and Wales. Therefore the measure would be entirely beneficial to government policy as well as to other areas.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, we are wholly in accord with what the noble Lord has just said. Throughout the Bill we have been concerned about the contribution of regional television to the whole. A good deal of the excellence of television in this country is due to the work done in the regions. A good deal of television's acceptability is also due to the work done in the regions. We hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, noble Lords opposite are enormously persuasive. However I shall try to explain the Government's view to them. Our proposals for networking envisage that programmes will be commissioned for the network on the basis of value for money. Therefore there will no longer be any need for guaranteed quotas. That is the underlying philosophy, but I gather that in the past some ITV contractors have found it difficult to obtain access to the network because of the quota arrangements which have been a feature of the network system up to now. The new network arrangements should open up access to the network which will enable all licensees who choose to do so to offer programmes to the network and to have them considered on the basis of value for money. I see no reason why all Channel 3 licensees should not benefit from that arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said on two or three occasions that there was no question of quotas in this matter. He said that it was a question of a suitable proportion of programmes. However, if one starts to query what constitutes a suitable proportion, it is difficult to evade the issue of quotas. Although quotas as such may not be the intention of this measure, I do not think there is any way in which the system envisaged in the amendment could operate other than by quotas.
Clause 16(2) (f) concerns a quite different proposition. The requirement in that paragraph is imposed separately on each licensee, whereas the present amendment we are discussing relates to the network system as a whole and not to individual licensees. In commissioning programmes the commissioning group would not necessarily have to select the cheapest programme. That is an important point. The commissioning group would certainly need to take the quality of the programme into account, and it would have to consider the programme's artistic merits and its regional perspective in determining what constitutes value for money. Where a programme offered

1183
some distinctive regional flavour, this would obviously be an important element in the overall assessment of value.
If we were to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boston and state that a suitable proportion of programmes must be produced locally, we would be bound to return to the quota system. I cannot see how that can be avoided. It is the concept of the freedom to offer programmes to the network which is the best guarantee of having a network which reflects the social and cultural diversity of the United Kingdom. I fear that if this amendment were accepted, we would go straight hack to the days of quotas. That is likely to mean that the large companies would take the lion's share of all the commissions while the smaller companies would be left high and dry. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, will appreciate our reasons for considering that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is not suitable.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 19 to 25 have all been spoken to. The question is that Amendment No. 19 be agreed to?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that we have to move the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the question is that Amendment No. 19 be agreed to?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope I may intervene because I believe that the noble Lord has, unusually, got out of cog. We were speaking to Amendment No. 18 which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was going to withdraw but then moved to enable the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, to speak. I made my observations on Amendment No. 18 which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, then withdrew. I hope I may suggest we should now proceed to Amendment No. 19.
Clause 43 [Domestic and non-domestic satellite services]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 43, line 4, leave out ("(subject to subsection (3)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 20 to 25 and 56. This series of amendments makes a number of technical changes to the provisions relating to the regulation of non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services. They ensure that the satellite provisions are in conformity with the European Convention on Transfrontier Television and make clear that for both non-domestic and satellite services and licensable programme services the person who should be licensed is the person who has editorial responsibility for the service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
1184
Page 43, line 7, leave out ("whether in the United Kingdom or elswhere") and insert ("in the United Kingdom or in any prescribed country (or both)").
Page 43, line 15, leave out ("reception in the United Kingdom or in any such country,") and insert ("such reception as is mentioned in paragraph (a) (ii),").
Page 43, line 18, leave out from ("provided") to end of line 19 and insert ("by a person in the United Kingdom who is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service (so far as it consists of programme material provided by him).").
Page 43, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
Page 43, line 30, leave out from ("provided") to ("be") in line 31 and insert ("by a person in the United Kingdom who is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service (so far as it consists of programme material provided by him),").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Licensable programme services]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 45, line 9, leave out ("(complete and unchanged)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Licensing etc. of licensable programme services]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 28:
Page 46, line 31, after ("provided") insert ("with a view to its programmes being conveyed for reception").
Page 46, line 42, leave out ("current").
Page 47, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert:

("(c) the following provisions shall be omitted, namely—

(i) subsections (3) and (4A) to (5), and

(ii) in subsection (4), the words from the beginning to "subsection (1),".

(5A) The Commission shall—

(a) draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed in connection with the application of section 6(1) (c) (as substituted by subsection (5) above) in relation to a service in respect of which a determination under subsection (4) above is in force; and

(b) do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code are observed in the provision of any such service.

(5B) The Commission shall publish the code drawn up under subsection (5A), and every revision of it, in such manner as they consider appropriate.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Duration of licences, and renewal of licences for provision of services on assigned frequencies]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 53, line 31, leave out ("shall only") and insert ("may only (subject to subsection (5A))").
Page 53, line 38, after ("service") insert ("authorised to be").
Page 53, line 47, at end insert:
("(5A) Section 17(5) to (7) shall apply in relation to an applicant for the renewal of an additional services licence as those provisions apply in relation to such an applicant as is mentioned in section 17(5), but as if—

(a) any reference to the awarding of a Channel 3 licence to the applicant were a reference to the renewal of the applicant's licence under this section; and

(b) in section 17(7), the reference to section 19(1) were a reference to section 52(1).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Requirements to be complied with in relation to S4C programmes]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 35:
Page 57, line 28, leave out ("current").
Page 57, line 48, leave out ("current").
Page 58, line 2, leave out ("subsection (2) above and").
Page 58, line 3, leave out ("section 6(2) and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Advertising on S4C]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 58, line 31, leave out ("below or any other provision of this Act") and insert ("or (4) below").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Assignment of frequencies by Secretary of State]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 61, line 12, after ("area") insert ("or areas").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Interpretation of Part I]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 40:
Page 64, line 32, leave out ("in force")
Page 65, line 9, leave out from ("holder")") to ("to") in line 10 and insert ("is not the person to whom the licence was originally granted, any reference in this Part (however expressed)").
Page 65, line 12, at end insert ("including").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Local delivery services]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 66, line 3, leave out ("a licence in force") and insert ("(unless the context otherwise requires) a licence").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Duration and renewal of local delivery licences]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 72, line 26, after ("only") and insert ("(subject to subsection (4A))").
Page 72, line 39, at end insert:
("(4A) Section 76(5) to (7) shall apply in relation to an applicant for the renewal of a local delivery licence as those provisions apply in relation to such an applicant as is mentioned in section 76(5), but as if any reference to the awarding of such a licence to the applicant were a reference to the renewal of the applicant's licence under this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 84 [Regulation by Authority of independent radio services]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 44
Page 76, line 27, leave out from ("BBC)") to end of line 29 and insert ("which consists—

(i) in the transmission of sound programmes by satellite from a place in the United Kingdom for general reception there, or

(ii) in the transmission of such programmes by satellite from a place outside the United Kingdom for general reception there, if and to the extent that the programmes included in the service consist of material provided by a person in the United Kingdom who is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service (so far as it consists of programme material provided by him),
1186
and any such service is referred to in this Part as a "satellite service".

(2A) For the purposes of this Part satellite services shall be regarded as provided by the following persons—

(a) a service falling within subsection (2) (b) (i)—

(i) shall, if and to the extent that the programmes included in it consist of material provided by a person in the United Kingdom who is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service (so far as it consists of programme material provided by him), be regarded as provided by that person (whether the programmes are transmitted by him or not), but

(ii) shall otherwise be regarded as provided by the person by whom the programmes are transmitted; and

(b) a service falling within subsection (2) (b) (ii) shall be regarded as provided by the person by whom the programme material in question is provided as mentioned in that provision.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57 and 58. These are amendments to the radio provisions in Part III and are minor drafting improvements. None of them raises any issues of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 76, line 35 after ("area") insert ("or areas").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 86 [Licences under Part III]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 78, line 30, leave out ("throughout the remainder or') and insert ("which would have effect during").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 87 [General licence conditions]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 79, line 5, at end insert:
("(dd) conditions requiring the licence holder, if found by the Authority to be in breach of any condition of his licence, to reimburse to the Authority, in such circumstances as are specified in any conditions, any costs reasonably incurred by them in connection with the breach of that condition.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to move the amendment of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, who is not in his place. Had he been here to move the amendment I would have said that the Government would accept it. It would seem rather a pity if the amendment were to disappear. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 47.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, does the noble Earl wish to respond to the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I can only commend it to your Lordships as an excellent amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [General provisions as to advertisements]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
Page 83, line 47, leave out ("this Act or of the code under").
Page 84, line 10, leave out ("Neither the Authority nor the holder of any licence shall") and insert ("The Authority shall not").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 93 [Control of advertisements]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 50:
age 85, line 1, leave out ("their general responsibility for") and insert ("a general responsibility with respect to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Failure to begin providing licensed service and financial penalties on revocation of licence]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 91, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("(as") in line 30 and insert:

("(a) where—

(i) the licence is revoked under this section, or

(ii) the first complete accounting period of the licence holder falling within the period for which the licence is in force has not yet ended,

7 per cent. of the amount which the Authority estimate would have been the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as determined in accordance with section 102(2) to (6)); and

(b) in any other case, 7 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for the last complete accounting period of the licence holder so falling").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Restriction on changes in control over holder of national licence]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 94, line 6, leave out ("body to which") and insert ("person to whom").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Applications for other licences]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 95, line 10, leave out ("on the expiry of a local licence") and insert ("in the case of any local licence which is due to expire").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Special requirements relating to grant of local licences]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 95, line 33, leave out from ("provide") to end of line 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Power to require scripts etc. or broadcasting of correction or apology]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 98, line 7, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Licensable sound programme services]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 100, line 16, leave out ("(complete and unchanged)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Certain receipts of Authority to be paid into Consolidated Fund]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 107, line 31, leave out ("institution or") and insert ("establishment or other place, or for any").
Page 107, line 34, leave out ("institution or") and insert ("establishment or other place, or for any").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [Interpretation of Part III]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 59 to 61:
Page 109, line 13, leave out ("in force").
Page 109, line 32, leave out from ("holder")") to ("to") in line 33 and insert ("is not the person to whom the licence was originally granted, any reference in this Part (however expressed)").
Page 109, line 35, at end insert ("including").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131 [Supplementary provisions relating to variation of programme contracts]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 116, line 2, at end insert ("; and any such variation may be made with retrospective effect as from that date.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to the powers of the IBA to amend programme contracts to take account of new arrangements for transmission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Function of BCC]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 63
Page 122, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146 [Publication of BCC's findings]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 126, line 7, leave out ("143(2) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 150 [Interpretation of Part V]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 127, line 16, at end insert (", or any additional service (within the meaning of Part I or III of this Act) which is licensed under that Part of this Act and constitutes a teletext service;").
Page 127, line 31, at end insert:
(""television programme" includes a teletext transmission, and references to programmes shall be construed accordingly;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155 [Consideration of complaints]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 130, line 37, leave out (", or (where they are not individuals) their representatives,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 175 [Use as of right of sound recordings in broadcasts and cable programme services]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 143, line 35, leave out ("relating to that") and insert ("under section 135D relating to such a").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment concerns statutory licensing for broadcasting sound recordings and provides that orders of the tribunal referred to in the new Section 135A are those made under the new provisions for settling payment terms and not those made under the existing law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 179 [Unauthorised decoders for encrypted services etc.]
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead Lord Lloyd of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 151, leave out from beginning of line 5 to ("; and) in line 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to express the regrets of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, who is unable to be present this evening. I have agreed to move the amendment on his behalf. I do so the more willingly because it concerns unauthorised decoders, which was the subject of an amendment that I moved both at Committee stage and at Report stage.
Your Lordships may recall that I withdrew my amendment at Committee stage on receiving an indication from the Government that they agreed in principle with the point that I sought to make in the amendment and that they would produce their own amendment. They produced their own amendment on Report. I ventured to point out certain objections to that amendment. While my objections were treated with some measure of sympathy by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, it was indicated that in view of the pressures of time it was not possible to meet any of those difficulties. Accordingly, I did not press the matter.
The amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raises two further points in regard to unauthorised decoders. They are not the same points as those which I previously raised, so I shall not be taking up your Lordships' time reiterating points that have already been made. The objections which have already been raised are that the wording of the new Section 297A of the copyright Act introduced by the Government gives rise, in the view of the BBC, to certain difficulties. It is for that reason that the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, are put forward. The matters are of a rather technical character but nevertheless I shall try to explain them as briefly as possible.
The first objection to the wording of the new Section 297A to the copyright Act is that it contains a definition of transmission which is both too narrow and conflicts with Section 6 of the existing copyright Act. In the new Section 297A transmission is defined in terms of being a programme, whereas in Section 6 of the 1988 copyright Act transmission, though it is not defined as such, is treated as an activity which includes broadcasting but is not limited to programmes as such. Therefore, under new Section 297A a broadcast which is not a programme may not be protected. It is the view of the BBC—and it seems a well founded view—that a number of transmissions which ought to be protected under the new section will not be protected; for instance, a data transmission. For example, a transmission which merely puts over telex material cannot be regarded as a programme but nevertheless ought to qualify for protection. That is the first objection to the new clause as it stands.
The second objection relates to the definition of "unauthorised" in the new Section 297A. I venture to submit that this is a matter of some importance. The Government's amendment does not require the authority to be given by the broadcaster. It simply
1190
refers to lack of payment. Your Lordships will see in the new Section 297A to be inserted in the copyright Act, it is said that:
"'unauthorised', in relation to a decoder, means a decoder which will enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without payment of the fee".
In other words the only point that is made there is the absence of payment of a fee.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, wishes for those words to substitute:
"'unauthorised'… means a decoder which will enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without the authority of the person making the transmission",
thereby introducing the vital concept of lack of authorisation.
In my respectful view there is a mischief that the section will not cover if it remains in its present form. Let us suppose the case of a person who makes a decoder and then pays or offers to pay the appropriate charge. That will legalise the decoder even if it is not authorised by the broadcaster. The consequence will be that the broadcaster will have no effective quality control, as one may describe it, over the decoder, with the result that a very poor and defective decoder can be put into circulation. That is something which the BBC quite understandably would deplore.
Noble Lords might see some analogy with a case which is perhaps more familiar'—the case of a telephone apparatus which has to be authorised by British Telecom before it can be plugged into the British telephone circuit because British Telecom thereby wants to protect the quality of the apparatus that can be used on its circuits. The point is very similar in this case.
There is also a further objection to the definition of "unauthorised" as appears in the present Section 297A. When the matter was discussed on report the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, objected to the part of my amendment which sought to alter the wording in relation to authorisation so as to affect the reasoning in the Hi-Tech case which noble Lords may recall was decided by the Court of Appeal in favour of the BBC, overruling the decision of the High Court.
The present wording of the new Section 297A might well affect whatever judgment emerges in the House of Lords when the case comes on further appeal. It therefore comes within the ambit of the noble Earl's objection to my change of wording on the ground that the matter is sub judice because in the Court of Appeal it was held that Section 298 (which was the section relied upon in the Hi-Tech case) dealt with the phrase:
"reception by a person not entitled to do so".
In the Court of Appeal that was held to mean that it was not without the authority of the broadcaster.
The new wording which eschews any consideration of the authority of the broadcaster may well be held to affect the interpretation of this clause and so bring one back to the decision of the High Court which considered that authorisation was not relevant. So in fact by relying upon this wording there may be a consequence in regard to the interpretation of this phrase which would be most unfortunate. Therefore,

1191
as I said, my amendment suggests that for the words "without payment of the fee" there should be substituted the words,
"without the authority of the person making the transmission".
I venture to submit that these two comparatively small amendments would be most valuable in achieving the objectives of the Government's clause. Therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 68A. If necessary in due course I shall move Amendment No. 68B.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for introducing the amendment which stands in the name the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and for explaining what they are designed to do. I am also grateful for the fact that the BBC sent me a note explaining the purpose of these amendments.
Amendment No. 68A deletes the definition of "transmission". We believe that it is important for the Bill to contain a definition of transmission. The wording in the Bill refers to:
"programmes included in a broadcasting or cable programme service which is provided from a place in the United Kingdom".
We did not extend the provision to premises provided from anywhere else because there are no pay satellite services which are intended for subscribers in the United Kingdom provided from a place other than the United Kingdom. But we intend the definition of transmission in Section 297A to be different from the following use of the word "transmission".
Amendment No. 68B redefines the term "unauthorised". At present an authorised decoder is defined as a:
"decoder which will enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without payment of the fee … which the person making the transmission, or on whose behalf it is made, charges for viewing those transmissions".
The amendment would define an unauthorised decoder as one which will:
"enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without the authority of the person making the transmission or … without the authority",
of the person on whose behalf that transmission is made.
I can see the desirability of that amendment. It would make it absolutely essential for anyone who manufactures a decoder to seek the authority of the person who is providing the service. I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, that we have two concerns about this amendment.
First, there may well be circumstances in which satellite broadcasters send their signals in encrypted form not because they intend to charge for the service, which may be advertiser-supported, but simply in order to ensure that such signals cannot be received in other countries. They may therefore have no objection to anyone manufacturing decoding equipment and indeed may positively welcome such equipment being manufactured and distributed since it will enable more viewers to receive their service. We should not
1192
therefore wish to make a criminal offence an activity which both broadcasters and the manufacturers of some equipment would in fact positively welcome.
Secondly, the noble Lord explained that the present drafting of Clause 179 might prejudice the BBC's chances in the House of Lords when the House, sitting in its judicial capacity, reviews the Hi-tech case. If that were true I believe that the revised wording places the BBC in an even worse position. The House of Lords might easily conclude that if the amendment proposed were necessary it must follow that such a provision did not exist in the current legislation and might therefore be more likely to find against the BBC.
I have said before and state again today that we are not unsympathetic to the difficulties faced by satellite broadcasters in relation to decoders which are manufactured without the express authority of those who provide the signals. I do not believe that the amendments provide the right way to tackle the problem. I very much regret that I cannot advise noble Lords at this stage of the Bill to accept the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes, even at this late stage of the Bill is there any possibility that the Government will consider an alternative way to deal with what the noble Earl has conceded is a problem although this amendment may not be the best way to deal with it? Satellite broadcasters, whether it is BSB or Sky Channel, are engaged with vast investment in a high risk operation. We have a legitimate interest to ensure the proper safeguarding of their encoding and encryption systems. Will it still be possible to write some additional safeguard into the Bill in another place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the problem. It is very technical. We shall consider whether it is possible to find a way round it. I should mislead the noble Lord if I were to say that we shall put down amendments in another place. If that is the position, we cannot amend this particular Bill. However, I acknowledge the concern. I am not sure whether anything can be done to rectify it without legislation.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl is unable to accede to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. He does not consider that the amendments will make a useful contribution to the difficulty although with his customary courtesy he recognises the problems. I am sorry too that he does not feel that within the time still vouchsafed to the Government, which is obviously very limited, anything effective can be done.
As we are both agreed, it is a highly technical matter. It would obviously be futile for me to seek to press the matter further. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68B not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 182 [Certain events not to be shown on pay-per-view terms]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 152, line 40, after ("any") insert ("television broadcasting").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is a minor technical amendment to make clear that the listed events provisions apply to BBC Television only and not to BBC Radio. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 185 [Contributions towards maintenance of national television archive]:
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead Lord Lloyd of Hampstead moved Amendments No. 70:
Page 155, line 26, after ("Channel 3") insert ("Channel 4").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 70 and Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 are in similar terms. They are amendments to Clause 185. They relate to a national television archive. I moved the amendments in Committee but the noble Earl felt unable to accept them. I then proposed to move the amendments at Report stage. However, unfortunately our proceedings lasted until such a protracted hour that I left at half-past midnight and was unable to move them. I am therefore moving the amendments at this late stage because they seem to be a matter of some importance.
Clause 185 makes financial provision for a national television archive by way of a nominated body. It is assumed—and the noble Earl gave his concurrence to that assumption—that it will almost certainly be the British Film Institute, which now runs the national film archive. As a former chairman of the British Film Institute, I warmly support the amendment to Clause 185. I believe that it is universally agreed—I am happy to say that the noble Earl gave his support when I mentioned the matter on a previous occasion—that the BFI has done a remarkable job in building up both a film and television archive. It has done so largely out of its own resources and on a voluntary basis. It has recently been helped by a most generous contribution from Mr. Paul Getty junior. He is a very well known benefactor to the arts in this country. He has given a very large sum to the national film archive to place it on a more satisfactory financial basis.
Nevertheless, despite all the good work of the British Film Institute, it is generally acknowledged that there are huge gaps in its collection. Those have been due to its inability to secure on a voluntary basis adequate material. Perhaps I may mention some areas —for example, current affairs, and the presentation of orchestral music, opera and ballet. Arts programmes generally have suffered over the years because of the inability of the archive to secure adequate material.
I believe that the need for comprehensive cover of all worthwhile material in the area of television is universally recognised. That does not involve all material. The most passionate devotee of television would not regard every programme broadcast on television as worthy of being placed in a national
1194
archive. The process of assembling material for the archive is a highly selective business. Nevertheless, it covers a wide range.
Clause 185 makes valuable provision for Channel 3 and the new Channel 5 to be included within the provision for a national television archive. That immediately presents a glaring omission. I refer to Channel 4. It is accepted that Channel 4 is one of the most creative sources of high quality television programmes. It has been so since its inception. There seems therefore an overwhelming reason to include Channel 4 in the project. It is totally inconsistent to omit it and to allow it to continue on a voluntary basis.
As I understand the argument put forward by the noble Earl at Committee stage, the Government's only objection to including Channel 4 is that Channel 4 has indicated that it will continue to do its best to support the archive on a voluntary basis. That does not seem good enough. Apart from the fact that circumstances may change, the competitive basis of the new Broadcasting Bill will change the climate of the competition with regard to television to a considerable degree. In future that may well put Channel 4 in a difficult situation in trying to maintain adequate material on a voluntary basis.
As regards Amendment No. 71, it appears arbitrary to exclude the domestic satellite services. In the interests of completeness, there seemed every reason why they should be included. The only objection is the suggestion that in some way that might be unfair to Sky Television or to foreign satellite services which would not be included. However, surely the weight of the argument is in favour of treating domestic satellite services on the same basis as other domestic channels.
It is important to try to put on a proper basis the excellent project of the National Television Archive and therefore I feel justified in moving my amendment at this late stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I support the amendment. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, on his 75th birthday today. I have always supported the proposal because for some years I too was a governor of the British Film Institute. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has made all the points most strongly and there is little that I can add. It appears to be anomalous to leave out Channel 4 and the domestic satellite services when other channels are included. The commission has the right to determine the aggregate amount, so nothing is fixed. Some of the channels are included in the statute and therefore it would be wrong to exclude others and to leave only some on a voluntary basis. I support what my noble friend has said.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, the preservation and public accessibility of what has become the most important record of British life should be placed on a secure footing by putting a statutory obligation on the ITC to ensure that the correct voluntary arrangements which are working well are continued and expanded to cover new services. The current agreements between the British Film Institute, the independent television

1195
companies and Channel 4—whereby companies contribute substantial sums towards the funding of the television preservation and access work of the BFI's National Television Archive with regard to their output—are based largely on the IBA's insistence on including an archival provision in the licence that it has granted since 1980.
Since 1985 the archive has been recording programmes with its own machinery. That is expensive but more cost effective than purchasing copies of programmes from the companies as was the previous practice. I understand that the current grant levels are sufficient for recording about 25 per cent. of the output of both channels which is selected on a weekly basis by archive staff. They are essentially voluntary arrangements in that the IBA has no statutory duty to insist on archival provision and does not formally direct its licence-holders towards co-operation with the BFI to discharge the responsibilities. The BFI recognises the value and effectiveness of the agreements and is grateful for the industry's support for what it considers to be a work of national importance.
Although the voluntary agreement between the BFI and Channel 4 is sound, it is an anomaly that this channel, which has been among the most archivally minded, should be left as the only terrestrial channel without a specific obligation in this regard given that the two BBC channels are covered by the archival requirement in the Royal Charter. Moreover, the omission of the domestic satellite services from the clause is equally difficult to comprehend because they are the subject of similar licensing arrangements to those which apply to Channels 3 and 5. Although as yet there are no voluntary arrangements in place to cover the national archiving of these channels, undoubtedly they will be carrying material of national interest particularly in the area of sport.
It is important that the clause is expanded to cover Channels 3, 4 and 5 and domestic satellite services. The Government have already recognised the need for the BFI to operate a national television archive and, as a matter of public record, to provide for the preservation and availability of our most important medium of communication. The agreement will appear in this legislation as well as in the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. The amendment ensures that the BFI is given the proper scope to provide such a vital service.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for having stood his ground in preventing me from travelling down a road of my own making in moving an amendment which was his and not mine. I might have found myself in the somewhat bizarre position of eventually advising your Lordships not to accept an amendment which I had inadvertently moved. I wish to add to the congratulations expressed by the noble Baroness on the noble Lord's birthday. It is an event in which we all rejoice and I should have loved to have given him a birthday present. However, the only present that I
1196
can think of is accepting the amendment but it would be such an expensive present that I must be constrained not to do so.
The noble Lord's amendments would extend the statutory requirement on Channels 3 and 5 to fund a national television archive also to Channel 4 and BSB. When the Government accepted the case for statutory provision for a national television archive, we made clear that the obligation to fund that archive could be extended only to those channels which would be capable of bearing these additional financial obligations. It is because Channels 3 and 5 are likely to have the lion's share of audiences for some time to come that we have felt able to impose such additional obligations on them in the Bill.
But the same could not be said for BSB, which is a new high-risk, capital-intensive venture which will not begin to make money for some years and for which additional financial responsibilities could represent a severe strain. We have consulted BSB and it has made it very clear that it would not wish to be included in any statutory requirement to fund the National Television Archive.
We have also consulted the Channel 4 board which has repeated its undertaking that Channel 4 will continue voluntarily to fund the National Television Archive, but that it would be inconsistent with its status as a public service broadcaster specifically to single out this one issue for special statutory mention.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will consider that his amendment is not a suitable addition to the Bill and that in any event Channel 4 will continue to provide the funding.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported my amendments. I am also grateful to those who have expressed such kindly good wishes towards me personally. Perhaps it was an error of tactics on my part to impede the noble Earl in moving the amendment. By that means I might have achieved more success in the enterprise than I otherwise have. At this stage I cannot seek to press the amendment although I am sure that to have made the project comprehensive instead of limiting it to commercial Channels 3 and 5 would have been of considerable value. However, in those circumstances I believe that I have no alternative but to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 155, line 43, at end insert ("(and different proportions may be determined in relation to different persons).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 74 to 77 have been spoken to previously. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 189 [Sharing of apparatus by operators of telecommunication systems]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75:

1197
Page 159, line 2, leave out ("granted under, or continued in force by,") and insert ("continued in force by, or granted under, Part II or).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 202 [General interpretation]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 166, line 30, at end insert:
("(3A) Any reference in this Act (however expressed) to a licence under this Act being in force is a reference to its being in force so as to authorise the provision under the licence of the licensed service; and any such reference shall accordingly not be construed as prejudicing the operation of any provisions of such a licence which are intended to have effect otherwise than at a time when the licensed service is authorised to be so provided.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 203 [Consequential and transitional provisions]:
Èarl FerrersÈarl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 167, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) Unless the context otherwise requires, in any enactment amended by this Act—

"programme", in relation to a programme service, includes any item included in that service; and

"television programme" includes a teletext transmission.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 167, line 22, at end insert:
("(3) The transitional provisions and savings contained in Schedule (Transitional Provisions and Savings) to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments No. 132. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Restrictions on the Holding of Licences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 172, line 35, at end insert:
(""equity share capital" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 to 87. These are technical amendments to the ownership provisions in Schedule 2.
Perhaps I could draw attention to the new declaratory provision inserted at the end of page 173, line 31, which meets a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, on Report. This puts beyond doubt that a person is to be taken as controlling a licensee, even if he has less than 50 per cent. of the shares or voting power in the licensee, wherever he is directly or indirectly able to secure that the affairs of the licensee are conducted in accordance with his wishes. This must be the right approach if we are to prevent circumvention of the rules.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to this amendment seeks to deal with a slightly different point. Its effect would be that where, say, two or more non-EC companies had aggregate interests of more than 50 per cent. in a licensee, the ITC and Radio Authority could regard this as constituting
1198
control and would not have to satisfy themselves that the companies were acting together in concert. This amendment has been discussed between the shadow ITC and the Government, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that I would be happy to recommend that your Lordships should accept that amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 83:
Page 173, line 6, at end insert:

("(aa) any individual and any body corporate of which that individual is a director;").

Page 173, line 21, after ("or") insert:

("(aa) ").

Page 173, line 22, after ("body)") insert ("he").
Page 173, line 30, leave out ("shares") and insert ("equity share capital").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 173, line 31, at end insert:
("(3A) It is hereby declared that a person may be regarded as controlling a body corporate by virtue of paragraph (aa) of sub-paragraph (3) despite the fact that—

(a) he does not have a controlling interest in any such other body corporate as is mentioned in that paragraph, or

(b) any such other body corporate does not have a controlling interest in the body in question, or

(c) he and any such other body corporate together do not have a controlling interest in that body.

(3B) For the purposes of any provision of this Schedule which refers to a body controlled by two or more persons or bodies of any description taken together the persons or bodies in question must be acting together in concert.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 84, Amendment No. 85:
Line 13, leave out ("must be") and insert ("shall not be regarded as controlling the body by virtue of paragraph (aa) of sub-paragraph (3) unless they are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment very quickly in the unusual circumstances of having been told in advance that my amendment is to be accepted. I am very grateful for that.
However, as the noble Earl knows, I am an innocent intermediary in the case between the noble Earl and the Home Office on one side and the IBA on the other in a dialogue to find an agreed definition of this very difficult question as regards the control of a television contract by disqualified persons from the EC.
The difficulty which arose—and this should be put on record—is that under the government amendment, as I understand it, it would have been possible to have had the generally unacceptable position whereby a licensee had nine or even 10 per cent. disqualified shareholders and yet would not be disqualified unless the ITC could prove that they were acting in concert.
The effect of my amendment is that if disqualified interests —that is, non-EC interests—total over 50 per cent., even if they are not acting in concert the licensee is disqualified. However, if disqualified interests total

1199
less than 50 per cent., it will still be for the ITC or the Radio Authority to decide whether any of them are either acting together or representing the total interests of 30 or 40 per cent. which by virtue of the fact that they are acting together constitutes effective control.
That is extremely technical and complicated but it is an important matter. I am glad that that has been resolved and I am sure that I express the ITC's gratitude to the noble Earl for so readily accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having been the intermediary. He has cleared up a technical point of some complexity and I am most grateful to him for having done so.
On Question, Amendment No. 85, as an amendment to Amendment No. 84, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 84, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
Page 173, line 43, after second ("shares") insert ("or equity share capital").
Page 180, line 24, after ("licensed") insert ("(or, as the case may be, was first so licensed)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Scheme Providing for Division of Assets of IBA]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 206, line 51, at end insert (", or with respect to any such rights and liabilities as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (11).
(11) Those rights and liabilities are rights and liabilities acquired by the IBA in connection with the sharing by the IBA and the BBC of the use of facilities (of whatever description) in connection with the transmission of television programmes or local sound broadcasts.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 89. These are technical amendments relating to the treatment in the transfer scheme to be made under Schedule 9 of the rights and liabilities acquired by the IBA over the years in connection with the sharing with the BBC of transmission sites and other facilities. I indicated at Report stage that we would be bringing forward these provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 207, line 21, at end insert:
("(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) (a), a transfer scheme may, in connection with any transfer to be made in accordance with the scheme, exclude from the transfer any rights and liabilities falling within paragraph 2(11) above and described in the scheme.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 211, line 1, at end insert ("any enactment relating to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Transitional Provisions Relating to IBA's Broadcasting Services]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 214. line 12, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 to 95 and Amendments Nos 97 to 104. This series of amendments makes a number of technical changes and drafting improvements to the transitional arrangements for ITV, DBS and Independent local radio. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 92 to 96:
Page 216, line 38, after ("no") insert ("person who is, or is an associate of, a").
Page 216, line 45, leave out ("paragraph (c) above") and insert ("this sub-paragraph").
Page 217, leave out lines 44 and 45.
Page 218, line 35, leave out from ("service") to ("that") in line 36 and insert ("falling within section 46(1) of this Act is provided during the interim period on any of the spare capacity within the frequencies on which any DBS services are provided by the Commission in accordance with this Part of this Schedule,").
Page 218, line 37, at end insert ("; and in this sub-paragraph "spare capacity" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 97 to 104:
Page 220, line 41, at end insert:
("Delivery of programmes by means of local delivery services
8A. Part II of this Act shall have effect as if section 72(2) of this Act included a reference to any television broadcasting service provided by the Commission in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.").
Page 223, line 5, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").
Page 224, line 50, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").
Page 227, line 37, leave out ("the programme contractor under the contract neither-") and insert ("neither the programme contractor under the contract nor any associate of his-").
Page 227, line 39, leave out ("nor") and insert ("or").
Page 227, line 40, leave out ("nor") and insert ("or").
Page 227, line 45, leave out ("paragraph (c) above") and insert ("this sub-paragraph").
Page 227, line 49, at end insert:
("Delivery of programmes by means of local delivery services
2A. Part II of this Act shall have effect as if section 72(2) of this Act included a reference to any local sound broadcasting service provided by the Authority in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Schedule 12 [Transitional Provisions Relating to Existing Cable Services]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 231, line 22, leave out (", or having effect as if granted,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 105 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106 to 111. These amendments

1201
make a number of technical and drafting improvements to the schedule in the Bill dealing with transitional arrangements for existing cable systems. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 106 to 111:
Page 232, line 26, at end insert:

("(bb) subsection (4A) were omitted;").

Page 234, line 47, leave out ("and").
Page 234, line 49, at end insert ("; and

(d) in subsection (7), the words from "formally" to "so" shall be omitted.").

Page 236, line 43, after ("(3)") insert ("Any local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph shall be so granted notwithstanding anything in sections 74 to 76 of this Act; and").
Page 237, line 1, at end insert:

("(cc) subsection (4A) were omitted;").

Page 245, line 27, after ("Authority") insert (", and the words "or sound" shall be omitted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Amendments of the Marine, etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 259, line 16, at end insert:
("(5A) Searches of persons carried out under the provisions of subsection (5) above shall be subject to the constraints imposed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, notwithstanding that such searches may take place outside the United Kingdom or its tidal waters.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I propose to deal with Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 separately. Amendment No. 112 has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of unauthorised offshore radio stations. It is merely an attempt to protect the rights, dignity and civil liberties of individuals—an objective to which I am sure we all aspire irrespective of our views on the merits of Clause 171 and the associated Schedule 16 as a whole.
In order to safeguard the rights and dignity of the individual it is necessary that the protection conferred by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 be extended to personal searches carried out on the high seas under the provisions of Schedule 16. As I pointed out last week, without such an amendment civilians may be searched by members of the armed forces, women may be strip-searched by men and the other way round; both sexes may be intimately searched by someone with no medical knowledge or qualifications.
The reaction of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was to accuse me of having a vivid imagination. That may be so; but one thing one learns in politics is that the inconceivable almost always happens sooner or later. If I had correctly forecast in 1965 that by 1990 the proportion of single parents in the population would be astronomical, no doubt the noble Earl would have accused me of having a vivid imagination. If two years ago I had forecast that the Berlin Wall would be virtually demolished by mid-1990, I am sure he would have said that I had a vivid imagination—but demolished the wall is. If we can prevent potential
1202
abuses by means of a simple amendment such as Amendment No. 112, surely we are under an obligation to do so.
It is true that the noble Earl assured me most vigorously that personal searches will only be carried out following an arrest. Last Tuesday evening he also said that all personal searches carried out under the provisions of Schedule 16, no matter where they are carried out, will conform to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice. I know that we can rely totally on the word of the noble Earl: if I thought that he was to remain Minister of State for the Home Office for the next 15 to 20 years my worries would be over. But that is not likely to happen. Still less will the noble Earl wish it to happen. As he well knows, no Minister can bind his successor where executive decisions are concerned; still less can any Government bind their successor.
Since last Tuesday expert legal opinion has confirmed my view that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not automatically extend to actions carried out outside the United Kingdom or its territorial waters. However, it can be made to do so by means of a simple amendment to the Bill; an amendment which will ensure that the rights and liberties of individuals are not dependent on the continuing presence at the Home Office of the noble Earl or some other Minister of State whose views on the subject are no less liberal. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, appears to be perturbed that I accused him of having a vivid imagination. If I had said that he had an imagination like scorched earth I am sure that that would be a lot more offensive.
I know that the noble Earl is concerned about the provision. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act—known as PACE—Code of Practice will apply under the Bill as it is drafted, even if the powers are exercised outside United Kingdom territorial waters. The noble Lord is concerned with the difference between the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the code which operates under it. The code will apply even if the powers are exercised outside United Kingdom territorial waters.
There is a very good reason for that. What is important is where the court proceedings take place, and not where the investigation powers are exercised. The courts have the same duty to consider the code, and discretion not to admit evidence obtained in breach of it whether the evidence is obtained inside or outside the United Kingdom. The anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is that people will carry out arrests in a way which does not operate under the code. If that were to happen the courts would be entitled to reject the evidence because it did not come under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice.
Amendment No. 112 subjects the Radio Investigation Service to constraints that do not apply to similar enforcement authorities. It gives suspected pirate radio broadcasters preferential treatment compared to other suspects. That cannot be right. It

1203
would be doubly anomalous. The noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Nevertheless, I commend him on his vivid imagination.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we are up against the same dilemma as the House faced when debating Amendment No. 2. The Government's legal advisers say one thing and the legal advisers of what might loosely be termed the opposition say something else. It is a question of taking one's pick of legal advice.
In the absence of any support for my view and because the noble Earl has given a more convincing reason why the amendment is unnecessary than he gave previously, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 259, line 35, at end insert:
("Save that in relation to such suspected offences the Secretary of State shall not issue any authorisation under subsection (2) above for the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5) above until twelve months after the date on which the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been ratified by no fewer than sixty States in accordance with international law.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now return to the extremely important question of legality. I was heartened by the assurance of the noble Earl last Tuesday, 16th October, in col. 830 of Hansard when he said that new enforcement powers will be exercised in accordance with international law. The difficulty is that not all those enforcement powers can be used without contravening international law as the latter stanch at present.
Amendment No. 113 may not be perfectly drafted but that can be corrected in another place. It is designed to prevent the possibility of the United Kingdom facing the embarrassment and possibly the obloquy of being hauled over the coals by the international court or possibly the European Court for the breach of international law that would occur if foreign registered vessels were forcibly boarded and searched—and their passengers also searched —on the high seas, without the consent of the foreign government concerned, before at least 12 months had elapsed since the date when at least 60 states have ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. To do so before then would be illegal.
This morning I received a long written opinion from a well known, highly respected firm of City of London solicitors specialising in the law of the sea. Perhaps I may quote some salient points from the letter. It says:
"In our view, it requires positive international agreement before national legislation permitting national authorities to exercise jurisdiction over foreign flag vessels on the high seas can be said to be in accordance with international law.
Therefore, if and when HM Government adheres to the 1982 Law or the Sea Convention"—
they have not yet done so—
"and when its provisions come into effect, it will be arguable that at least some of the powers contained in Schedule 14 will be in accordance with international law (although some elements may well be in breach of other provisions of
1204
international law, such as the European Convention on Human Rights). Therefore, in our view, with the situation as it stands it is simply untenable to say that the proposed powers are 'in accordance with international law'".
Until such time as the 1982 convention is ratified by the United Kingdom and in force—perhaps the most important aspect—exercise of the proposed powers against a foreign flag vessel other than with the consent of the state concerned would be in breach of international law. It is surely correct to say that none of us wishes to see this country behaving in an illegal or even bullying manner. There are quite enough countries in the world behaving badly as it is and we do not want to find ourselves in their company. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is concerned that we might be in breach of international law. He was kind enough to say that I had persuaded him more on the previous amendment than I had on an earlier occasion. I shall see whether I can carry that achievement further now.
Amendment No. 113 would make the exercise of the enforcement powers conditional upon the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on which the noble Lord said he has taken legal advice. I venture to suggest to him that the amendment is unnecessary. I have given him the assurance that the powers will be exercised in accordance with international law. The powers do not hinge upon the convention but upon the international radio regulations of the International Telecommunications Union. These are already in force. Therefore, there is no need to delay the exercise of the powers until the convention, which is a separate matter, is ratified. With that explanation the noble Lord will see that we do not intend to operate in breach of international law.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Earl has not satisfied me. As I set out at length on the previous occasion, various ministerial statements both in this House and in another place have made it quite clear that as the law then stood, despite the international radio regulations to which the noble Earl referred, there was no power to board foreign ships on the high seas without the consent of the foreign power concerned.
Nothing has changed. The only difference is that the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea now potentially provides the power, but it has not yet been ratified by 60 nations and it cannot be binding until at least 60 nations have ratified it. That is the crux of the matter. Nothing has changed since Mr. Ted Short, as he then was, made the statement to which I referred last Tuesday evening.
I am somewhat surprised at the silence of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches because I should have thought they would be concerned about the possible breach of international law by this country. It will reflect badly on all of us if that takes place. When the noble Earl assured me that no action would be taken in breach of international law I was under the impression that Her Majesty's Government would delay the exercise of this power notwithstanding the

1205
fact that the Bill would become law. The Government would simply sit on their hands, so to speak, until such time as the 60 countries had ratified the 1982 convention and would not take any action against foreign registered ships on the high seas until that time; in other words, the Bill would be enacted but this part of it would not be used.
However, it now appears that the Government intend to proceed straightaway, without waiting for 60 countries to ratify the convention. In that case, the Government would be almost certainly acting against the rules of international law. That would be a great pity. Perhaps the noble Earl has further information in his hands and wishes to make a further reply.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to trespass on the patience of the House or to break its rules but perhaps I may have the leave of your Lordships to speak again.
The noble Lord appears to take a great deal of persuading but I shall have another shot at it. The powers will be exercised with moderation and restraint. We intend to consult the flag state, where there is one, to ensure that it does not object before we act against a foreign flag vessel. Stateless vessels of course are not under the diplomatic protection of any government when on the high seas. Any force used will be kept to the minimum.
The powers are modelled on Articles 109 and 110 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The noble Lord is perfectly right that the United Kingdom has not yet become a party to that convention. However, that is for reasons totally unconnected with radio. The exercise of the powers will be in accordance with international law. That does not depend on the convention coming into force or the United Kingdom becoming a party to it.
I hope that I have been able to take the noble Lord a little further down the path with me.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said. However, as I said when speaking to the previous amendment, if he were to guarantee his presence at the Home Office for many years to come there would be no problem because he has given an assurance at the Dispatch Box and that is good enough for me. The trouble is of course that he is referring to executive action and not statute law, which is a different matter.
I agree with the noble Earl about stateless vessels. The Government are perfectly entitled at the moment to take action against stateless vessels: we do not quarrel about that. It is good to know that the Government intend in practice to consult foreign governments when it is proposed to board their vessels; but there will be no legal obligation on the Government to do so, and therein lies the difficulty. We must hope that the Government do the right thing notwithstanding the fact that the law is defective.
In the absence, disappointingly, of support from any other part of the House I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 19 [The Gaelic Television Committee: Supplementary Provisions]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 264, line 28, leave out ("in writing").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 267, line 20, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 to 131. This series of amendments makes a number of minor drafting and technical changes to the schedules dealing with minor and consequential amendments and repeals of other statutes resulting from this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 129:
Page 267, line 37, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").
Page 268, line 9, after ("performance") insert ("not falling within paragraph (c) above but").
Page 269, line 7, after (" 1990)") insert ("other than a sound or television broadcasting service.").
Page 269, line 17, after ("performance") insert ("not falling within paragraph (c) but").
Page 269, line 25, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").
Page 272, line 34, before ("such") insert ("in, or").
Page 272, line 35, after ("programme") insert ("for reception in,").
Page 272, line 40, after second ("programme") insert ("for reception").
Page 273, line 10, after ("6(6))") insert ("for reception").
Page 277, line 18, at end insert:
("(3A) In section 43(2) (improper use of public telecommunication system), for "cable programme service" substitute "programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990)".").
Page 277, line 18, at end insert:
("(4) In section 49 (investigation of complaints by the Director General of Telecommunications) omit subsection (2).").
Page 278, line 12, leave out from ("(b)") to end of line 18 and insert ("omit subsection (4)").
Page 278, line 23, after (""included") insert (", or made for inclusion,")
Page 278, line 24, leave out from ("(b)") to end of line 27 and insert ("for sub-paragraph (2), substitute—
"(2) In this paragraph

(a) "programme", in relation to a programme service, includes an advertisement and any other item included in that service; and

(b)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Repeals]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:

1207
Page 284, line 20, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 49(2).")
Page 284, line 32, at end insert:
("1986 c. 60.Financial Services Act Section 207(4)."). 1986.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 132:
After Schedule 21, insert the following new schedule:
("TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
Preservation of appointments. of existing members of the Welsh Authority, the BCC and the BSC
1.—(1) Where, immediately before the date when the relevant section of this Act comes into force, any person holds office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Welsh Authority, the BCC or the BSC, he shall continue to hold office as from that date as if he had been appointed under that section.
(2) Except in so far as the Secretary of State may otherwise determine, any such person shall hold office as from that date in accordance with the terms of his original appointment.
(3) In this paragraph, "the relevant section of this Act" means—

(a) in relation to the Welsh Authority, section 56;

(b) in relation to the BCC, section 142; and

(c) in relation to the BSC, section 151.

(4) In this paragraph and in paragraph 2, "the BCC" means the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and "the BSC" means the Broadcasting Standards Council.
Power to make provision with respect to complaints to the BCC or BSC
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provision as he considers appropriate in connection with—

(a) the making, on or after the transfer date, of complaints to the BCC concerning programmes broadcast by the IBA before that date and the performance by the BCC, on or after that date, of functions in connection with complaints made to them about such programmes (whether so made before that date or by virtue of this paragraph), and

(b) the making, on or after the relevant date, of complaints to the BCC or the BSC concerning programmes broadcast in accordance with Schedule 11 and the performance by the BCC and the BSC respectively, on or after that date, of functions in connection with complaints made to them about such programmes (whether so made before that date or by virtue of this paragraph);

and (subject to sub-paragraph (4)) references in this sub-paragraph to the performance of functions are, in relation to the BCC, references to the performance of functions under Part V of this Act and, in relation to the BSC, are references to functions under Part VI of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1), an order under that sub-paragraph may provide that, in relation to complaints falling within that sub-paragraph, the BCC or (as the case may be) the BSC may give directions in pursuance of section 146 or (as the case may be) 156 of this Act to persons other than those referred to in section 146(1) or 156(1).
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of section 200(2) (b) of this Act, an order under sub-paragraph (1) may make—

(a) such transitional modifications of any provision of this Act, and

(b) such modifications of and savings in any other statutory provision,

as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) In this paragraph—

(a) "the relevant date" means—

1208

(i) in the case of a complaint concerning a television programme, the day after the end of the interim period within the meaning of Schedule 11, and

(ii) in the case of a complaint concerning a sound programme, the day after the end of the period during which the local sound broadcasting service in which it was broadcast was provided in accordance with Schedule 11,

(b) "the transfer date" means the day appointed under section 127(1) of this Act,

(c) "statutory provision" means any provision of an enactment or of an instrument having effect under an enactment,

(d) "the IBA" means the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and

(e) references to programmes include references to teletext transmissions,

and in connection with complaints to the BCC concerning programmes broadcast by the IBA before the transfer date, a reference to Part V of this Act or to any provision of that Part includes a reference to Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1981 or (as the case may be) to any corresponding provision of that Part of that Act.
Power to make provision with respect to complaints under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988
3.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provision as he considers appropriate in connection with—

(a) the making, on or after the transfer date, of complaints to the relevant authority concerning advertisements included before that date in any programme or teletext transmission broadcast by the IBA or in any licensed service; and

(b) the performance by each of the relevant authorities, on or after that date, of functions under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 in relation to complaints concerning such advertisements (whether made before that date or by virtue of paragraph (a)).

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "the relevant authority—"

(a) in relation to an advertisement included in—

(i) a television programme, other than one broadcast on the Fourth Channel in Wales,

(ii) a teletext transmission, or

(iii) a licensed service, means the Independent Television Commission;

(b) in relation to an advertisement included in a television programme broadcast on the Fourth Channel in Wales, means the Welsh Authority; and

(c) in relation to an advertisement included in a sound programme, means the Radio Authority.

(3) In this paragraph—

(a) "the transfer date" means the day appointed under section 127(1) of this Act,

(b) "the Fourth Channel in Wales" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and

(c) "the IBA" means the Independent Broadcasting Authority;

and expressions used in this paragraph which are also used in the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (as they have effect without the amendments made by paragraph 51 of Schedule 20 to this Act) have the same meaning as in those Regulations.
Saving of amendments made by Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984
4. The amendments made by paragraphs 12, 24, 32 and 45 of Schedule 5 to the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 shall not be affected by the repeals made by this Act but shall continue to have effect, subject to any amendments made by Schedule 20 to this Act.
Transitional modification of amendments made by this Act
5.—(1) Any provision to which this sub-paragraph applies—

(a) shall have effect in relation to the programme contractor or teletext contractor under a contract which continues in force by virtue of Part II of Schedule 11 to this Act, or in relation to any such contract, as it has effect in relation to the holder of a licence granted under Part I of this Act or in relation to any such licence;

(b) shall have effect in relation to the programme contractor under a contract which continues in force by virtue of Part IV of Schedule 11, or in relation to any such contract, as it has effect in relation to the holder of a licence granted under Part III of this Act or in relation to any such licence; and

(c) shall have effect in relation to any broadcasting service provided by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority in accordance with Schedule 11 as it has effect in relation to any service provided under a licence granted under Part I or Part III of this Act.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to the following provisions (as amended by this Act), namely—

(a) section 9 of the Industry Act 1975;

(b) section 19 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975;

(c) sections 75(1) and 93(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983; and

(d) regulation 8(1) of the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988.

(3) Where regulation 8(1) of the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988 has effect in relation to any complaint in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above, regulation 9(1) of those Regulations shall have effect in relation to the complaint as if for the words from "exercise" onwards there were substituted "refuse to broadcast the advertisement".
6.—(1) Section 92(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended by this Act), shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference to the holder of a licence granted by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority included a reference to the holder of a relevant licence within the meaning of Part III of Schedule 12 to this Act; and

(b) there were added at the end "or in pursuance of arrangements made with—

(i) the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority, or

(ii) any programme contractor whose contract continues in force by virtue of Part II or IV of Schedule 11 to the Broadcasting Act 1990,

for the matter to be received by that body or contractor and re-transmitted by that body in the provision of any broadcasting service in accordance with the said Schedule II".

7. Regulation 8(1) and (2) of the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (as amended by this Act) shall apply to any service provided under a relevant licence within the meaning of Part III of Schedule 12 to this Act as they apply to a service licensed under Part II of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 78. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in our proceedings during the Committee and Report stages and also the Third
1210
Reading of this Bill. I thank them for the constructive contributions that have been made and also, if I may say so, for their forbearance and good humour.
Taking this Bill through the House has sometimes felt rather like riding a bucking bronco, where the prime object is to hang on. With your Lordships' assistance—and with the distinctive help of my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Ullswater to hold the beast by the tail and by the muzzle—this has been possible, despite the concerted and continuous efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Bonham-Carter, and others perpetually to stick pins in the horse in an endeavour to unseat the hapless rider or to bring the poor beast to its knees. Fortunately they failed and the Bill has survived. I can truthfully say that with the help of noble Lords on all sides of the House it is a better Bill than when it came to your Lordships. It also happens to be a longer Bill, but that is by the by.
As your Lordships know, the Bill will eventually replace completely the Acts of 1981 and 1984, as well as amending many other pieces of legislation.
It deals with a range of broadcasting services and topics undreamt of by our predecessors when they first legislated for independent broadcasting in the 1950s. So it is hardly surprising that the Bill is what one might call such a blockbuster. It is, in fact, the longest Home Office Bill of recent years. Your Lordships may say, "And it feels like it too!"
Your Lordships have shown great stamina and have, on occasions, had to sit far later than we all would have wished. I regret that noble Lords have sometimes had an uncomfortably short time in which to absorb late waves of often highly technical amendments. I can only repeat my apology for that.
It is perhaps worth remembering that the Bill affects an enormous range of interests who have—naturally enough—continued to comment and to urge various changes right up until the last minute. Your Lordships' consideration of the Bill has ranged far and wide. But I hope you will consider that its discussions have borne much fruit.
The Bill had already changed substantially by the time it reached this House. I said at the outset that I did not wish to incite your Lordships to unbridled bouts of enthusiasm about the scope for changing it yet further. I do not think that that stricture on exhortation was particularly observed. In the event, many changes have been made. Between us all, we have succeeded in producing about 800 amendments to the Bill—a fact about which, particularly at this stage of the parliamentary session, another place will, I am sure, feel quite charmed.
The list of amendments, which have been made by your Lordships includes such major topics as the quality threshold for Channels 3 and 5; a moratorium on takeovers for Channel 3, Channel 5, DBS and national radio services; provision of a quality threshold for teletext; networking; equal opportunities; archiving; coverage of compliance with licence conditions in the ITC Annual Report of Channel 3; religious broadcasting; access to television

1211
for the deaf and blind; the index-linking of financial bids; the quality of independent radio services taken as a whole; needletime; and—dare I say it?— impartiality.
That is a somewhat selective list. It is not the totality. It is no mean feat for noble Lords to have covered so much ground. Your Lordships have made known your views on all the major issues which I have mentioned, and on many others. If you agree that the Bill do now pass, it will now be for another place to consider the amendments made.
It has been a long haul, but the list of important changes which your Lordships have made is impressive. I think that it bears testimony to the effectiveness—and indeed the purpose—of your Lordships' House in considering, revising and improving legislation.
It has been a very technical Bill. In some cases, I felt that it was necessary almost to don a white jacket and carry a screwdriver in order to comprehend it. Without seeming to be cavalier, I think I might not have been alone in that. But I am deeply indebted to your Lordships that, throughout, your Lordships have conducted yourselves with characteristic courtesy and fairness even over matters about which you felt very strongly.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Birk, who has had an astonishing grasp of the whole Bill. That is never an easy matter when in opposition and never an easy matter with a Bill like this. She has always been personally kind and considerate. Her enthusiasm and her determination never left her, and nor did her charm. She was ably helped by the noble Baroness Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who showed a particularly attractive sense of care over the protection of his grandchildren's eardrums when they are assaulted by the dulcet tones of pop.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, came back to the rigours of parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill after 25 years' absence. I can only say that he had lost none of the technique, and had learnt some new ticks and knowledge on the way as well. His style was endearing, and even enticing, and sometimes he looked as if he was wearing Little Red Riding Hood's clothes, but he never, in fact, looked like a wolf.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also helped him a lot, but not me very often—unless it was when he remained silent. His contributions were, if I may say so, trenchant and masterly but, in my view, usually misguided—but delightfully and determinedly so, and I hold nothing against that.
Many other noble Lords helped in this debate and on different subjects. It is invidious to single out people, but I could not let the occasion pass without referring to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who brought such knowledge to these debates and attractive parliamentary skill. Then there were the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Chalfont, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and Lord Monson, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, all of whom made significant contributions; the right
1212
reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, who was helpful over the Broadcasting Standards Council, of which he has such knowledge; and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool who helped over religion and got the stick over CRAC, but he gave as good as he got; and also my noble friends Lord Colwyn and Lord Orr-Ewing; and my noble friend Lord Stockton who tried—I am glad to say unsuccessfully —to blast Mr. Murdoch out of the sky.
Many others of your Lordships have contributed to these debates as well. I am grateful for that, and I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Bill is a better Bill than it was when it started. However we may individually view it, I think it will become a very important monument in the future.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
7 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, from these Benches may I first thank the noble Earl for the extremely nice and pleasant things he has said, not only about myself but about my colleagues on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Ardwick and my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. I should also like to thank a number of other noble Lords who helped from time to time: my noble friend Lord Peston who dealt late at night with the complicated problem of copyright, together with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who kept us up very late but I am sure it was in a very good cause; and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who behind the scenes was trying to help to arrange things for us all; and the other Whips who work with him.
On the Back-Benches I must also thank my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham, and reiterate all that the Minister said about him. He certainly was a tower of strength, and he also sat late into the night. It is always nice to have supporters sitting there and taking an active part when it is extremely late.
The noble Earl was very understanding of the way things go. He was always very appreciative of the fact that we did not have a Home Office or even a shadow Home Office behind us and that it is very difficult to work on a Bill like this with a skeleton staff as we are. But we are extremely grateful to a very small number of researchers who helped us all through the Bill in a most remarkable way. We really cannot thank them more; and also our own researcher in the House, Natalka—whose surname I cannot pronounce or spell so in Hansard it will have to be "Natalka"—who works here for us in the House of Lords.
As the noble Earl said, there have been some gains from this House. He mentioned (I understand why my noble friend Lady David will say a few words on this subject) the programming requirements for radio—social action, education, and documentaries—and the scheduling powers which were won in a Division in this House. He mentioned the subtitling of Teletext which will obviously be of great benefit to many people. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs spoke well on the issue of equal opportunities. We have managed to incorporate something on that subject. Although it is not as detailed as we should like, at least there is something in the Bill where there was nothing before.

1213
There is agreement on networking that was not there before, although it is by no means perfect. One of the important successes that we achieved in this House was the moratorium. Although many of us would have preferred a longer moratorium, at least a moratorium is built into the Bill which was not there when it came to us. We moved an amendment on Report regarding high quality radio. As a result, high quality overall must be attained—a provision which was not formerly in the Bill. The Government gave way on that point.
On the IBA transmission privatisation, we achieved a television cross-subsidy. The situation on pensions is much better and we have been able to reassure a number of pensioners, widows of pensioners and those receiving preserved pensions who were worried about the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, tried to add to the national television archive on Third Reading with our support. There is now a national television archive which is extremely important. The listings have been sorted out. Although the people concerned are not happy about the matter, at least something has been done.
However, we are not left with a very good Bill. There are a great many matters in the Bill about which we on these Benches are still unhappy. We have made no dent in the cross-media concentration. We still do not have a remit for Channel 5. The Broadcasting Standards Council—that quite unnecessary body—is still there and retains its power to initiate complaints, although we had a last attempt to try to get rid of those powers.
The issue of listed events was a pretty sad affair because there was great support for that, not just from the people who are considered esoterics. It is something that affects everyone in this country. That was very bad.
We all know how we feel about impartiality, certainly on these Benches. I am trying to look for a glimmer of light. The Government embarked on that unfortunate course, but at least the amendment that was passed today was somewhat better than the original amendment. The Minister confused me towards the end as to whether it really did nothing at all, which would have pleased me, or whether it did something that we were not quite sure about. However, it was better than the original amendment, so that is some small comfort.
The point of greatest anxiety about the Bill, which will soon be an Act of Parliament, concerns the high cash bids to obtain licences. That is the basis of the Bill and it remains in spite of exceptional circumstances. It is cash, not quality, that is the important matter. The concept of public service broadcasting has received a devastating blow.
Having said all that, I feel that I must finish on a more upbeat note. We wish the future ITC good luck. We also wish the viewers and listeners good luck and hope to goodness that our fears about the future of broadcasting will, in some miraculous way, not be realised. Perhaps we shall have to wait until there is
1214
another government; let us hope that that comes about. In the meantime, I must say that, thanks to the work and co-operation of my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I enjoyed the Bill, although it was hard going. My enjoyment was due to that and to the Minister's courtesy. I have tried to find another word for courtesy because we keep telling him that he is courteous. He is also gracious—perhaps that is another suitable word. It has been a friendly exercise all the way through, although we fought hard on individual amendments. I thank everyone very much.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like, with the support of my noble friends, to make a short speech on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. Like everyone else, I look forward to the deregulation of broadcasting which the Bill will introduce, but I am unhappy about the IBA religious decision-making process and the guidelines for religion which are being drafted for the new ITC and the Radio Authority.
The controversial clause—
"no religious broadcast … should attempt to proselytise, that is to make converts"
—in the 1989 IBA religious guidelines will be abandoned on 1st January. No one wants to see coercion, but the freedom to encourage or persuade people of the merits of believing in a particular religious faith—or, for that matter, no faith at all—has been guarded for centuries by the Queen, Parliament and, as I have stressed before, particularly by this House.
However, the draft guidelines which are now being drawn up at the IBA for the ITC and the Radio Authority contain clauses which would ban or censor the United Christian Broadcasters radio station in Stoke-on-Trent and the Vision Broadcasting TV station in Swindon because they exercise that freedom. Both those overtly Christian stations are licensed under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and the Cable Authority has publicly described them as providing a,
"worthwhile service which operates in a responsible manner".
We heard repeated assurances, here and in another place, that there is no intention to use the Bill to ban or censor any religious broadcasting. A letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary at 10 Downing Street on 8th March stated:
"I hope this letter reassures you that the automatic disqualification of channels such as Vision will be lifted".
Another letter from the same office on 19th January stated:
"the Prime Minister has asked me to assure you that Vision Broadcasting Communications will not be subject to any automatic disqualification on the ground that it is a body with a religious purpose … The Government is now considering how the Broadcasting Bill should be amended to achieve this result. I hope this is reassuring".
In view of all the promises given in writing throughout the passage of the Bill that there would be no attempt to stop United Christian Broadcasters and Vision Broadcasting from operating amidst hundreds of new radio stations and dozens of cable TV channels, I sincerely hope that the Government will keep their word and ensure that the IBA religious

1215
decision-making process, acting on behalf of the shadow Radio Authority and the ITC, will not be allowed to enforce guidelines which interpret the Bill by banning or censoring either of those two stations.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I rise to support the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.
This is a complex Bill covering very many subjects, many of them highly technical. I shall start by expressing my admiration for the combination of fortitude and courtesy which has enabled the noble Earl to see us through to this point.
Over the weekend I received a blockbuster from the IBA about my having said on Report that the meeting between my colleagues of the national council and the IBA was hostile. I am advised to assuage its dismay by withdrawing the word "hostile" and substituting "freezingly polite". I now come to the support of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I have had an immaculate assurance from the noble Earl, which I naturally accept, that the guidelines will emphasise the position of the Christian religion in this country. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool stated on Report that there is in this land a multiplicity of faiths. I submit that there is only one faith native to this country—the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Minority faiths are exotic. They come from abroad and were imported mostly after the war. I do not count people who dress up at the summer solstice and parade through Stonehenge in what they imagine look like the clothes of ancient druids.
In addition to the assurances I have had from the noble Earl, I should like to quote, with the leave of the House, an extract from what I have been promised by the Prime Minister in a personal letter:
"The Government has no wish to prohibit or unnecessarily impede the development of religious broadcasting. We share your view that it can and should be a force for good with potential for raising standards in society. There will be a much larger number of radio stations carrying a very wide range of programmes. We intend therefore that Christian groups and those of other religious faiths should be allowed to own independent radio stations provided they stay within the rules of programme content. Your briefing note refers specifically to the Vision channel."
This channel was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.
"I understand that this channel provides a valued and worthwhile service. We are considering separately how the Broadcasting Bill might be amended to cater for their position".
I think it will be in the guidelines rather than on the face of the Bill. On that I have the assurance of the noble Earl. The letter continues:
"Finally, your briefing note mentions advertising and sponsorship. You will have seen from the Bill that there is no prohibition in it of either religious advertising or sponsorship".
That was the Prime Minister's undertaking to me at the outset of our proceedings on the Bill. So far as I can see, those undertakings have been kept. I now have an assurance from the noble Earl—an
1216
honourable assurance—as to what will be in the guidelines. I accept that assurance. On that basis, I am happy that the Bill should now pass.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like immediately to thank the noble Earl for his characteristically kind personal words. I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to all those inside the House and behind the scenes—the staff of the House and our personal staffs—who have contributed to the passage of this long and important Bill. I know that all noble Lords would like to pay a special tribute to the noble Earl himself. As I understand it, he has taken on a subject that was not directly his own inside his department. It is a difficult, complex and technical subject. It has been a marathon Bill and yet we have had from him constant courtesy and good temper. We have had not only good humour but some wit as well, which has leavened our proceedings so frequently. He has never lost his cool in the face of criticism; and some of our criticism has been fundamental and some of it quite fierce. We appreciate his good humour.
We thank him also for his genuine willingness to look into issues, to take them away and look at them again, and then to give some ground and accept amendments, particularly when they were not central to the Government's policy. One understands that the Government have a policy and that they have a mandate for it. In this House we have always accepted the limitations of that fact. Even there we have made some useful progress on important matters quite close to the main thrust of the Government's policy. The moratorium is one of the outstanding examples. I shall not cover the other matters which were described so comprehensively by the noble Baroness.
This has been a long Bill. It would be astonishing if in a Bill of this length there were not some good and necessary changes. But like the noble Baroness I am bound to say that it remains at heart a bad Bill despite the improvements made to it. In my parliamentary experience I cannot remember a Bill that has changed so greatly between its original introduction and its final passage through the second Chamber. We pay tribute to the willingness of the Government, both here and in another place, to listen to the arguments and to make concessions. Nevertheless, from my point of view it is a bad Bill, especially in relation to commercial television with which I have had an association over a number of years.
Commercial television in Britain has so far been public service television. It has been of good quality and has been fully compatible and competitive with the BBC. This year commercial television has won the major European television prizes—the Golden Rose of Montreux and the Prix Italia. Commercial television of this quality has been an achievement of previous Conservative Administrations. I find it rather sad that commercial television today has been destabilised, demoralised and diluted in terms of its public service obligations by the present Conservative Government. What is especially sad is that they have done it unnecessarily. Of course great technological changes are going on and of course there will be

1217
greater numbers of buttons for us all to press in the years immediately ahead. But that was going to happen anyway. A Broadcasting Bill was not needed to introduce the video cassette recorder, which has revolutionised many of our lives in terms of our viewing habits. So far as I am concerned, good luck to the newcomers in cable and satellite. But more buttons do not of themselves mean a wider and richer choice. That requires positive regulation to encourage quality rather than the deregulation which we have in this Bill.
I say this with sorrow but make no mistake about it. What the Government are doing in this Bill will change the culture of commercial broadcasting in this country. The highest bid system, for all the welcome quality thresholds that have been conceded and for all the welcome amendments in terms of exceptional circumstances, means that creative accounting will take the place of and priority over creative programme-making in commercial television. Quality in broadcasting—one of Britain's greatest achievements is our broadcasting system—is indivisible. Downward pressure on commercial broadcasting standards will put downward pressure on the BBC. The "Bolshy BBC", as I think I heard someone at the Conservative conference in Bournemouth call it, is the next target for the Government. I admired the way Mr. David Mellor stood up to that clamour at the Conservative Party Conference. But the evidence of the way the Government have caved in at the last minute to Right-wing pressure on due impartiality cannot give us any confidence that the future of the BBC is safe in Conservative hands in present circumstances.
I apologise to the House for making somewhat sour and perhaps what might be regarded as partisan remarks alongside the normal and very proper politenesses on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I conclude by saying to the noble Earl and his colleagues that this has been a marathon Bill. The stamina required from the Front Bench has been very great indeed. Significant concessions have been made. That is the way we do things in our parliamentary democracy and we express our gratitude for that.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about radio, which has been almost buried, inevitably, under the Bill. Radio has a great tradition, going back to the days of Vernon Bartlett and Joe Middleton and, nowadays, Rabbi Blue and Alistair Cooke, whom God preserve. In spite of that radio has popped out of obscurity from time to time. I am glad to recall that two important and progressive clauses have been inserted into the Bill—one dealing with diversity and the other with quality.
As regards the diversity which will give us the famous kind of non-pop musical channel, alas! there is no money for it. The same applies to the new all-speech channel which I welcome. When one thinks of the cleverness and the ingenuity that LBC has had to show in order to survive, I am not very hopeful that the all-speech station will be able to survive without
1218
some public help. However, we look forward to its beginning. Some of the local stations on London radio have recently shown great promise.
The one disappointing feature of the Bill has been the lack of real interest in community broadcasting. Community broadcasting is being tolerated; there is a place for it, but it is not being positively encouraged as we should have liked.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to express my welcome for this Bill, especially the fair and acceptable religious broadcasting freedoms introduced by the Government. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, when he says that he can seldom remember a Bill which has been so improved since it started its passage through Parliament. However, I am disturbed to hear that the Radio Authority's draft guidelines for religion contain the following clauses. I shall now quote from paragraph 7.7 of the guidelines. It reads:
"Neither the programmes themselves, nor any follow up material, may be used to proselytise or recruit members for any religious faith".
Paragraph 7.6 says that,
"nothing may be included which constitutes an appeal for money by groups whose aims are wholly or mainly religious; nor may donations to such groups be solicited either in any literature provided as support material for such programmes, or by the offer for sale of items".
The word "proselytise" may be slightly confused with the word "evangelise" which refers to preaching the good news of the Christian gospel. There should be positive advocacy, but no denigration or improper exploitation of other views and beliefs. However, there is concern among Christians that these guidelines may be used to block freedom to encourage people to consider embracing a particular faith. This could even be used to block freedom to expound an atheistic or agnostic doctrine.
I do not favour American tele-evangelists broadcasting requests for money, but surely such guidelines are unacceptable when they threaten to destroy the programming output and all sources of finance for both of the British Christian broadcasting stations; namely, United Christian Broadcasters on radio and Vision Broadcasting on cable television.
In response, the chief executive of Vision Broadcasting said:
"We have carried programmes for the last 4 years, from Christian organisations which advertise their Christianity. If the Independent Television Commission imposes these guidelines on us, it would mean an end to our programmes and advertising. It would be unnecessarily restrictive to other religions, not just Christianity, and it would break all the promises that the Prime Minister has given in writing to us".
In his response, the managing director of United Christian Broadcasters said:
"We cannot do anything. It's totally opposed to all the promises given by David Mellor. The Government has allowed us to get to the starting line, now the new authorities are trying to nail our feet to it, which will make us a non-runner".
Among his many letters Mr. David Mellor, the Minister, said:

1219
"The Radio Authority would be able to allow religious groups to own special event, local (including community) and satellite radio stations".
He is also recorded in Hansard as saying, on Report in another place that,
"legitimate Christian broadcasters have nothing to fear". — [Official Report, Commons, 9/5/90; col. 158.]
Accordingly, I trust that the final draft of the ITC and Radio Authority religious guidelines for programming, ownership and advertising will honour that promise and give Christian broadcasting stations, whether on television or radio, nothing to fear.
Baroness David: My Lords, the wish to protect the quality threshold in the Bill has been expressed by a great many people, including the Government, during our discussions at all stages. Therefore, the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord Norrie, Lord Plowden and I were delighted when our amendments to protect documentaries, education and social action programmes, and to ensure that those programmes were shown at high viewing times, were passed by the large majority of 27 with all-party support in Committee. No one, except the Minister, spoke against them.
Our delight and relief was shared by the many organisations —91 in all—that came together under the Broadcasting Consortium and the Third World and Environment Broadcasting Project to try to influence and improve the content of the Bill. Therefore, I was glad to hear the noble Earl say just now that the Bill had been improved. However, it was with considerable dismay that we read the report of David Mellor's speech to the Royal Television Society on 4th September in which he said that the Government would seek to overturn the amendments in another place. There was such strong feelings about this that the four sponsors of the amendment asked to see the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I have to thank the noble Earl for seeing us last Thursday and for allowing us to put our case.
Until now the qualities that we seek to safeguard in broadcasting have been safeguarded so far as concerns independent television by the obligation laid upon the IBA by Section 2(2) (a) of the 1981 Act,
"to provide the television … services as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment".
No such obligation appears in the new Bill. Mr. Mellor's case for abolishing it seems to be first that the requirement that programmes be calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests, together with the illustrative guidelines, will ensure, without any protected categories, that all the present types of programme will be included in applicants' programming; secondly, that if there is to be a list of desirable categories, it is invidious to include documentaries, education and social action programmes but not arts, sport and drama; and, thirdly, that scheduling requirements prevent the flexibility necessary for Channel 3 licensees to be able to compete with new satellite and terrestrial services.
These arguments are themselves inconsistent; indeed, the Government have contradicted their own case. You could perhaps argue for no list of categories.
1220
But the Government produced such a list with news, current affairs and regional programmes. They then agreed in Committee in another place to add religious programmes and programmes for children. For all these five categories, Mr. Mellor said that either the threat to them, or the need to clarify in the Bill that the Government understood that diversity must include them, had persuaded him to insert them into the quality threshold in Clause 16. In short, specific conclusions about the social value of programmes, and the risk that, without clarity in the Bill, applicants might not offer them, have been the principles for inclusion in the list.
Documentaries, programmes with an educational purpose and social action broadcasting all meet these criteria and should be included. There is no need to worry about sport with its huge popularity. We say that documentaries and educational programmes embrace many arts and drama programmes.
Television is a very important source of information. Research has shown this to be so and indicated the value that audiences place on these programmes, particularly in educating people on third world, environmental or global issues. We must also remember the connection between the social action programmes, and the telephone help lines and field agencies, which enable people to do something in response to the information they receive.
Programmes with an educational purpose are highly valued by viewers. In the IBA's list of programme preferences, education for adults came third. A survey commissioned by the "Media Show" showed that 75 per cent. of viewers felt that it was important that television companies should continue to make and show educational programmes. We heard at the Conservative conference that education is to be top of the political agenda. It would surely be ironic if after that declaration the Government were to delete educational programmes from the obligation put upon the new companies when television is such a powerful force and influence.
It is a matter of quality. If the Government are serious when they say that they mind about the quality of what appears on our television screens, they should not seek to reverse the amendments passed by the House on 18th July, especially when one remembers that the condition contained in the 1981 Act, that the IBA must inform, educate and entertain does not appear in the requirements to be laid upon the ITC. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to prevent the overturning of those amendments and convey the strength of feeling that there is on those issues.
Your Lordships may have read in the press of a delegation to 10 Downing Street this morning. It took a letter to the Prime Minister signed by six organisations (the UNA, Age Concern, the World Wildlife Fund, Community Service for Volunteers, the Carers' National Association and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development) asking that those four amendments should not be overturned. That letter was supported by 33 other organisations, among which were the Save the Children Fund, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the National

1221
Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and Voluntary Service Overseas. That letter and its sponsors show the strength of feeling that exists about this matter. I hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister will pay great attention to the strength of feeling everywhere.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, as Vice-President of the Christian Broadcasting Council perhaps I may say a few words about Christian broadcasting in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. Naturally, I wish the Bill well, as we all do, but I am deeply concerned about the position of the United Christian Broadcasters' radio station in Stoke and the Vision Cable television station in Swindon, because there appears to be some danger of the religious guidelines being used to threaten their continued existence. It seems to me, and I hope that I am wrong, that that would amount to a handful of religious advisers trying to overrule the clear wishes of the Government and both Houses of Parliament with regard to religious broadcasting as contained in the Bill.
As the Bill passes to another place, I hope that the Labour Member of Parliament for Stoke on Trent Central and the Conservative Member of Parliament for Swindon will pursue vigorously the cause of those broadcasting installations located within their respective constituencies. I hope that your Lordships can appreciate the nervousness, especially at Vision Cable, because in recent years the IBA religious broadcasting department has blocked the broadcasting of a number of Christian programmes, as was mentioned at earlier stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. It blocked them for a number of reasons. Some, including myself, would say the reasons were theological; others might say they concerned production or even content. Virtually all of those programmes have in the end been broadcast, with some editing or modification by Vision Cable; but from 1st January 1991 Vision Cable will be subject to the ITC and the authority of members of the same IBA religious department as originally refused broadcasting permission for those programmes. Obviously they are fearful that the broadcasting of those programmes may again be banned, or that Vision Cable's future licensing needs may be prejudiced because those programmes continue to be broadcast.
There is a real difference in religious broadcasting policy, and that lies at the root of the religious broadcasting debate. Fortunately, the National Council for Christian Standards was reassured on 30th May by a letter from the Prime Minister's office. This is important. The letter stated:
"The Government has repeatedly stressed that it has no wish to inhibit, still less to stifle, lively new ideas for responsible Christian broadcasting. The amendments made to the Bill on report, and the further consideration of the rules announced by Mr. Mellor, further demonstrate its commitment to that objective".
I quote even more reassuring words from a letter dated 19th June from the Political Secretary at 10 Downing Street:
1222
"The Government's aim is to ensure that any revised approach … should provide sufficient safeguards against abuse, without inhibiting responsible Christian and other religious broadcasting from developing and flourishing in the 1990s. So, as you can see, the Broadcasting Bill is a landmark in the development of responsible Christian broadcasting".
I hope that that policy will be carried out effectively.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to his department for all the help that has been given to me during the Bill's passage. That help culminated this afternoon in my noble friend moving my Amendment No. 47. I had become so used to the various stages of the Bill going on long into the night that I had a quick break for a cup of tea and, as a result of the rapid progress of our business, missed being able to move the amendment. I am most grateful to my noble friend for doing that for me, and regret missing the opportunity of having a Back-Bench amendment accepted.
I also thank my noble friend for the changes that he has made to Clause 175. The House has been most patient with me and others of a similar opinion. It has indulged us in a great deal of complicated debate. The Bill, with its exorcism of needle time, brings to an end a most unfortunate and damaging episode in the history of British broadcasting. The Government's decision to refer those matter to the MMC has been entirely vindicated. In future, disputes between the broadcasting industry and the record industry will be approached afresh, without undue store being set by the unfortunate circumstances of the past. I am opposed to a monopoly having the right to impose its will upon a dependent consumer under threat of injunction. The MMC, and now the Bill, by and large attempt to strike a fair balance. I am delighted that the Bill should now pass.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Birk for their generous remarks about me. I also congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has conducted the Bill through your Lordships' House with great expertise and charm. I congratulate too my noble friends Lady Birk, Lady Ewart-Biggs, Lord Ardwick, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Bonham-Carter for the parts that they have played in the Bill.
Legislation was clearly needed because of the new developments in broadcasting in our country and elsewhere. However, I should not have started from here had I been left with the task of producing the Bill. I echo the words used by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth. It is a much better Bill now than it was when it started its passage through another place. As someone who works in the industry, I can say that because it Is a view that is shared by many people in the industry. The Bill is also, as the Minister pointed out, much larger. When it reached your Lordships' House it was 217 pages long. After we finished with it last week on Report it was 285 pages long. No doubt after today it will be a little longer. That is a tribute to the fact that a great deal of work is done on legislation in your Lordships' House.
Warm thanks are due to the Minister's honourable friend the Minister for the Arts, Mr. David Mellor, the Home Secretary and the noble Earl himself for the

1223
way in which he and they have shown their flexibility and willingness to listen on many major matters which have resulted in major changes being made to the Bill. In saying that, perhaps I may ask him to find a way to pass oil these thanks to his officials in the Home Office, particularly in the department with responsibility for broadcasting. When the Government came to exercise their flexibility and to implement new provisions as a result of having listened to the debates in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, I have no doubt at all that the officials were a very great help indeed in formulating the proposals into legislative terms.
A number of the changes have been mentioned already, so I need not go into any of them in detail. The exceptional circumstances matter is one where a major change has been made. We would not have started with the highest bid system, but there is a considerable improvement as a result of that change.
The moratorium has been mentioned, and that too is a major change. On inflation and the cash bid, the noble Earl described it a little while ago as a technical matter in relation to the amendment passed on the index linking of payments. Although a technical matter—and he described it as that at the time when we considered it in Committee, and so it is—it is a major matter. When it comes to making a change to this Bill, it is on the same level as the changes to the moratorium and the quality threshold. So that is a significant change.
As my noble friends mentioned at earlier stages, the inclusion of networking provisions has been a substantial improvement to the Bill. Some of us still do not like the inclusion to that extent of the Office of Fair Trading's involvement in these matters, but nevertheless the very provision of networking in itself is a fundamental improvement. It will be of great benefit to viewers and to the television industry.
Probably the less said about cross-media ownership the better. Some of us still cling to our views on that matter, as we do on ITN. It is a shame that that position could not have been improved by leaving 51 per omit. of the shareholding in the hands of the existing shareholders.
On advertising and giving a remit to the Broadcasting Standards Council, some of us again would have wished the position to have changed. Also, there is the subject which we returned to for the third time today—regional production. Some of us would have wished that that position had changed as well.
Perhaps I may say that the Government have at least on some of these matters shown an appealing consistency. Logical arguments, I should have thought, had been advanced as concerns the advertising point. Logical arguments have been advanced as concerns regional production. Highly logical arguments were advanced as concerns cross media ownership. The Government have consistently and persistently resisted those logical arguments, and that at least shows some consistency.
The only other matter I wish to mention is impartiality. I follow the noble Earl completely in this.
1224
He did not seek, when he mentioned it just now—and I only venture to mention it because he did so—to reopen the argument we had had this afternoon. However, since he has mentioned it, I must confess that I was tempted to intervene in the closing passages of his speech this afternoon when he said that there was a difference of legal opinion and that there were various views among the legal profession. Had I intervened I should have pointed out—and I thought it was not proper to take up your Lordships' time on this and to impede the progress of the noble Earl's excellent speech—that, in saying that there were different legal points of view, he has conceded part of my argument. That is precisely the point—that there are these uncertainties. That is what we are all worried about. I shall not reopen the subject, but since he mentioned it I felt I could not avoid responding.
The only other point I make is this. All of us in all parts of your Lordships' House, throughout the lengthy debates on the Bill, have put at the forefront of our minds the interests of viewers. As I pointed out the other night to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, the noble Earl has done that consistently throughout the series of debates. My noble friends on these Benches, my noble friends Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Bonham-Carter and Cross-Bench Members of your Lordships' House as well as those generally from the Government Benches and this side of the House have put viewers' interests first. Although there have been great differences of view about this legislation —and there will continue to be great differences of view —I am quite satisfied that that has been the whole approach of Members from all parts of your Lordships' House. This is due in large measure to the skill and the generous and charming way in which our Minister in your Lordships' House has conducted proceedings on this legislation.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may trespass on the patience of the House to make two points. The first is simply to point out that the radio guidelines which have been referred to twice today in the context of religious matters are contained in a consultative document which has been issued for the moment purely for consultation. There will be no radio guidelines until that consultation is complete.
The main point I wish to make arises from a comment that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made about the radio portion of the Bill. I am grateful to him for the interest he has taken in the radio aspect of the legislation and for his interesting remarks this evening. Speaking as the chairman designate of the Radio Authority, I must say that in general terms we at the authority are now happy with that section of the Bill which deals with radio broadcasting, as it now appears, as we move towards the passage of the Bill on to the statute book.
We had a number of anxieties; we were disappointed about a number of matters. I wrote to the noble Earl setting out some areas of concern a few days ago. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that he was prompt to reply to me in constructive and

1225
courteous terms, taking up in detail all the points that I raised. In addressing them, he was able to set most of our worries at rest.
There is one point that I wish to make before the Bill passes. It is a shame that the moratorium was not applied to independent local radio. The moratorium on takeovers, as your Lordships will know, applies to television and to national radio but not to independent radio. It is a shame that we have a position in which 200 or 300 companies may put forward their programme plans and applications over the next 10 years but the Bill has left us in a position in which they may make a successful application only to find it taken over perhaps 24 hours later by someone with enough money who did not bother to enter the competition in the first place. I say this without any deep sense of grievance because I have heard the opinions of the Government upon it. They are, as always, logical and persuasive. However, I remain convinced that it is a disappointment to us that the Bill did not go that far.
Perhaps I may echo the comments of noble Lords on all sides of the House who have expressed their gratitude to the noble Earl for the courteous, elegant and effective way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. Perhaps I may also say that as concerns the shadow ITC and the shadow Radio Authority, we are most grateful for the excellent working relationship which has existed between the Government, in the persons of the noble Earl, his right honourable colleague in another place and all the officials in the Home Office who have had such a monumental task in the past months, piloting the Bill through both Houses. I wish the Bill well in the short time that remains before it becomes, I hope, the Broadcasting Act 1990. I share with all in your Lordships' House a deep sense of gratitude to the noble Earl for the way he has piloted the Bill through the House.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join the procession of noble Lords who have pronounced the obsequies of this Bill because I feel that not to do so might be misinterpreted as rudeness. I believe it would be even ruder, however, if I kept your Lordships sitting here one moment longer than was absolutely necessary.
On an occasion such as this I wish I had the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to describe the pellucid skill with which the noble Earl has conducted the proceedings on this Bill and the courtesy with which he has dealt with even his most tiresome opponents such as myself. We have enjoyed watching him carry out his functions in this fashion. We congratulate him on his success in doing so and we are grateful for his wit and his humour as well as for his courtesy. That having been said, I join wholeheartedly with the nicely balanced mixture of compliment and censure which was so well expressed by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham.
1226
Whatever we have managed to do in improving the Bill—if we have not improved it, we would have been delinquent—it will indeed change the face and the focus of British broadcasting. Whereas before British broadcasting was governed by public service, it will now be governed by the ratings and by the advertisers. Nothing we have been able to do can change that fundamental fact about the Bill. That step is a pity. I believe that its consequences will be bad because more need not mean worse. However, I sincerely fear that unless those two standard bearers of quality, the BBC and Channel 4, are supported wholeheartedly—there is no sign that the BBC will be supported wholeheartedly—more may well mean worse.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had in the concluding stages of this Bill an interesting and short debate. We have had, as it were, puffs of smoke from around the Chamber issuing forth on all the issues over which we have wrangled hard in the past. I do not propose to go into those issues again this evening. I merely wish to thank your Lordships for the kind remarks that have been made about me. I remarked that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, did not help me very much when he was silent. However, I appreciate the fact that he was not silent this evening, even though he has now vanished.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, was wholly right to ask me to pass on noble Lords' thanks to the officials involved with the Bill. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, also mentioned that. I shall take the greatest pleasure in doing so. I have admired enormously the way in which the officials grasped the most complicated problems, very often at short notice, and produced answers. That in itself was a Herculean effort, but for them to try to ensure that a Minister understood those points was an even greater effort. They did that with an astonishing skill.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to a meeting between myself, the noble Baroness and some other noble Lords. I shall not comment upon her speech this evening other than to say that the points she made will be taken note of. It is now up to another place to decide what to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that he had made a few sour remarks and hoped that I did not mind them. I did not think they were sour remarks at all. The noble Lord was merely explaining his reservations. We know that he has had reservations throughout the Bill. This is an enormous Bill and it covers a huge and complicated area. It is impossible to satisfy everyone. Strong and opposing views are held on the Bill. I bear no grudge to the noble Lord for his views. The important thing is that when the Bill becomes an Act, it will be up to the ITC and the Radio Authority to make it work. I know that your Lordships will wish those bodies well in their efforts.
It is the viewers who will benefit from what those bodies portray. It is also up to the viewers to keep up the standards which Parliament and the people expect. Those standards cannot always be affected or created by written words or written Acts. We wish the ITC

1227
and the Radio Authority well. I thank noble Lords for the way in which they have collectively and constructively helped to improve the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government Boundaries Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
7.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this short order to be made under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 will enable a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to be appointed before the end of the year. It will also introduce a degree of flexibility into the arrangements for appointing future commissioners.
Your Lordships will wish to know that under the present provisions of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, as amended, a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner would not normally be appointed until 1992, 10 years after the appointment of the previous commissioner. The task of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner is to review the number, boundaries and names of the districts and the wards into which each district is divided and submit a report within such period as directed.
Since the previous report of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner in 1984, there have been significant population movements in Northern Ireland. In the past 10 years the number of households in the Province has increased by some 100,000 and further evidence of population movements is to be found in the recent annual report of the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland laid before your Lordships' House earlier this year. The report shows that, whereas the electorate in Belfast continues to reduce, all other districts have increased in size since the 1982 electoral register was compiled. That formed the basis of the previous review. This increase is particularly noticeable in districts adjacent to Belfast. In addition, since the previous review took place, the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 has extended the local government franchise to include some 11,000 persons eligible to vote at parliamentary and European parliamentary but not, until last year, local elections.
The order will enable the commissioner to begin work in earnest by January 1991 with a public announcement that he has commenced his task. He will invite proposals from councils, political parties, associations, organisations and individual members of the public. Consultation with all those involved in local government is an extremely important part of the
1228
review. There will be opportunities for all interested groups and individuals to comment at both the provisional and revised recommendation stages, and public hearings are normally held at the various stages to allow individuals the opportunity to expand on any written submissions.
By bringing forward the appointment of the commissioner, it should be possible for a review of local government boundaries to be completed and a report prepared by 1992. It is intended that the commissioner's report, when available, will be considered urgently. If the report recommends any alteration in the number, boundaries or names of any districts or wards, those recommendations will be laid before Parliament together with a draft order to give effect, with or without modifications, to those recommendations.
The local government wards provide the building blocks for parliamentary constituencies. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission has informed my right honourable friend that it is keen to proceed with the next periodical review of constituency boundaries. In the same way that population movements have had an effect on the size of electorates of district council areas, they have also affected the parliamentary constituencies. The commission has, however, come to the conclusion that a periodical review which preceded that of local government boundaries would be quite inappropriate. By bringing forward the appointment of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, the Boundary Commission will be in a position to begin its next review earlier than might otherwise be the case. The order therefore meets the views which have been expressed by the commission and will have the effect of synchronising the two reviews. It should avoid the present position of there being a number of wards split between parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. This resulted from the last local government boundaries review following, rather than preceding, the last review by the Boundary Commission. This somewhat confusing situation has been criticised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights as being unnecessary and irrational, and the Government agree. Attention was also drawn to the problem by the Home Affairs Committee of another place in its second report for 1986–87, and the present order makes the necessary correction.
In order to prevent any recurrence of that kind it is also intended to introduce a degree of flexibility in the arrangements for appointing future Local Government Boundaries Commissioners. The order provides that future appointments shall be made at 10 to 15-year intervals from the date of submission of the final report of the last review rather than the 10-year intervals now laid down in Section 50(1) of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, as amended. This change brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister of drawing the attention of the House to the two effects of this very brief but important order. As the law now stands the review would be undertaken in 1992 and then every 10 years thereafter. As a result of the order the commissioner will be appointed within 10 weeks instead of having to wait 62 weeks.
I believe that the Minister has fully explained and justified the order. Therefore, on behalf of these Benches, I am pleased to approve the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I should like to thank him for his comment that this is a brief but effective order. I believe that the review of local government boundaries is independent and impartial. It is proposed in the interests of sound, effective and convenient local government in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that sentiment.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this stage. I was expecting other members of the old boys' club to speak.
I have one query on the order before the House this evening. My noble friend referred to Section 50(1) of the 1972 Act, which is amended. However, he will note that in a footnote to the order there is a reference to the Local Government (Postponement of Elections and Reorganisation) (Northern Ireland) Order. Why were they postponed? I hope that there will be no carry over from that order to the legislation which my
1230
noble friend has introduced. If there is any problem in that area perhaps my noble friend could write to me. Both in your Lordships' House and in another place the use of footnotes in connection with legislation relating to Northern Ireland has some dangers. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. If my noble friend cannot advise me tonight perhaps he can do so in due course.
I agree with my noble friend that Northern Ireland should remain in step with Great Britain and that all the Westminster constituencies should be examined at the same time. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is within the rules of your Lordships' House for me to respond to my noble friend. I do not know the answer for certain, but my guess is that the order to which he referred was almost certainly needed as a result of the Macrory reforms and the subsequent reorganisation of local government in the early 1970s. If I am wrong I shall certainly write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  ARCHBISHOPS' COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
  ARCHBISHOPS' COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
  LONDON EAST-WEST CROSSRAIL
  LONDON EAST-WEST CROSSRAIL
  NUCLEAR EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY PLANS
  NUCLEAR EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY PLANS
  BRITISH FORCES IN SAUDI ARABIA
  BRITISH FORCES IN SAUDI ARABIA
  HARRIER GR5 AIRCRAFT
  HARRIER GR5 AIRCRAFT
  BRIXMIS
  BRIXMIS
  PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS
  PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS
  COUNCIL HOUSE SALES: ACCUMULATED RECEIPTS
  COUNCIL HOUSE SALES: ACCUMULATED RECEIPTS
  TRADE WITH IRAQ: DTI ADVICE TO EXPORTERS
  TRADE WITH IRAQ: DTI ADVICE TO EXPORTERS
  FOREIGN TRADE STATISTICS 1987–89
  FOREIGN TRADE STATISTICS 1987–89
  YOUTH TRAINING ALLOWANCES
  YOUTH TRAINING ALLOWANCES