Sitting of 29 October 1990

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered.
    Ordered,
    That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered.
    Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified—
    Ordered,
    That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Adelphi Estate 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 shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

    PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (SUSPENSION)
    Ordered,
    That so much of the Lords Messages [17th October, 23rd October, 24th October and 25 October] as relates to the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords], the Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [Lords], the British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [Lords], the Llanelli Borough Council (Barry Port Harbour) Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords], the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [Lords], the Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords], the North Yorkshire County Council Bill [Lords], and the Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords] be now considered
    Resolved,
    That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways end Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Mid Glamorgan Health Services
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Mid Glamorgan area health authority to discuss health services provision in Mid Glamorgan.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met health authority chairmen on 10 July and more recently at a briefing seminar in Cardiff on 19 October. He intends to meet them again early in the new year.
    Mr. Powell: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. During the discussions, was the development of phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend discussed? In 1983, the Under-Secretary's predecessor promised me that phase 2 would be developed immediately on completion of phase 1. I do not want, as in the summit in Europe last weekend, a "No, no, no," from the Minister. I want a positive reply, because 250,000 of my constituents have been waiting more than seven years and trying to make do with half a hospital. Is not it about time that the Government fulfilled some of the promises made by Ministers?
    Mr. Grist: I appreciate the strength of feeling of the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents on the issue. I also note how pleased they are with their new hospital. The issue of phase 2 is one for the hon. Gentleman's health authority, which has decided not to put it in its current 10-year programme.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that rumours are circulating in south Wales that the guidelines issued by the various health authorities dictate that if patients over the age of 70 suffer heart attacks, they should receive less priority treatment than those who suffer similar problems under the age of 70?
    Mr. Grist: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should listen to such rumours.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Under-Secretary reconsider his reply on phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital? While the health authority has to make decisions on its capital spending programme, the truth is that, despite the extra money being put into the health service in Wales, it has not kept pace with the inflation rate. As a result, the hospital, which was promised in 1983, has not yet been completed. The consultants at the hospital feel that they have been betrayed by the Welsh Office. Would not it be a sign of real faith in the health service for the Government to declare that the extra funding will be provided so that the health authority can go ahead with the hospital?
    Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the extra funding, which has meant that real funding—after inflation—in the health service in Wales has risen by about 50 per cent. under the Government. I should have thought that the consultants
    710
    and the others whom he mentioned would also be pleased with the treatment centre in the old hospital in Bridgend, and the amount that was spent on that.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware that the waiting list in Mid Glamorgan has increased this year by 32 per cent., and that since 1979, Mid Glamorgan has lost 679 hospital beds, which must be lunacy? Does he acknowledge the concern felt by the Royal College of Nursing in Wales about underfunding and waiting lists, when all that nurses want is to be able to deliver their professional nursing care to more and more people? I warn the Minister that people in Wales are losing patience with his health service policies, which will lose the Minister his seat and his Government their power.
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman must have a very cool mind, when one considers that under the previous Labour Government, there was only a 6 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated compared with 34 per cent. under the present Government—and that under Labour, out-patient treatment fell by 3 per cent. As to Mid Glamorgan's waiting list, in the 12 months to 31 March it reduced its urgent in-patient waiting list by 14 per cent.—the number of patients urgently awaiting treatment for one month or more—and its out-patient waiting list by 6·5 per cent., or 1,122. Mid Glamorgan also reduced the number of out-patients waiting three months or more.

    Carers
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of carers in Wales to discuss matters of interest to carers.
    Mr. Grist: I meet and have discussions with carers and their representatives throughout Wales frequently in the course of my ministerial duties—most recently last Friday, at the launch of the upper Afan valley elderly people's project.
    Mr. Michael: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by carers at the undermining of the principles of care in the community? Does he accept that they now receive inadequate support, and will he admit that his strategy for community care is to depend on carers without providing for them? Does he agree that it is inadequate to offer the answers that he has given about care in the community, and that there can be no confidence in a system whose finances are hidden within the revenue support system? There is now real fear of neglect in the community among carers and those for whom they care.
    Mr. Grist: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has repeated the parrot cry that he does not trust local councils with the extra money that they are receiving through revenue support grant to provide community care. The hon. Gentleman should trust to the extra flexibility that local councils have to provide community care in the best way possible. The Government are absolutely committed to their community care proposals.
    Mr. Skinner: Who is providing the resources?
    Mr. Grist: Resources are already being provided. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will also be aware of the increased support announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

    Livestock
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current state of the Welsh livestock industry.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I have had a number of discussions recently with the farming unions, and the Government have taken a number of positive steps to help the Welsh livestock sector.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm the figures used by the Farmers Union of Wales, which show that farming incomes in the hill areas have reduced by 37 per cent. in comparison with 1986 levels? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the Prime Minister has her way and brings about a further 30 per cent. cut in farm support, it will have a catastrophic effect on the employment, environment and culture of rural Wales? Will the Minister take it upon himself personally to intervene, to see that alternative measures are put in place to offset the worst effects on those who will be hardest hit?
    Mr. Hunt: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's own party supported the 30 per cent. reduction in farm support. If there has been a change in policy, the hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to make that clear. It is agreed that there should be such a cut, and discussions are continuing on how it should be implemented, on 1986 levels. As to the Welsh farming industry, I have constantly made it clear that a healthy agricultural sector is vital to the economic, environmental and social future of Wales. We have taken several steps, including advance payments on the sheep annual premium, the stickler cow premium, and beef intervention—the cost of which last week was running at about £6 million. The Government are doing what they can to assist in a very difficult situation.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware, from his meetings with Pembrokeshire farmers, of the serious concern that is felt in the farming industry at present. Can he give the House an assurance that if the GATT negotiations are successful and there are phased reductions in subsidies during the next few year, they will be properly managed and incremental, and that alternative means of support will be given to farmers, especially in environmental improvement?
    Mr. Hunt: Of course, I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend said. He is right to highlight the serious situation that would arise for Welsh agriculture if we were to enter a trade war and thus see many of our better export markets destroyed. That would be a catastrophe for Welsh farmers. Obviously, I am keeping closely in touch with those negotiations, which I hope will be successfully concluded. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that any changes must be gradual and incremental.
    Mr. Livsey: What representations did the Secretary of State make to Brussels, prior to the announcement at the weekend of a cut so that only one third of farmers in the less-favoured areas in Wales will be included? Indeed, two thirds of those recommended by the Welsh Office were excluded. Could he tell us what representations he made to avoid that?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had worked out what we felt to be a reasonable
    712
    bid to the European Community. I have yet to receive formal notification of its decision, but I believe that the bid was realistic and achievable, and I hope that it will be successful. I urge the hon. Gentleman—unless the press report is incorrect—not to contact the French, in particular, to urge support for their attitude to agriculture, because I do not think that that is going down very well in Wales.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—that the livestock sector in Wales, in Scotland and in upland parts—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the livestock sector in Wales, Scotland and other upland parts of the United Kingdom is an essential part of our strategic planning so that we can supply food and resources to meet these islands' requirements? Does he further agree that the problems lie within Europe, where people cannot reach a decision on matters that are fundamentally important?
    Mr. Hunt: I am glad that we get that level of support from my hon. Friend, who represents a Scottish constituency. It is vital that everybody throughout the Community realises how important a healthy agricultural livestock sector is for the future of Wales and Scotland.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the small family farm is struggling desperately, that financial disaster stares it in the face, and that he cannot expect our people to suffer in silence when they are deeply in debt and cut to the bone? Is not it the case that the right hon. Gentleman has no coherent policy whatever? We want the right hon. Gentleman to use the full weight of his office. We are getting tired of a cosmetic and over-sanguine approach. There is a crisis and he must act now.
    Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this subject, but I did not detect that he was putting forward an alternative policy. When he examines the issues, he will see that the important factor to bear in mind about Welsh agriculture is that we must continue to support family farms in Wales. We have very efficient farmers, and that is why we have so much to lose from a trade war. I was sad that he made no expression of his opinion on that important aspect.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the latest figures are for inward investment to Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the inward investment figures continue to be good, and that in 1989–90 about 120 inward investment projects were secured—a substantial increase over the previous year—safeguarding about 6,000 jobs and creating about 6,500 new jobs.
    Mr. Greenway: Those are excellent figures and they clearly demonstrate that the Government's policy to rejuvenate the Welsh economy is making excel lent progress, but I fear that my right hon. Friend is telling the

    713
    House only part of the story. Can he confirm that that trend is continuing in the current year and prove that the voices of gloom and doom have got it wrong?
    Mr. Hunt: I totally oppose the voices of gloom and doom in Wales. It has a great success story and we are proud of it. During the first six months of 1990 Wales attracted 61 inward investment projects, compared with 50 during the same period last year. All of Wales has benefited from 6,500 new and safeguarded jobs, compared with 5,944 last year. I praise all the component partners in that marvellous success story.
    Mr. John P. Smith: As by far the largest concentration of investment has come to my constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan—although I refuse to take all the credit for that—what does the Secretary of State propose for training initiatives to stop the poaching of highly skilled labour in local labour markets?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the praise—I detected it between the lines—that he bestowed on the Government for attracting such major inward investment to his constituency and for working closely with all the component parts of the partnership that we are proud to have in Wales. He is correct to highlight the importance of training, which is why we set so much store on the new training and enterprise councils. It is important to have a local training strategy that is shared locally, and especially one that is private sector led. That will be the success story of the TECs in Wales.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has had such good fortune. May I point out to the Secretary of State that, under his predecessor, Cynon Valley had the highest male unemployment rate in Wales; that under his predecessor's predecessor it also had the highest male unemployment rate; and it is still rising? What plans does the right hon. Gentleman have to reverse that trend and to attract inward investment into parts of Wales, such as Cynon Valley, which have suffered inordinately under the Government's policies?
    Mr. Hunt: Now that I have had the opportunity to visit all the 19 valleys—I know that there are some subsidiary valleys that might object to that designation—I am carefully considering how best to take forward the programme for the valleys. I am aware of the problems in Cynon Valley. I have visited it and met representatives of local authorities. As I have acknowledged on many occasions, there are still pockets of poverty that are providing difficult to eradicate and areas with high unemployment rates that must be brought down—and I know that, in that, I share the hon. Lady's resolve.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that Members on the Plaid Cymru Benches do not echo the voices of gloom and doom about the prospects in Wales? However, to ensure that all of Wales benefits from inward investment and also to ensure that it is not confined only to the M4 corridor in the south and the A55 in the north, is not there a need to improve our north-south roads? Will he give an undertaking to review our roads programme with that in mind?
    Mr. Hunt: Certainly. We are determined to try to do our best to improve all the infrastructure in Wales. However, I wish to take issue with the hon. Gentleman's
    714
    second point. It is difficult to say to inward investors that we are interested in them only if they come to a particular part of Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Provided that he joins us, which he does, in monitoring and propounding the success of the whole of Wales, there will be opportunities for all of Wales to share in the prosperity of inward investment.

    Salmonella
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the report on the salmonella outbreak in Flint, Clwyd.
    Mr. Grist: The report was published on 11 September. It made a number of recommendations on the handling of food poisoning outbreaks. These were incorporated in a Welsh Office circular sent to all district councils and health authorities, also on 11 September.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main lesson to be learnt from the salmonella outbreak in Flint is the need for one person to be put in overall charge of the handling of such an outbreak? Why has he confirmed the current confusing position, under which the medically qualified officer is employed by the health authority, but responsible to the district council chief executive?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend makes a slight error. Our best advice was that the proper officer should be the district health authority's consultant in communicable diseases control. The environmental health officer could be named as the proper officer, but our best advice is that a medically qualified person should be the proper officer.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he has undertaken of his Department's policies in respect to waiting lists in Wales; and what fresh initiatives he intends to take.
    Mr. Grist: Since the launch of the waiting list initiative in 1986, over £5 million has been allocated separately to tackle problematic lists and, together with the further £1 million support for the three all-Wales treatment centres, that has resulted in the treatment of an extra 23,000 out-patients and 12,000 in-patients.
    I am at present considering how to take forward those initiatives in the context of the new contracting process that will be introduced from 1 April 1991 when all health authorities will need to pay particular attention to waiting lists in the contracts that they negotiate with their providers.
    Mr. Flynn: What is the Minister's response to the news that 3,000 additional hospital beds will close before next April to comply with the Government's finance first and patients last policies? Some of the beds are in Wales. Most of them, however, are in London, but they have been used over the years by Welsh patients as an escape route from the disgracefully high waiting lists in Wales. Does it mean that this winter will be the worst ever for waiting and suffering in Wales? Does the Minister have no response except to accelerate the conveyor belt surgery into overdrive?
    Mr. Grist: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to day case treatment as conveyor belt surgery.

    715
    I hope not. Last year I had a hernia operation and was in hospital for two nights. There is no reason why many cases could not be treated in a day. I should have thought that that was good medical practice. The hon. Gentleman must also know that the number of beds does not denote the number of patients treated. That has increased by 34 per cent. in Wales under this Government, and it has little to do with the number of beds provided.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the Minister concerned about the state of hospital facilities in Gwent? For example, employees and constituents in Caldicot complain about the cut in facilities at Mount Pleasant hospital in Chepstow. There is also considerable criticism of the cuts in facilities on Ingram ward at St. Woolos hospital in Newport. What is the Minister doing about that, particularly as the local authority members of Gwent area health authority have been discarded in favour of local business men? Does not he agree that the local authority representatives would have been more sensitive to what is happening?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on at least part of the answer: that this is a matter for the district health authority. I believe, however, that the new district health authority membership is much more suited to the new system for running the national health service. Decisions on value for money and outcomes, not necessarily local parochial pressures, will be the test of a good national health service.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists are in part a reflection of the success of the NHS? Patients are now queuing up for treatments that previously were not available. My hon. Friend has already said that there has been an increase in the number of patients treated, which is a far better sign of what is happening. Could not that number be further improved if only the best practice in treating day patients were applied universally?
    Mr. Grist: Absolutely. That is the Audit Commission's view, too. It is also the opinion of most people in the medical profession. My hon. Friend is right about the increase in the number of treatments. That is why, for instance, Rhydlafar specialises in hip replacements, an operation which, not so many years ago, was looked on as being at the frontiers of medical science.

    "Our Common Inheritance"
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with which organisations he has been in consultation, and what communications have been received by his Department following the publication of the White Paper "Our Common Inheritance".
    Mr. David Hunt: Since the publication of the White Paper I have been in consultation with 22 separate organisations and my Department has received 13 communications. I am placing a list of those in the Library of the House.
    Dr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept, following his consultation, that it is important for the Department to have a clear environmental strategy for Wales so that we can make our contribution to maintaining the environmental balance throughout the
    716
    whole of the Principality? In particular, does not he realise how important it is to relate that to the strategic planning guidelines that his Department is developing, which would provide him with an opportunity to introduce the broader environmental strategy that Wales needs?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that on the day of the publication of the White Paper in Wales I made it clear that I propose to ask for the issue of green belts to be considered by all those concerned. If necessary, I shall expound and expand on it at a special conference that I am calling of all those concerned. It is very much at the forefront of my mind. We certainly intend to set a good example in Wales, and we are well on the way to doing just that.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a major omission in the White Paper about the problems of toxic waste in Wales? Does he accept, for instance, that the importation of toxic waste is particularly bad in the Principality, which has become the dumping ground for some of the world's deadliest poisons? Does he agree that the monitoring and licensing of toxic waste sites is a problem, and, in the light of that, is he prepared to comment on the incident yesterday in the Rhymney valley, where there was a serious explosion of cans and drums of chemical waste?
    Mr. Hunt: I have been contacted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and other hon. Members about the explosion. I am awaiting a full report. I understand that the health and safety inspectorate is investigating and that the local authority is carefully considering the position. Toxic waste generally is obviously an important matter, and it is dealt with fully in the White Paper.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss the future development of the board's activities.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am meeting the board of the Welsh Development Agency on 17 December.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the next chief executive of the agency should be someone with solid experience in manufacturing industry, like the last one? Is he aware that there is considerable fear that the agency is turning itself into a property development agency, especially with the appointment of Mr. Malpas, who I believe is the property development director of Tesco? Every pithead bath now a Tesco? If we have a chief executive with the qualifications that I have suggested, that will go some way to allaying those fears.
    Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman should choose his words with greater care. The vast majority of people in Wales are proud of the success of the Welsh Development Agency. I was sad that David Waterstone decided to move on. It is paramount to have the best possible candidate as chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency. When I consider all the areas and activities of the WDA, I am constantly impressed by how it leads the field in so many different ways.
    Mr. Raffan: What progress has been made by the Welsh Development Agency in helping Delyn borough council find a new tenant for the Laura Ashley factory at Leeswood in my constituency, and what grants, if any, will be available to a potential tenant?
    Mr. Hunt: Following my hon. Friend's approach to the Welsh Office, I assured myself just before entering the Chamber that everyone was working as hard as possible to find an alternative tenant. Obviously, a range of financial assistance is available, which is an important part of any equation. As yet, I am unable to report any progress.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the future success of the Welsh Development Agency is partly dependent on there being a separate, independent and complementary body for rural Wales? Will he give an absolute undertaking that the Development Board for Rural Wales will continue, and will he consider extending its remit, as its chairman wishes, to include tourism and certain aspects of agriculture?
    Mr. Hunt: I regard the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales as absolutely vital. It forms an important part of my future strategy, and that of my ministerial colleagues, for Wales. It is important that all the different bodies work closely together. The DBRW needs to work closely with the Welsh tourist board. I know that Prys Edwards and Glyn Davies meet regularly to ensure that all the strategies are working together for the promotion of rural Wales.

    Rail Service, North Wales
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on proposed changes to the rail service for north Wales next October.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am aware of some marginal changes to services from May 1991. I understand that there may be further changes to north Wales services from next October, if replacement rolling stock for inter-city services becomes available. The north Wales coast line may again be closed on Saturday night for track maintenance purposes.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that British Rail proposes, after the class 47 locos are retired, to service the north Wales main line either by using sprinter units, ensuring that everyone has to change at Crewe, or by introducing HSTs, not on a service direct to Euston, but via Leicester and into St. Pancras, thus making the journey at least an hour longer for anyone travelling from, say, Llandudno junction to Euston? Does the Minister agree that either of those solutions is unacceptable to the people of north Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that British Rail hopes to get its class 158 high-speed diesels to replace some existing stock. I understand that the option of getting inter-city 125s to run through St. Pancras is being considered and that there are certain advantages to that proposal. British Rail believes that there is a good potential market for north Wales and Irish travellers in the east midlands. There will be the Luton connection with the Thameslink services and the south coast. The proximity of
    718
    St. Pancras to King's Cross obviously enhances the prospect of joining up with the new terminal at King's Cross which will lead directly to the channel tunnel.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is there any change in the balance of argument for and against electrification of the north Wales rail link to Ireland, given the evident inexorability of speeding up progress towards a single European market in 1992 and also—just to be safe—of European monetary union by 1994 or thereabouts?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for British Rail to bring forward any proposal to electrify the line. The Government are prepared to approve investment proposals by British Rail, provided they are worth while. The case for electrification of the north Wales line has not yet been made.

    Financial Services Initiative
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made on the financial services initiative; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am very happy to report that the financial services initiative is showing excellent progress, with employment up by 20 per cent. over the past three years. We look forward to further progress, particularly now that the area has been extended to cover mid-Glamorgan and the Swansea bay area.
    Mr. Jones: I am glad to hear that answer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the financial services initiative represents money well spent. Can he give the House an estimate of how many new jobs it has achieved and the total investment brought about by the initiative?
    Mr. Hunt: Some 70,000 people are now employed in financial services. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, just before I came into the Chamber, I heard the news that Europe's leading legal expenses insurance group, German-owned DAS, is to locate a new United Kingdom claims handling unit at Bedwas, near Newport. That is marvellous news. I am delighted that such an internationally prestigious company as DAS has decided to come to Wales. It confirms that Wales is becoming the favoured location for financial services.

    Hopsital Closures, South Glamorgan
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors he expects to take into account in deciding whether or not to approve the six hospital closures proposed by the South Glamorgan health authority.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend will be principally concerned with the impact upon patients and staff, but will also have regard more generally to all the representations made to him.
    Mr. Morgan: How does the Minister intend to resolve the extraordinary position whereby South Glamorgan based its hospital closure proposals on the idea that it could close two hospitals, sell the land and build a new hospital with the receipts? Since then, the Welsh Office has changed the goalposts, sacked the referee and changed the shape of the ball as well. It no longer allows local health authorities to keep capital receipts for future hospital

    719
    expansion. How does the Minister intend to get out of this conundrum? Will he now tell South Glamorgan health authority what to do with its hospital closure proposals?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman goes a little far and appears to misunderstand the right of health authorities to retain their funds from capital receipts. He may be muddling this matter with the proposed changes under the new system, which will come into operation, in a phased way, after April 1991.

    Telephone Service
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed the telephone service in Wales with British Telecom.
    Mr. David Hunt: I last met the general manager of British Telecom for Wales and the marches on Friday 19 October.
    Mr. Coleman: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to seek a further meeting with British Telecom and to raise with the general manager the abuse of the telephone service by pornographic so-called chatlines? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable anxiety and distress that that is causing—particularly to families that are facing large telephone bills because of the use of these services, usually by young people? Will he take this matter up with British Telecom and get the practice stopped?
    Mr. Hunt: Although this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and for the director general, I should like to express my serious concern about the abuse of the service. I very much hope that the code of practice will put an end to this appalling situation.

  THE ARTS

    Regional Opera
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the funding of regional opera.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. David Mellor): I have received a substantial number of representations on this matter, including a most persuasive letter from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Greenway: May I welcome my right hon., learned and—now it is official—cultured Friend to the Dispatch Box for the first time as Minister for the Arts and wish him every success? As he knows, there is grave concern about the funding and financial position of Opera North, which receives one third less from the Arts Council than the Welsh National Opera and a quarter less than the Scottish Opera, although all three companies have almost identical programme commitments and have achieved a high standard of performance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the principle that equality of performance and programme should be matched by equality of funding?
    Mr. Mellor: I thank my hon. Friend for his typically kind remarks. I am glad to be at the Dispatch Box in this capacity, but, like many hon. Members, I owe a great deal
    720
    to the distinguished stewardship of the post by my predecessor, and I shall have a lot to live up to in following in his footsteps.
    Opera North certainly has a commendable record of success. One of the major achievements in opera over the past 10 years has been the way in which Opera North has established itself and I warmly congratulate the company on playing to 87 per cent. capacity audiences at its Leeds base. The detail of funding is a matter for the Arts Council, but I am certainly familiar with the figures that my hon. Friend has cited and I know that he will be putting them to the Arts Council with vigour.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the thanks that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed to his predecessor and I hope that he will do equally well for the arts. In considering national orchestras and opera houses that are located outside London, will he take into account the serious problems of underfunding that they will face with the present level of inflation?
    Mr. Mellor: I came to this job having been vice-chairman of the trustees of a major orchestra, so I am certainly well aware of the problems that arts organisations face. But never before have arts organisations enjoyed such buoyant revenues at the box office or such a good spread of funding, with such a substantial contribution coming from the private sector in addition to the continuing contribution that the Government are committed to making and the contributions from local authorities. I repeat that there is a better spread of funding than ever before, but I do not underestimate the problems that inflation is causing and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am discussing them seriously with representatives of those organisations and with the Arts Council.
    Dr. Blackburn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the greatest blessings that he has inherited from his predecessor is the long-term funding of the arts, which allows provincial opera and theatre to plan ahead? My right hon. and learned Friend would be well advised to continue that and foster it for the funding of the arts which is so important.
    Mr. Mellor: Three-year funding is an important development, because it allows people to know where they stand. It is also dependent on estimates of future changes which sometimes require fine tuning. I hope that we may see evidence of fine tuning shortly.

    Theatres
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of deficits in national and regional theatres in England and Wales.
    Mr. Mellor: I understand that building-based drama companies funded by the Arts Council and the Welsh Arts Council have projected accumulated deficits at the end of the current financial year of £6·57 million. There are wide variations in the performance of individual companies, both national and regional, within this estimate.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister could have been more honest. For example, he could have been specific and said that the Royal Shakespeare Company has a deficit of £3 million and has just turned off the lights at the Barbican for the

    721
    winter. What kind of Government can allow that to happen to one of our most prestigious companies which has an international reputation?
    Mr. Mellor: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to bandy about questions of honesty. If he had asked a question designed to elicit that answer, he would have got it. Unfortunately, he asked a different question and he received the answer to it. He might like to bear it in mind that had we merely index linked the contribution to the Arts Council that was current when the last Government were in office, we would have been paying it £134 million, instead of which this year we are paying it £175 million, a significant proportion of which goes to the Royal Shakespeare Company. I am of course aware of the particular difficulties facing the RSC and of the particular courage and skill with which it is trying to overcome them. I regularly discuss those matters with Mr. Geoffrey Cass and the Arts Council.
    Mr. Jessel: Should not we build on our national strengths? As the Royal National theatre is a tremendous centre of excellence and a great national asset which draws hundreds of thousands of visitors to our shores annually, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider most carefully what can be done to uphold its remarkably high standards?
    Mr. Mellor: A great deal is being done to uphold its remarkable standards in the sense that the grant in aid for the Royal National theatre has increased above the rate of inflation and the theatre is one of those that are not significantly in deficit at the moment. I am also delighted that it has been possible for funds to be found from a variety of sources to allow the Royal National theatre to undertake one of the longest overseas tours ever made by a British theatrical company. Having been in Japan in the immediate aftermath of its visit, I know how impressed the Japanese were with its performances.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister acknowledge that the predicament of the theatre, with 30 of the 32 clients of the Arts Council in serious deficit, is critical? The theatre is one of Britain's great successes for which the Government could claim some credit, but not if they do not recognise the need to inject a considerable amount of money and not stand behind the shield of the Arts Council. Does the Minister accept that, unless the Government act, the closure of the RSC's London venues will be inevitable, as Mr. Hands has said, and that would be a national shame and disaster?
    Mr. Mellor: As I have already said, substantial improvements in funds have been made available to the Arts Council and it has then made them available to a range of clients including many of the theatres that have been mentioned. I am also aware of the problems of deficits which I am discussing with various concerned parties. Obviously, a number of points about financial difficulties form part of the representations that I have made to the Treasury recently.
    Sir Antony Buck: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment, will he grasp an early opportunity to get around the provinces and visit some of the regional theatres where he will see the
    722
    excellence of the works that are produced, particularly in the Mercury theatre in Colchester, and hear of their funding problems?
    Mr. Mellor: I am extremely keen to travel outside London, and, now that I have finished my labours on the Broadcasting Bill it will be easier for me to do so. Tomorrow, indeed, I have a full day in the west midlands, which will culminate in the inauguration of the Birmingham Royal Ballet at one of the leading theatres in Birmingham. I expect to spend at least one day a week out of London, doing exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has advised.
    Mr. Fisher: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment, and welcome him to his new responsibilities. The House knows that he has a genuine and deep love of classical music: indeed, he has the reputation of having the largest collection of compact discs in the whole of Putney. However, he must know that he will be judged not on the size of his CD collection, but on his ability to obtain money for the arts.
    As several hon. Members have already said, the arts are facing a financial crisis. He knows that this week the Royal Shakespeare Company goes dark in London, and that the Theatre in Crisis campaign, launched today, identifies 30 of the 32 English repertory theatres as being in deficit. When we add the national theatres, the real deficit figure for the performing arts is £16 million.
    Will the Minister tell the House today whether he believes—as we do in the Labour party—that the arts should receive an increase this year above the rate of inflation? On that will depend whether his time at the Dispatch Box is happy or unhappy. One thing is certain: it will be a short time before the next general election and a Labour Government who do value the arts.
    Mr. Mellor rose——
    Mr. Tony Banks: Sell your CD collection.
    Mr. Mellor: Or perhaps my season ticket to Stamford Bridge.
    Mr. Banks: No, no.
    Mr. Mellor: Before we get down to the nasty business, let me say politely to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that I wish him a very happy birthday. May he pass many happy birthdays sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
    I have already made it clear that the Government have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the level of state funding. I have made to the Treasury the case for increases, with what effect will soon be revealed. It is also the case that a successful theatre, like any successful arts organisation, must look to others for assistance and must run its affairs properly. State funding is only one part of that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central would speak from the Dispatch Box with much more credibility on these points if he took the matter up with some of the Labour councils which, for purely political reasons, are cutting their grants to the arts. For instance, how can he justify the position at the Lyric theatre in Hammersmith, where £100,000 of grant is to be lopped off by a council which has increased its staff by 1,000 in the past four years and does not propose to make any of them redundant, preferring to sacrifice the arts instead?

  CIVIL SERVICE

    European Community
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps his Department is taking to assist and encourage more Britons to take up positions within the institutions of the European Community.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. David Mellor): Last month I launched the European fast-stream, a new recruitment and training scheme, to help British candidates prepare for the Community competitions. A new unit has been set up in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate our efforts to improve British representation in the European Community institutions, in conjunction with the European Commission, which has recognised that it shares the responsibility for tackling the problem.
    Mr. Field: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his new position as Minister for the civil service, and express the hope that—as he is an avid supporter of Chelsea football club—under his direction the civil service will behave considerably better than the Chelsea fans? Can he confirm that those Whitehall warriors who take part in the new European fast-stream scheme will be able to return to a career in the home civil service should they find the task of shooting EMUs not to their liking—or, indeed, the mission of teaching civility to Europe's most uncivil servant, Mr. Jacques Delors, an impossible one?
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad of my hon. Friend's commendation of our European fast-stream initiative, the aim of which is to allow people to start off as members of the British civil service so that they have certain guarantees of employment, which would otherwise be very difficult. I am delighted to say that of the 2,600 applicants for administrative appointments in the civil service, half have asked to be considered for the European fast-stream scheme and more than 500 have stated it as their first choice. I hope that, through the scheme, we shall make a large stride towards addressing the under-representation of Britain within institutions in the European Community.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister check with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that children in schools throughout the United Kingdom have the opportunity to study the appropriate number of European Community languages so that they are able to take up positions in Europe with the European Commission? It is an important question, because, as the Minister knows, the Government clearly have no influence in Europe any more, and the best that we can do now is to try to influence the European Commission through the civil servants who work in it.
    Mr. Mellor: Although the hon. Gentleman has changed seats, his tone seems very much the same—alas. There has been an improvement in the teaching of Community languages in schools. I am glad to be able to say that, because—the hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is an important point. It is a traditional British failing—I certainly share it and perhaps the hon. Gentleman does as well—that there is an inability to speak a foreign language fluently. One of the things that we are making available to people who apply for our European fast-stream course is
    724
    tuition in a foreign language. I hope that a number of them who get to the point of applying will already be expert as a result of what has happened at school and university.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage a larger number of secondments of quite senior civil service personnel to European Community institutions? In particular, will he ensure that a period of secondment is treated as a positive career asset upon possible return to the home civil service?
    Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that a period of secondment to the European Community has been a great asset to my hon. Friend. Certainly we are alive to all the various ways of trying to ensure that our present under-representation ceases.

    Agencies
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about progress and future plans on the creation of agencies.
    Mr. Mellor: On Wednesday we intend to publish t he Government's response to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's recent supportive report on next steps. On the same day we will also be publishing the first annual review of next steps.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get the best out of the useful programme of reform, there should be a unit in the Minister's own Department to oversee the effectiveness of the way in which the programme is being carried on and that Select Committees of this House must exercise their responsibility to scrutinise committees? Will he see that the first step is taken? Does he agree that it would be difficult to take the second step while we have no Scottish Select Committee and no Select Committee overseeing the work of legal Departments?
    Mr. Mellor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee makes clear, there is ample scope for a constructive analysis of what is happening. Indeed, there is a great deal of useful material in the report to which we can respond on Wednesday.
    On scrutiny within my own Department, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the key elements of the next steps strategy—indeed, it is a fundamental base of it—is setting the agencies a set of tasks and rigorously monitoring whether those tasks have been achieved. Indeed, the performance-related pay of senior staff depends on it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of monitoring. It is of the essence that we not merely change certain of the frameworks of work activity but actually improve performance.
    Mr. Hanley: Is not the next steps programme proving popular to the civil servants who work in it and also delivering better service to customers?
    Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

    Conditions of Service
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Civil Service trade unions about conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: From time to time I receive representations from the civil service trade unions on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister meets trade union representatives, will he tell them that he looks forward to the day when he will be able to negotiate civil servants' pay in a mark-dominated European currency?
    Mr. Mellor: That will not be part of my presentation.
    Mr. Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that not very long ago an announcement was made in the House that the Ministry of Defence would transfer many of its jobs to the north-east of England and to Teesside. However, it was announced in the north-east last week that that project may well be knocked on the head as a result of representations that have been made by the trade unions of the civil servants who do not wish to move to the north-east of England. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity of saying that he will not allow such recalcitrance to stand in the way of a worthy project?
    Mr. Mellor: Like the whole House, I note what my hon. Friend has said and I shall certainly pass his remarks on to the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for the move. It is not one of my responsibilities. However, I am proud of the fact that under this Government four out of five civil
    726
    servants work outside Greater London. That is a significant and important development, to which we remain committed.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current number of special advisers in the civil service; and what was the figure 12 months ago.
    Mr. Mellor: Thirty-three currently; and 31 twelve months ago.
    Mr. Banks: That is a significant increase in the number of special advisers. May I congratulate the Minister on his job and express the hope that, despite having two additional jobs, he will still find the time to kick up a bit of dust down at Stamford Bridge? Does he agree that it is now time to consider the issue of the politicisation of the civil service, given that there have been a number of senior appointments, not only in the special adviser area, but elsewhere, that suggest that we should either become honest and decide that we are going to operate a spoils system or the Government should pull up the stumps and stop appointing people who, under the Prime Minister's dictum, are clearly "one of them"?
    Mr. Mellor: Thirty-three out of 500,000 is not a substantial proportion. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about other political appointments and should be interested to know chapter and verse on that. As far as I am aware, appointment to senior ranks of the civil service is entirely on merit. The hon. Gentleman might need further to particularise the charge that he has made before any of us can evaluate it fully.

Oral Questions
3.32 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about oral questions next Session.
The House has now agreed to the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to oral questions and to certain changes in the relevant Standing Orders. The main effects of this decision will be that, as from the first day of the next Session, Wednesday 7 November, oral questions will have to he tabled in person by hon. Members, and only a limited number of oral questions tabled will be printed. The Table Office has prepared a short note explaining the exact effects of the changes, and this will be available to hon. Members in the Table Office and in the Whips' Offices.
The Procedure Committee Report left one or two matters to my discretion, in particular the exact number of questions to be printed, and the timing of the shuffle. So far as numbers are concerned, I propose initially to authorise the numbers suggested in the report. Accordingly, for those Departments answering for the whole of Question Time, a maximum of 40 questions will be printed. For those Departments answering until 3.10 or 3.15, the maximum figure will be 30. For the Prime Minister the figure will be 10. Similarly, for the smaller Departments that answer for five or 10 minutes, the maximum will also be 10. As the Procedure Committee recommended, I will review those figures from time to time in the light of experience.
The present deadline for oral questions to be included in the daily "shuffle" will be extended from 4 pm to 5 pm. Again, I will review this when the new system has been in operation for a period.
I hope that any hon. Member who is still uncertain about how the new system will operate will not hesitate to consult the Table Office before I he House is prorogued, so that the new system can get off to a smooth start on 7 November.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that any points of order can arise from that—it is an Order of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you please explain, the question of—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Cryer first.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question that arises is about the number of Prime Minister's questions, which has been set at 10. What will happen if hon. Members pull out, as they frequently do, both in Prime Minister's Question Time and in other Question Times? Will the maximum number of questions take it into account that some hon. Members who are lucky enough to be in the first 10 may pull out before Prime Minister's Question Time starts? Will
728
questions then include the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th and so on, as for other Question Times, to replace the withdrawn questions?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to answer one point at a time. If hon. Members table questions themselves—that will be the procedure in the future—I should be surprised if a large number of them who are in the first 10 do pull out.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, on behalf of the Procedure Committee, thank you for acting within two working days of the recommendation of the House to bring in something that will, first, benefit the real Members of Parliament——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is a bit provocative. We are all real Members of Parliament!
Sir Peter Emery: Allow me to finish my question, Sir. It will benefit real Members who do not take part in the syndicalisation of questions, which is likely——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I hope that the hon. Member is coming to a conclusion.
Sir Peter Emery: It is likely to result in a saving to the Exchequer of something over £3 million. The House should be grateful.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned in your remarks that the limit on Prime Minister's questions would be 10. I suggest that you look at that afresh because you will find, on examination, that in the past two or three years, there have been at least three occasions when 10 was exceeded. There was one occasion when you personally called more than 14 because people were missing and so on. It is not a matter of hon. Members pulling the questions out if they are in the first 10. Towards the end of a Session when hon. Members are missing, as on two previous occasions, we could finish up running short.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not really want further points of order on this. It is not for me to second-guess what the Select Committee has decided and recommended. I have already said to the whole House that I shall keep t he matter under review. If I think that the maximum numbers need to be increased, that will certainly be done. I shall take one more point of order.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly said that you will monitor the new arrangements. May I ask in particular that you pay attention to the geographical distance of some constituencies from the House? The extension from 4 o'clock to 5 o'clock will not make much difference to Members from the north of Scotland, the regions of England and Wales, who are not within easy communication distance of the House. Will you ensure that we are not in any way disadvantaged when tabling questions?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot interfere with the shuffle. I hope that the hon. Lady is not asking me to do that.

Child Maintenance
3.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for a new system for securing the maintenance of children, on which a White Paper entitled "Children Come First" is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.
I should emphasise at the outset that, while it seemed appropriate for me as Social Security Secretary to make this statement, the purpose and context of these proposals extend well beyond my Department. The White Paper is presented jointly by myself, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is also making a statement today in another place.
Governments cannot, of course, ensure that all children always live with both their parents, but they can and should seek to ensure that, whatever the underlying circumstances, the welfare, of the children is the prime consideration. An effective system for securing their financial maintenance is an important element in achieving that objective.
The present arrangements are, by common consent, deficient. As the various surveys and background papers published with this White Paper clearly show, they are fragmented, inconsistent, and too often subject to uncertainty and delay. They lack systematic provision for review and updating as circumstances change. Even where a maintenance obligation has been clearly established, it can be difficult to enforce and the caring parent may face great additional difficulties and pressures in protecting the children's rights.
The result is that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers currently receive maintenance for their children regularly, and that some two thirds of lone parents and their children now depend wholly or partly on income support. Such a position is in the interests of neither the parents nor, above all, the children, and, of course, it places a large burden on those who pay tax, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on perhaps quite modest incomes. The cost of income-related benefits for lone parents has risen, in real terms, from less than £1·5 billion in 1981–82 to more than £3 billion in 1988–89.
As the House is aware, a number of steps have already been taken, either administratively or through legal changes such as those in the recent Social Security Act 1989 to make improvements within the present system. We shall press ahead with those, since it will clearly take time to undertake wider reform, but the Government have firmly concluded that such wider reform is now required, and the White Paper sets out our proposals.
There are three major elements in those proposals. The first is a clear formula for the assessment of maintenance, which can be applied administratively rather than through the courts. The aim here is to establish a single system available to all, giving consistent and predicable decisions with a realistic relationship to the costs of providing for the care of a child, and the subject to regular reviews. The
730
second is a purpose-built agency to undertake the assessment itself, and the work of collection and enforcement where necessary. The third is measures to enhance the payment of maintenance as a foundation on which lone parents can build greater independence for themselves and their children. I will deal briefly with each in turn.
The assessment formula will itself consist of three main parts. The starting point will be the calculation of a maintenance bill, which the parents will be expected to pay if they can afford to do so. It will be based on the appropriate income support rates, including the caring parent's own personal allowance. That represents the costs of caring for the children, and will thus take account of the number and age of the children.
Once the bill is calculated, the next step will be to assess the amount which the absent parent keeps from his net—I stress "net"—income for his own necessary expenses. That is described in the White Paper as "exempt income" and it will include his reasonable housing costs and the costs of any other children he is liable to support. There will, additionally, be a protected level of income, set by reference to the income support level, to avoid the situation in which the absent parent could be better off on benefit than in work.
Thirdly, the amount expected to be paid in maintenance is then worked out on the basis of sharing the remaining income—what is left after allowing for the necessary expenses—equally with the children, up to the point at which the maintenance bill is met. Once that has occurred, contributions will continue, but taking a smaller share of any additional exempt income and thus, as would be expected in any family, the children will share in the standard of living of their parents. Where the caring parent has sufficient income, he or she will also be expected to contribute towards the maintenance bill.
Absent parents on income support have the same basic resoponsibility towards their children as others, and we therefore think it right both to bring them within the system and, with appropriate exceptions, to expect from them a small maintenance contribution. The White Paper suggests 5 per cent. of the adult personal allowance, in line with the standard deductions made for other purposes. We hope to begin applying the formula within the current system from early in 1992.
The second main element in our proposals is the establishment of a Child Support Agency. It will have responsibility for tracing absent parents, assessing, collecting and where necessary enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require information and to determine the method of payment. It will be required to review the maintenance payable every year. In Great Britain, the Agency will operate as a "next steps" executive agency within my Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make similar arrangements in Northern Ireland.
When the agency is fully operational, the courts will no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards. The courts will retain jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. Those matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity, property settlements and spousal maintenance. We hope that the

731
agency will begin work in early 1993, though the number of cases potentially involved means that it will be some time before all existing cases can be taken on.
Parents may choose to apply to the agency or make their own private arrangements, using if they wish the published formula. Where, however, the caring parent is receiving income support or family credit for herself and the children—that is to say, where the public can be seen to have an interest—she will be obliged to use the agency's services.
Since it is no more acceptable for a caring parent simply to choose not to seek maintenance than for an absent parent simply to choose not to pay it, we think it right—again with appropriate exceptions—to make it possible for a deduction to be made from the adult personal allowance if he or she unreasonably refuses to help in pursuing it.
The third element in our proposals, to which I also attach great importance, is one which builds on the advantages of regular payments of maintenance in making it easier for lone parents, as many wish to do, to move from reliance on income support into work and thus greater independence. To that end we propose, at the same time as the formula is introduced, to make two significant changes in benefit rules.
One is to introduce into family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit a maintenance disregard of £15 a week, so that only above that level will maintenance have any effect on the help otherwise given by those benefits to parents who are working. The other will be to widen the scope of family credit for all parents, but in a way likely to be of particular importance to lone parents. We shall make it possible to claim this benefit when working only for 16 hours weekly, instead of the present 24. That should make it much easier for parents to combine work with their responsibilities for caring for their children. A parallel change will be made in the income support rules, so that that can be claimed only when working less than 16 hours.
In making those changes, we shall ensure full transitional protection for the small number of people who might otherwise be adversely affected. The choice of whether to work or not must of course be for the parent, but it is clear that many wish to do so, and where that is so it is right that we should seek to help, as these measures will.
Our proposals for a formula and an agency, including the rights of appeal to whose precise form we are giving further consideration, will require legislation. That will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. In the first two years, our proposals will give rise to some additional net expenditure, principally in establishing the agency and in making the benefit changes I have just described. From then onwards, however, we expect to see net savings, initially modest but building up in the longer term. More important, however, we shall have a system which better serves the parents and the children themselves. In conjunction with the Children Act 1989 and the wide-ranging review of the family justice system as a whole, which the Government have in hand it is an important further step in making sure that children do indeed come first.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we strongly support the principle of the state assisting with the collection of child maintenance
732
and agree that fathers should be expected to accept responsibility for their children? As the House knows, I issued a consultation paper last year, making that proposal a month before the Prime Minister's speech recommending it, which demonstrates that there is cross-party support in the House for this principle.
However, we have considerable reservations about the means by which the right hon. Gentleman intends to operate the agency. In particular, is it not clear from the way that the Government have drafted the scheme that the main intention is to save public expenditure rather than to remedy child poverty and enable lone parents to gain self-sufficiency? When there has been time for people clearly to read the paper, perhaps they will think that it should have been entitled not "Children Come First" but "The Treasury Comes First."
For a mother on income support, where the right hon. Gentleman is proposing no disregard on maintenance—so the mother is permitted to keep none of the money collected without a corresponding reduction in her income support—it is clear that she gains nothing; only the Government gain, through a reduction in public expenditure. Will not the father feel intense resentment that none of his enforced maintenance will go to the child or to the mother, but only to the Department of Social Security? Is not the lack of a maintenance disregard when the mother stays at home with her child a basic flaw in the scheme, as without it, neither mother nor father will have an incentive to participate? Does not that reveal that the real purpose behind the scheme is to save Government expenditure?
If the mother does seek a job, will the £15 maintenance disregard that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for family credit, really assist her in gaining her independence when she still has to meet far higher expenses in child care costs and, if she is an owner occupier, in mortgage interest payments? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, given those large offsets, a mother would probably have to earn more than £150 a week—10 times as much—before she was better off than she would be on income support?
Will a £15 maintenance disregard on family credit offer much of a pathway out of poverty? According to a recent CBI survey, 70 per cent. of lone parents want to work but cannot because there is no child care provision available. Is it not clear that, without those other elements, of a genuine family policy, which the Government have so far grossly neglected, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will do very little either to cure poverty or to help lone parents to regain their independence?
As to the father—the absent parent is usually the father—will not the requirement for him to pay up to 50 per cent. of his income, after allowances for necessary personal expenses, simply transfer poverty from the first family to the second family if the father has other children in another relationship?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that surveys have shown that up to one third of men liable to pay child maintenance are either unemployed or on very low incomes, so that, even given a protected income for the second family at income support levels, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will simply leave both families on the poverty line? Does he not understand that, if he takes a punitive attitude to absent fathers and forces them to make unreasonable levels of payment, he will create hostility and antagonism and damage the relationship between the absent father and his child?

733
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he wanted a scheme along the lines of the Australian and Wisconsin models, whereby the father would pay to support the child, and at much lower percentages of his income—but the Treasury insisted that the father should pay for the full maintenance costs of the mother as well, including her mortgage interest payments, up to the crippling rate of 50 per cent.?
Does not that again expose the fact that it is a cost saving, not a poverty reducing, exercise? Is it not likely that a penal 50 per cent. repayment rate will have the perverse result of pushing more second families into dependence on benefit than it will rescue first families from it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also reconsider the element of compulsion in the scheme, which forces the mother to name the father on pain of otherwise losing up to 20 per cent. of benefit? Will the mother have an untramelled right——
Ms. Clare Short: Some of the children are yours.
Mr. Meacher:—to refuse to name the father when she fears that he might be violent or where she may not be certain that she knows who is the father?—[Interruption.]
Ms. Short: They might have illegitimate children.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. All these interruptions take time. We are in the middle of hearing a response to the Secretary of State's statement.
Mr. Hayes rose——
Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that an allegation has been made against the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Hayes: A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I had sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.
Ms. Short: I was not referring, Mr. Speaker, just to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), but was pointing out to Conservative Members that some of them may have fathered children that they do not know about—and might end up being named.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an unworthy allegation for the hon. Lady to make. I ask her to withdraw it.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Ms. Short: The point that I am making is about all men.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady specifically mentioned Conservative Members, and it is that remark that I am asking her to withdraw.
Ms. Short: It was clear that I was not speaking only——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that I heard the hon. Lady refer—in fact, I think that she did refer—to Conservative Members. I am asking her to withdraw not the generality of her remark but the allegation against Conservative Members.
Ms. Short: I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that many men—including those on the Conservative Benches, and on these Benches, and outside——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Lady to do the right thing. She knows exactly what I am asking her to do, and I ask her please to do it now.
Ms. Short: I am very sorry about this, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to challenge your authority, but I mean the point that I am making, which is not just about Conservative Members but includes them. I mean it, and I am very sorry, but I am not willing to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and she must withdraw her allegation against Conservative Members. That is what she has said, and if she looks at the record in Hansard she will see that that is what she said. That is what I am asking her to withdraw, please.
Ms. Short: This is not fair and not reasonable.
Mr. Speaker rose——
Ms. Short: I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, when Conservative Members were heckling——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on. We have a very busy day ahead. The hon. Lady knows exactly what I am asking her to do, as does the whole House.
Ms. Short: I have made no specific allegations, Mr. Speaker, against any right hon. or hon. Member.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes you have."] I am sorry, but I was making a point about the statement, and about forcing women to name the fathers of their children.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be deeply reluctant to have to take further action in relation to the hon. Lady. I heard her say it and the House heard her make an allegation against hon. Gentlemen. That is what I am asking her to withdraw. Will she now withdraw that, so that we can get on?
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I shall not deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am dealing with the hon. Lady.
Ms. Short: I did not, and no one in the House heard me, make a specific allegation about any hon. Member. I am making a point that I mean, and it is important. I respect you greatly, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to be bullied on this matter. I have not broken the rules of the House. I have not made an allegation against any hon. Member, and I would not do so.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we cannot continue like this. I heard the hon. Lady make that allegation—[Interruption.] I am dealing with it. All the hon. Lady needs to do is to get up and withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members in the House. I am not asking her to withdraw a reflection on men in general. That is a matter for her. Will she withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members?
Ms. Short: I was making a comment about men in general and there are a lot of men in the House, and that is the only sense in which it is a reflection. I am not casting

735
any aspersions on individual hon. Members. I am making a serious and important point about men in general. It just happens to be the case that a lot of hon. Members are men, that is all.
Mr. Speaker: I have said that I do not think that that is good enough. The hon. Lady is a Front Bench spokeswoman. I am asking her to do the right and honourable thing, otherwise I much regret that I shall have to take action which I would deeply regret.
Ms. Short: But it is not fair.
Mr. Speaker: I am asking her to do it.
Mr. Meacher rose——
Mr. Speaker: No, order. I am asking her to do it. She has already said that she has respect for the Chair, and I believe her. I am asking her to withdraw any reflection on any hon. Member.
Miss Joan Lestor rose——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. I am asking the hon. Lady to withdraw her remarks.
Ms. Short: I am extremely sorry about this. One of the reasons I came into politics was that I did not like bullying. I am not casting any aspersions on any hon. Member, truly I am not. It seems to me that if you thought there was an aspersion it requires a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker, but I did not cast such an aspersion and therefore there is nothing to withdraw. I mean the other point that I made, and it is very important.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask for the extract of Hansard to be brought down to me so that I can check and see exactly what was said. If what I think the hon. Lady said is in Hansard I shall expect her to withdraw it. We must now get on.
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
I was talking about the important point of principle—the compulsion for a mother to name a father. I asked the Secretary of State whether the mother will have an untrammelled right to refuse to name the father, when she fears that he might be violent or when she is not certain who the father is. If not, how will the right hon. Gentleman avoid going down the road of compulsory blood testing, paternity suits and genetic fingerprinting?
I strongly urge him to say, in general, what guarantee he can give that the power to withhold benefit will not be biased in favour of cost saving rather than protecting the basic right of the mother. We are also very concerned that the Government are removing the freedom to choose to stay at home with their children from lone parents on benefit, even if that is in their children's interests.
Does the righ hon. Gentleman accept that the thrust of his proposals is to drive lone parents into work, whatever the needs of their children? Since the absent father will have to pay to maintain the mother if she does not work, he will no doubt pressurise her to work. She will be allowed to keep the £15 a week maintenance only if she claims benefits associated with low pay but not if she chooses to stay at home with her children.
This is potentially a very important new scheme, but its proposed methods of operation are seriously flawed. It will be effective only if its structure is designed not primarily to
736
save the Government money but as part of a wider family policy to remedy child poverty and help lone parents—both mothers and fathers—to gain security and freedom of choice.
Mr. Newton: May I assure the House that I have no intention of taking the risk of making any general observation about women? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. There are a considerable number of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill, and I know that the House is anxious to reach a conclusion on at least one very important amendment. The House will have to sit very late if we do not get on with the statement.
Mr. Newton: I welcome, in the spirit in which I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) offered it, his general support for the principle of what the Government are seeking to do and the clear expression that he gave to it. I am sure that others will also welcome his general support. I welcome rather less some of the hon. Gentleman's other comments, not least because they went some way towards misrepresenting our proposals.
It is far-fetched to suggest that the only aim is to save money in circumstances in which the first result of the Government's proposals, including not least the benefit improvements to the in-work benefits, is to increase, riot reduce, expenditure. I reject also the suggestion that, where maintenance is paid, there is no gain to those on income support and that the only beneficiary is the taxpayer. Given that the taxpayer has been picking up a bill that was not properly the taxpayer's, simply because maintenance was not being paid, it is far form clear that it is either rational or logical to believe that the taxpayer should continue to pay that bill, even when maintenance is being propertly paid.
Moreover, from the point of view of lone parents, especially those many who wish to work, the fact that maintenance is to be paid to the lone parent will put her in a substantially better position if and when she is able to take work. That is portable income which goes with her; it is hers by right when she moves off benefit. It provides a better platform for the transition.
As for the £15 disregard, the hon. Gentleman has probably not yet had time to study the examples in the White Paper. However, he will see that that, especially when taken in conjunction with what we have done this very month to improve the housing benefit earnings disregard, significantly improves the return that many lone parents will get from working. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
We estimate that the combination of the proposals that I have included in the White Paper will enable between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents who currently do not feel that they are able to go out to work to do so. That is a gain, from everybody's point of view.
One of the hon. Gentleman's last points was his allegation that, somehow, we are compelling lone caring parents to name the father. There is no question of compulsion. It is worth remembering that between 80 and 90 per cent. of never-married mothers readily assist in tracing and collecting maintenance from the father. We shall make the necessary exceptions for circumstances such as rape and incest. Before any action was taken under the proposal that I have announced, there would be a considerable amount of sympathetic investigation by

737
trained officers to establish whether a lone parent had reasonable grounds. Where it was found that those grounds were not reasonable, there would be the usual right of appeal under the social security system. That is not a draconian step but a reasonable one in the circumstances of our policy as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had in some way been attracted by one or other of the ingredients of some of the foreign schemes that we have considered. He has misread the position. I was not particularly attracted by the Wisconsin scheme, to which he especially referred. That relates to the absent parent's gross income, which means that the percentage figures that are sometimes quoted represent a much higher figure than those that I have suggested. It makes no allowance for second families, and in many ways it does not seem to be a satisfactory model.
On the point that we are somehow seeking to take half of an absent parent's income, I stress that we are talking about sharing the income that is left after taking the absent parent's net income—his income after tax and national insurance. We are allowing for reasonable housing costs and other obligations and then sharing the rest of the income with the children. The net result, in most cases, is nothing like 50 per cent. but much more like a quarter, and when compared with gross income it is more like 20 per cent. For people on reasonable earnings to be expected to contribute 20 per cent. of their income to the maintenance of their children is in no way unreasonable, and I believe that it will have widespread public support.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will receive much welcome from my constituents, many of whom are lone mothers with children and who have been unable to get out of the housing and income cycle because of the absence of support from the father of their children? Will he consider the group of young males, many of whom are under the age of 18, who compete to father as many children as they can? Will he consider particularly carefully the incomes that they will provide? Will such payments be made through their parents until, once they are 18, they can pay for themselves?
Mr. Newton: There is no proposal in the White Paper, nor do I have such a proposal, seeking to take money from parents one generation upwards. The formula that we are proposing provides for, and takes account of, the circumstances when young men have acquired the responsibility that inescapably goes with fathering children. I think that my hon. Friend will find that clearly set out in the paper.
Mr. Frank Field: May I give a general welcome to the Secretary of State's statement? Why, as the Conservative party claims to be the party of the family, has it taken so long to bring forward these proposals, when over the past 11 years the idea that parents should support their children has, for a large group of the population, collapsed as a principle affecting their private conduct? Does he accept that many constituents will be pleased that there may be a saving in public expenditure? Some Labour Members do not wish low-wage earners to contribute to the Exchequer when people on higher incomes could but do not make maintenance payments for their children.
738
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that two areas will probably concern many families, particularly women? First, although it is logical to say, "The father should pay maintenance, so why should the mother keep any of it?", public policy does not often work satisfactorily if one allows only for logic. We must work with the grain of human nature, and surely an incentive might make a big difference.
Secondly, while a few mothers may decide to be cussed and not name the father of their children, many other women, for good reasons, will not wish to give his name, and many of them will be frightened to do so. What assurance can the Minister give the House that this policy will be conducted sensibly enough to make sure that not only those who can without any worry to themselves disclose the name, do so, but those who would be frightened to do so do not have to pay the penalty of a cut in benefit if they refuse?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has supported the generality of the proposals, just as he has consistently done over a long period.
I have already commented on the incentives issue. It is right to focus what we are doing principally on in-work benefits rather than out-of-work benefits, for reasons which are set out in the White Paper and which I explained.
I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which the hon. Gentleman put his last point. I have made it clear that there will be provision for no deductions to be made in circumstances where it is judged reasonable that the caring parent should not wish to assist in pursuing maintenance. That must inescapably be a matter of judgment by trained officers on the basis of skilled interviewing.
One of the advantages of setting up a purpose-built agency is that we are much more likely to have that kind of staff than we are under the present arrangements. The hon. Gentleman can have my personal assurance that it is not our intention to "pursue" people in this way—if we want to use that kind of language—where they have a good reasoon for not co-operating.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these welcome measures should encourage a greater sense of responsibility, so that more parents stand by their children in the first place? On a point of interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), will my right hon. Friend confirm that courts will have the power to use genetic tests in disputed cases?
Mr. Newton: I said in my statement that disputes about paternity will be matters for the courts. It is open to them to use precisely the same techniques and methods as they use now to establish the truth in a disputed paternity case. On my hon. Friend's wider point, I hope that these measures will have that effect, but they will have the advantage of making the situation that follows a breakdown or separation clearer and less of a lottery and hassle than it too often is at present. That will be a clear social gain for all involved.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from our point of view, it is right and just that a father who can pay but will not should be pursued? We understand that, if this policy

739
is enforced inflexibly, it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Any divorce lawyer will tell the right hon. Gentleman that many divorced women happily forgo their right to alimony and maintenance on condition that the former husband forgoes the right of access to the child? Many estranged husbands deliberately use a weapon of torment against their former wives—access to the children of the marriage. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Child Support Agency will protect women whose husbands say to them, "I am paying for these brats and I will jolly well see them,"—usually at Christmas?
Mr. Newton: The two issues are clearly seen in the White Paper, and perhaps even more clearly seen in my mind, as entirely separate. To the extent that one is used as a lever in respect of the other, I am opposed to that. One advantage of our proposal is that it will make it much more difficult for people to use maintenance as a lever separately from access questions, which need to be separately resolved, because it will be much more difficult to avoid maintenance.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not a scandal that only 23 per cent. of single-parent families are supported by the missing father? Is not the most important point that we have heard today the fact that this agency will pursue these fathers to contribute, which will be of value to particular families? Is it not important that these contributions will frequently go far beyond the benefit level that the mothers have been enjoying and, therefore, the narrow view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meecher) is not the key point to the mothers concerned?
Mr. Newton: There will certainly be some cases in which the effective establishment of maintenance will obviate the need for income support but, as I have already said, it is my guess that the greater effect—certainly in terms of numbers—will be to provide a firmer platform on the basis of which lone parents can move into work with confidence should they wish to do so. Whichever is the case, and whatever the precise numbers turn out to be—we are talking about behavioural effects, which are difficult to measure with precision—I am sure that the parents involved will gain.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: May I press the Minister on the question of women and children who are attempting to escape from a physically violent relationship with the man in the family or from mental torture by him? The Secretary of State has not made it clear enough how women and children will be protected from harassment and danger. He ought to acknowledge to the House the fact that it is for the woman and children themselves to judge whether they need to be protected from the man. The new agency will claim the right to intervene in that very private relationship. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that women and children are not left open to more violence and harassment—the exact reasons why they got rid of the man in the first place?
Mr. Newton: Just as with the present system, cases in which violence occurs or is threatened in the way that the hon. Lady suggests will be a matter for agencies other than the Department of Social Security—most obviously, the police. The officers employed by the Child Support Agency will need to examine carefully all the circumstances, including any record of threats of the kind to which the
740
hon. Lady has referred, in assessing whether or not the attitude of a lone parent is reasonable in a particular case. If the hon. Lady thinks about it, she will realise that there is no other way in which such a system could work.
Sir David Price: On the continuing problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders, will the new Child Support Agency have the powers and trained staff to chase up delinquent fathers who persistently fail to pay maintenance? Can my right hon. Friend reassure mothers that there will be a higher level of payments than at present?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks, and on every calculation and expectation that we have, the net result of the proposals will be to increase considerably the average maintenance payment and the number of those receiving maintenance.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that maintenance payments involving children will no longer be the responsibility of the courts, given that the existing arrangements have caused great anxiety to mothers and have created great bitterness between mothers and fathers in relation not only to maintenance but to access.
It is clear that the distinction will be helpful and the Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that the courts will no longer be responsible for the setting of maintenance orders in particular. But I am still worried about enforcement and, having had a brief look at the contents of the White Paper, I confess that I do not find the new proposals very imaginative. There is nothing new there. The agency will simply do the kind of work that the courts have unfortunately failed to do in the past. What new enforcement initiatives will there be to ensure more payments by fathers who at present absolve themselves of responsibility?
Mr. Newton: What is new about the proposals is not the detail of the powers but the fact that, for the first time, instead of having a wide variety of agencies—notably the courts and the Department of Social Security—doing different things in different ways, we shall have a single agency dedicated to the purpose and with the staff to do the job.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great strengths of his proposals is that they will allow consistency of treatment as between families? Does he accept that one of the factors that ensures that people obey the law is that they know clearly where they stand, and that he should therefore take every step to publicise the proposals so that people know where they stand in relation to their children?
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give an example which is to be found in the White Paper or the supporting documents. In two cases that were apparently similar in terms of obligation and income, one father ended up paying £5 a week and another ended up paying £50 a week. That cannot be defended.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that Hackney has one of the largest number of single-parent families in the country, more than 17,000. They, in

741
common with millions of other women struggling to bring up children in poverty, will have been dismayed by the facetious way in which some Conservative Members treated this subject this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They would have expected the matter to have been treated more seriously by Conservative Members.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposal to dock women's benefit by 20 per cent. if they will not name the father will cause great fear to millions of woman? If a women's partner is violent or a drug abuser, she will feel that she must choose between her personal safety and losing a large slice of her tiny income.
Is the Minister aware that many people outside this place believe that, if the Government were seriously interested in helping single parents to struggle out of poverty, they would address training, subsidised child care and above all, a proper level of child benefit?
Mr. Newton: There are three points there. First, I must state that I detected no element of facetiousness in the responses from my hon. Friends or, indeed, in those made by Opposition Members during these exchanges.
Secondly, I have already said a fair amount about the 20 per cent. Millions of women cannot conceivably have anything to fear from the proposal, given that the great majority, as I have said, co-operate in any event with efforts to trace the father and collect maintenance.
Finally, with regard to training, when the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to consider the White Paper, she will see that we want to do what we can to ensure that training services are properly geared to the needs of lone parents, especially those who wish to return to the labour market. However, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is much better that these matters should be taken out of the courts, where there is vast delay and a great deal of trauma involved? Does he also agree that it is highly acceptable that this is, as he said, a platform for working towards independence for women, but most of all it will enable children of the first family to share in the father's prosperity in a way that they cannot at the moment? That is good for them and it is not bad for the father.
Mr. Newton: I hope that it will not be taken as facetious if I thank my hon. Friend and state that I can hardly believe my good fortune in having her praise heaped upon me twice in a week.
Mr. John Battle: May I ask the Secretary of State about a detail on the assessment of incomes? Is it not the case that the whole issue of housing costs is proving to be a quagmire for the Government because the phrase "reasonable housing costs" is used in the White Paper, yet in practice, the housing costs might be much higher? If housing costs constitute 30 per cent. of a low income, if that factor is not got right, the proposals might push families into greater poverty. What does the Minister assume to be "reasonable" housing costs?
Mr. Newton: They will all vary from case to case. The examples in the White Paper, which I hope are helpful in illustrating what is happening in the calculations,
742
necessarily had to choose ballpark figures. The whole point of using terms like "reasonable" in that context is that there will be circumstances, for example mainly in the southern parts of the country, where "reasonable" housing costs are higher than in other parts of the country because of the general cost of housing. We shall try to take account of that. We do not want to have a position in which someone can deliberately house himself extravagantly as a means of avoiding a maintenance bill.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcements this afternoon are very welcome? However, will he reassure the House that in the new spirit of co-operation within the European Community, there will be an ability to track down European Community fathers resident in this country and also people from this country resident elsewhere in the Community, so that the agency can execute its plans?
Mr. Newton: I certainly hope that, in the area covered by the proposals that I have announced this afternoon—in which I think that we are ahead of most of our Community partners—we shall benefit from the general improvement in European co-operation.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I broadly welcome the proposals. Not only is it absolutely right that absent fathers should make a contribution to their children's welfare; it is imperative that lone parents should be able to work to achieve their independence. However, I hope that the £15 disregard is only the first step, bearing in mind the current cost of child care.
I should like to press the Secretary of State further on the question of women possibly being intimidated, so that they will not reveal the name of their child's father. Can he tell us what stringent steps may be considered to prevent a father from carrying out such intimidation? It is important both to protect the woman and child, and to ensure that an artificial threat of violence is not used to enable a father to keep quiet and not be brought to the enforcing agency's attention.
Mr. Newton: On the latter question, the hon. Lady has given one good indication of why it would not be sensible for me to make the kind of sweeping statement for which I was asked earlier by certain hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches. It could easily provide—quite apart from the mother—the absent father with an opportunity to evade maintenance. The essential answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has reminded me—is that any threat or actual intimidation is a criminal offence, and a matter for the police.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as a welcome for his approach to the matter, there should be a general welcome in the country for the tone and language that he has used? He is dealing with sensitive matters affecting families under great stress, who are sometimes in great poverty. Will he also pass on to his colleagues who have helped to create this approach, and to staff in the courts and the DSS, the gratitude of 650 Members of Parliament for the work they do every week in coping with the financial needs of people who are often in considerable difficulty?
Mr. Newton: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a point that perhaps I should have

743
made—that, underlying these substantial proposals has been a huge effort not only by officials in my Department—although that has certainly been huge—hut by officials in a range of Departments across Whitehall. It has been a very effective collaborative effort, the results of which have, I believe, made it worth while.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he talks of this being a matter for the police, that some women experience enormous difficulty in obtaining injunctions and having them enforced? At the weekend, I was dealing with a lady in my constituency who has been repeatedly kicked about the head but cannot get her injunction enforced. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, if the majority of women co-operate in seeking maintenance, he insists on compulsion for the minority who may have good reason to resist?
Mr. Newton: I would almost turn round the hon. Lady's last point. The more that the great majority think it reasonable to co-operate—and, indeed, do co-operate—the less proper it is simply to allow others not to co-operate, without good reason. As for her earlier point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the problems of dealing with domestic violence are not exactly new, and certainly have not been precipitated by the White Paper. The Home Office issued a circular early in the year encouraging the police to take much more interest in such matters, because this is a long-running problem that needs firmer action.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the millions of caring parents who do take responsibility for their children, and who recognise that the hallmark of a responsible society is individual's taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Will my right hon. Friend consider a further suggestion, perhaps with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—the introduction of nursery vouchers for lone parents, who at present find that they are at a great disadvantage? They are having problems in getting their children educated before the age of five, and are thus handicapped in trying to find work.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will note my hon. Friend's proposal. For my part, I believe that the right course is the one on which we have embarked—with better earnings disregards this month—which will be extended through the introduction of the maintenance disregard. That will improve the position of lone parents generally, and help them to meet work expenses—whether in the form of child-care costs or, for instance, travel costs.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as his proposals are contained in a booklet called "Children Come First", the reservations that have been drawn to his attention, by hon. Ladies in particular, are because of our concern about children and the caring parent, who invariably is the mother? Therefore, will he explain why he regards it as a clear obligation on caring parents who are in receipt of family credit or income support to have to use the services of the proposed agency, as they are invariably the most vulnerable sections within our society? What steps will be taken to observe the total confidentiality of all such parents who are obliged to use the agency service? They are women who are subjected to
744
domestic violence and to other threats. The confidentiality aspect must be dealt with in any legislation that is brought forward.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I said about the reason for thinking it right that those in receipt of benefits—whereas I said that the public can be seen to have an interest—should have to use the services of the agency. The hon. Lady may be labouring under a slight misapprehension in some respects. Many lone parents within the existing system much prefer the DSS to take over their maintenance orders, to do the work, and to go through the hassle of collecting maintenance than have to do it themselves. I see no reason why that role should not be enhanced rather than diminished under my proposals.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Making irresponsible fathers act responsibly towards the families whom they have created is entirely to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend please remind the House of the time scale within which the reforms will be implemented? Bearing in mind that the need to know the name of the father is an important point in the success of the reforms, will my right hon. Friend confirm the proportion of names that are obtained now easily, correctly and satisfactorily?
Mr. Newton: Of course, it is not always possible to get a name, but often indications can be given that will help a well-organised agency to trace the person in question. We hope that the formula will start to apply within the existing system—the courts and the DSS—some time in the early part of 1992 and that the agency will be up and running in the course of 1993. As I said, it will be some time—perhaps two to three years—before it will be able to take on all existing cases.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome this statement as underlining what should be axiomatic from the concept of fatherhood being for life—that the state, often unwittingly and with the best motives, has undermined traditional notions of parental responsibility in terms of access and support. Will my right hon. Friend go right to the heart of the matter and to what should be our primary concern, and explain how the statement benefits children?
Mr. Newton: It will benefit children, first, by ensuring that maintenance is paid when it is currently not being paid or that more adequate maintenance is paid. Secondly, it will remove a great deal—I have used the word "hassle" several times, and I shall use it again—of the hassle of confrontation between separating parents, to which the present system can give rise. Thirdly, and perhaps as important as anything else, the statement will help by providing the caring parent with a better basis on which to build her own independence and, therefore, that of the child.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Viggers.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is the third time from that side.
Mr. Speaker: I have called Mr. Viggers, but I must balance it up.
Mr. Peter Viggers: May I also welcome these thoughtful and sensitive proposals? All hon. Members know how often the sadness of separation is followed by the humiliation of the woman having to pursue the father

745
for money for herself and for the children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has done today is important? He has turned back an erosion of principles that has pervaded the past few decades during which there has been a growing feeling that the state is responsible for individuals. In fact, parents are responsible for their children, and they cannot walk away from their responsibility.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that we have gone some way towards re-establishing a principle that is accepted by everyone, which is that parents have a responsibility which cannot simply be cast aside.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What savings is the Secretary of State hoping to make in the third, fourth and fifth years? Why could not those savings be used to help the single-parent families who are living in considerable poverty in this country and some second families who are in acute hardship because of maintenance payments?
Mr. Newton: Very roughly, we think that, in the first couple of years, there will probably be additional expenditure of between £100 million and £150 million on setting up the agency and making the benefit improvements to which I have referred. Even allowing for that, there will then be a net benefits saving of more than £50 million in the third year, which will build up over a long period to a sum significantly greater than that.
Mr. Allen McKay: When it is devised, will the formula be sufficiently flexible to take into account, for example, a person being responsible for another person's poll tax; a person being responsible, in some cases, for school fees which are voluntary; and the fact that, if someone is living in a large house before the problems occur, a huge lump sum has been paid to the carer on separation? Will the Secretary of State also take into account the fact that, because of a second relationship, the carer may sometimes be well off when the father of the children is not?
Mr. Newton: I said earlier that some of these matters—including, for example, property settlements—will necessarily remain a matter for the courts. However, as far as possible, we shall seek to ensure that, where any modification of the maintenance arrangements flows from that, it is carried out according to clear and certain rules.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Secretary of State will realise that he has had two or perhaps two and a half cheers from Opposition Members about his statement. On at least three or four occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the agency will have enough staff to do the job, but he must be aware of the damning report which was published earlier this year by the National Audit Office, dealing with support for lone parents, which disclosed that the "liable relative" section staff of his Department have been cut by one third in the past eight years and that those are the very civil servants with the job of chasing up fathers to ensure that maintenance is paid. Where is the guarantee that the
746
agency will have sufficient staff to do the job and that there will not be any further cuts that will place a burden on lone parents?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman about lone parents' ability to work'? I forewarned him of this at business questions last Thursday. Although the report has not yet been published, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, earlier this year, in the Public Accounts Committee his own chief civil servant said on no fewer than six occasions that the responsibility for the changes of policy which had, in effect, made it more difficult for lone parents to go out to work were all ministerial changes. They were not changes made by the Department; they were policy decisions. Where is the evidence in today's statement that the Government have learnt the lessons of the changes that they made when they removed child-care costs from income support—although they had been included in supplementary benefit—which would genuinely enable lone parents to get out into the labour market again?
Mr. Newton: Since there is no very good evidence that the supplementary benefit arrangements were widely understood or widely used, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Obviously, the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been reported to me and, equally obviously, I readily accept that changes in policy are matters for Ministers, not civil servants.
On staffing, I repeat the point that I have made once or twice already. Not the least gain from all this is that the staff involved in this area—the same is true of the staff who are involved with national insurance contributions and compliance in our offices—will now be part of a separate distinct agency, purpose-built for the one task. That will make it much less likely that, unlike in the past, insufficient priority will be given to that work in the future.
Mr. Michael Jack: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on responding to the wishes of the many single parents who wish to resume some form of work, and on the changes that he has made to the family credit arrangements? How many people will the changes benefit in terms of enabling them to come off income support? Finally, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that there is widespread uptake of the enhanced family credit arrangements?
Mr. Newton: As with family credit, under the present arrangements we shall try to bring the provisions to people's attention in every possible way. We have had a good deal of success. Give or take the uncertainties of behavourial effects, we estimate that between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents will find it possible to move into work as a result of these proposals.
Dr. John Reid: Is the Secretary of State aware that the public are interested in primarily two issues relating to this matter, one of which is that absentee fathers should face their responsibility—there is no difference between us on that? The second concern—I put this matter to the Prime Minister in a question last Session—is: who will benefit—the Chancellor or the child? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked the Prime Minister that, she said that the benefit would go to the child and the mother? In the light of that, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Treasury will gain from

747
this move from the third year onwards? Will he also confirm that single mothers who stay at home will not gain at all from these measures?
Mr. Newton: I am becoming increasingly resistant to the way in which Opposition Members talk about "the Treasury" as if it were somehow disembodied from all the people in the country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about "the Treasury", he means the taxpayer.
Dr. Reid: No.
Mr. Newton: "The taxpayer" includes many families in which the parents are working to bring up their children, often on modest incomes. I see no reason why we should ignore their interests in all this.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents will welcome the fact that financial responsibility is being returned firmly to the childrens' parents? May I suggest that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues might consider broadening the use of the Child Support Agency in the long run into a number of other areas, such as housing? I have a number of violent husbands—[Laughter.]—who continue to occupy council houses, whose wives are either unable or unwilling—understandably—to pursue them through the courts. Many of those women and their children would benefit greatly if this arrangement were extended to housing.
Mr. Newton: In so far as financial payments for whatever purposes are concerned, it is clear that everything that I have announced today will contribute to easing the problems that concern my hon. Friend.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that it is the daily reality of the Scottish courts that the issue of access is normally linked to aliment, and will he take account of that? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of the people who go to these lengths to avoid payment feel the greatest bitterness, and will he therefore accept the pleas made by hon. Members of all parties not to pressurise women into pursuing these people on pain of penalty? Finally, will the collection agency collect on behalf of women who are in work, as well as women who are on benefit, and if not, is not that a disincentive to going out to work?
Mr. Newton: The agency will be ready to collect on behalf of anybody who wishes to use it. When I said that using the agency would be a requirement for those on certain benefits, I also made it clear that parents in other cases who wished to use the agency would be free to do so. I do not accept the terminology used by the hon. Gentleman or words such as "pressurise". On that front, I cannot add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that, unless he is a little more forthcoming about what constitute "reasonable grounds", it will appear to Opposition Members that the agency's role will be more to save money than to give first consideration to the welfare of the child? Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been impressed by the arguments made by hon. Members of all parties and by the fact that there is genuine concern that mothers who have separated from violent partners are the very people about whom we should he most concerned,
748
because they will be the most reluctant to give the name of their partner? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point very much in mind?
Finally, what arrangements are being made to achieve reciprocal arrangements with other Governments? Many partners leave this country and go to other parts of the world, but, as far as I can tell, under these provisions it will be difficult for the agency to make a claim. What steps are the Government taking to make some reciprocal arrangements?
Mr. Newton: Obviously, I shall explore the possibilities on the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised. On his earlier point, I hope that it will be of some encouragement to him that the estimates that I have given include no estimated saving from the proposal for a possible 20 per cent. deduction. We do not expect it to have a massive saving effect. It is simply an appropriate provision to avoid unreasonable non-co-operation. I am reluctant to be drawn in the direction that the hon. Gentleman asks because it would all too easily provide any husband with an easy let-out. He would simply have to make a particular threat.
Mr. Speaker: I have now had an opportunity to send for the extract from Hansard. I find that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said:
"Some of the children are yours."
That appears to be a reflection on me—[Laughter.]—but I take it to be a reflection on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). He subsequently said:
"A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I have sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not."
Ms. Short: To the best of his knowledge. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: I now say to the hon. Lady that that was undoubtedly an unparliamentary allegation. I ask her to withdraw it so that we may get on.
Ms. Short: I dispute the words that you read out from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, as I have informed the Editor of Hansard. Therefore, as I did not utter the words, I am happy to withdraw them. For the record, several Conservative Members were saying, "Why shouldn't women name the man?" I was pointing to them as a series of men, not to any one of them. I was saying that the implication for men was that they might find themselves named in such circumstances. That was my point, and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) knows very well that I was not talking about him in particular.
Mr. Speaker: This just goes to show—it has taken rather a lot of time—that comments of that nature from a sedentary position do not help the House.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the altercation earlier, the words that you read out about my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow were not in dispute. The altercation between you and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was about an allegation against all Conservative Members. You requested a withdrawal, but none has been made. I ask you to press that point.
Mr. Speaker: The extract that I read from Hansard is what was actually said. I am prepared to accept that the remark has been withdrawn. We now move on——
Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. One day the hon. Gentleman may find himself in this Chair but while I am here, will he please allow me to deal with the matter?
Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you wish to be fair to the House. Being fair to the House means being fair not only to the hon. Member for Ladywood but to all the men on this side of the House. You read out what you wanted to read out, as far as it went. But the rest of the allegation against Conservative Members was further on in Hansard. I am sure that you are aware of that.
Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I am not, because I have only one sheet from Hansard which has taken some time to be brought to me. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

Iraq (Reparations)
4.53 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is not in a spirit of posturing, but because some of us sincerely believe that precedence should be given to the subject, that I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20 so that the House of Commons can discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"Reparations in relation to Iraq."
The issue is definite in that it is being discussed this afternoon and this evening at the United Nations.
I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that it is urgent and should take precedence. The House of Commons often shuts the stable door when the horse has bolted. If we are to have a feed-in, and to have any influence whatever on events which are absolutely central to our country, we really must discuss such matters before the event and not after it.
When the Prime Minister comes to make her statement tomorrow, it will be too late to discuss, first, reparations and secondly, dare I say it, the whole question of war crimes. Those issues were not properly discussed when the House of Commons was recalled for the emergency debate in September. The disgraceful truth is that many leading politicians have uttered statements on highly sensitive issues such as this, and the House has had no opportunity whatever to pass comment on them.
I believe that the matter is important, and that loose talk about reparations, let alone war crimes, makes the Iraqis more intransigent, the chances of a peaceful settlement less likely and, therefore, the hideous prospect of war more likely. That is why it is of overwhelming importance that General Norman Schwarzkopf was quoted this morning in the Daily Telegraph as saying:
"War 'could he as bloody as Vietnam … it could last a long, long time and kill an awful lot of people."'
Derek Wellman from the Ex-Services Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament said in a letter to me:
"Most of our own members saw active service in World War Two—some even in WWI—and we have been appalled by the cavalier attitude of most of the media to the idea of 'using force'. The impression given is almost that we would embark on something akin to a pub brawl rather than the obscenity of war."
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is more important than dogs.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time. He made his point succinctly.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"United Nations policy in demanding reparations from Iraq."
I in no way underestimate the importance and significance of what the hon. Member put to the House hut, as he knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons. I also have to take into account whether the subject that he raised should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Craig Walsh
4.57 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, so that we may discuss a specific, important and urgent matter, namely,
"The death last Friday of Craig Walsh, aged 15, while in custody in Glen Parva young offenders institute near Leicester."
The matter is specific. Craig Walsh, aged 15, hanged himself while in custody. He faced a 30-month sentence for aggravated burglary. The matter is important. His death was not an isolated incident—36 young people aged under 18 have killed themselves in custody this year and 160 others have attempted suicide. There is something very wrong with the way in which we handle young offenders when so many like Craig find such bleakness, despair and lack of hope that they take their lives.
The matter is urgent because many other young people are in custody and many of them are at risk. Indeed, with Craig Walsh in Glen Parva was another young Stoke-on-Trent man who has already cut his wrists during his court case.
I know that the Home Secretary recognises the problem—he said that in recent evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs—but the matter is so important and so urgent that his concern is not enough. He must act now to ensure that, in this case, there is a full public investigation into the circumstances of this young man's death. Why was he sent to an institution such as Glen Parva? Did the court that sent him there have evidence before it making it clear that Craig was a potential suicide? Why was that young man not transferred to an institution for the treatment of young offenders, such as Glenthorne? Will the Home Secretary also set up a more general investigation into this national growing problem?
However serious the offence, as indeed Craig Walsh's was, locking up such people for 15 years is not the answer to their problems. If the Home Secretary acts now, some slight good might come out of this tragic and unnecessary death. If he does not, more young people will take their lives in custody before Christmas and still more will do so next year making a roll call of death and misery for which we, society, and the House, must, in some small part, take responsibility, and of which we should also be ashamed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The matters arising out of the suicide on Friday of Craig Walsh, aged 16, while in custody in Glen Parva prison".
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that his remarks will have been noted by the Minister of State, Home Office, who is on the Front Bench. I must rule, however, that the matter that he has raised does not fall within the requirements of Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Environmental Protection Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 1 to 173, 296, 299 and 436, 174 to 295, 297, 298 and 300 to 435.—[Mr. Trippier.]
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I know that such motions usually go through without discussion, but a terribly important issue is involved. If the Minister allows the list of amendments to go forward as they stand, it will make a nonsense of parliamentary debate and of aspects of our democracy.
  Amendment No. 296, which deals with dog registration, if debated today, as seems likely, will create a parliamentary mess and a mess for our legislators. That will happen unless we can also consider the alternative European proposals that I have just received from Brussels contained in document A3–156/90. Hon. Members should be aware of those proposals. The fact that most hon. Members are unaware of them demonstrates the importance of the issue involved.
  Amendment No. 296 calls for a British plan of registration, but the Government's amendments place obligations instead on local councils. It will be utterly worthless to discuss those proposals if they are overturned within the next 18 months by the new European plan which we know is on the way.
  I shall endeavour to make a simple case for my plea so that I can get the mesage across to those who might disagree. What on earth is the point of my dog. Corry, having a mark placed on his left ear if the Common Market introduces a law next year that says he should have a mark on his right ear? What is the point of having a mark tattooed on his leg because we think it is important in Parliament if, as seems likely, the EC proposes a number and a nationality mark?
  We must face up to this situation, which is not unique—such things will continue to happen. If hon. Members doubt that, they should consider what happened as a result of all the long discussions we had on the Merchant Shipping Bill. Hon. Members will recall that we had a British quota of fish and that we passed a law to say that they should be fished by British ships. We thought that that was the law, but the European Court in a flash said that the law was dead, because in its view it was contrary to the treaty of Rome, and that Spanish ships should be allowed to fish as well.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Taylor: Whether it is disgraceful, correct or all about looking forward to Europe, there is no point in us carrying on with a constitutional nonsense.
  What stage have the European plans reached? The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection decided by 24 votes to nil, with one exemption, a proposal for dog registration schemes to prepare dogs and cats for 1992 and free movement. That decision was approved on 8 June 1990 and it will be considered——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the motion before us. The motion deals purely with the order in which the Lords amendments should be taken. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to that.
  Mr. Taylor: I am raising an extremely serious point. We must discuss the proposal, but why discuss amendment No. 296 today? That amendment should come at the end of our proceedings to enable hon. Members to obtain copies of the European document so that they are aware that we may well face another problem.
  The European proposal was debated by the European Parliament on 19 November. From there it goes straight to the Commission, which is advised by the Parliament to prepare a directive. What is the point of hon. Members making up their minds on amendment No. 296 if they do not have a clue about what is in the other directive? Some people may say what does it matter and that we can take that into account in our debate. However, to say that the views of the European Parliament are as remote and as silly as the views contained in a motion passed by some rural women's institute is not true. Ministers and some Opposition Members have told us that the European Parliament has more teeth and more standing than that. We are aware of more than 100 amendments proposed by the European Parliament that have subsequently been accepted by the Commission.
  What about the House rules? We should consider Standing Order No. 26, which deals with anticipation. It says that Mr. Speaker has the power to say that we should not discuss something today if we are going to discuss it soon.
  Are there any inconsistencies between the British and European plans? I am afraid that they are huge. The European plan speaks of a tattoo mark on the animal's ear, another tattoo mark on a dog's thigh, a computer chip inserted in a dog's neck and a nationality certificate indicating the dog's or cat's nationality. [Laughter] This is a serious matter. How can we discuss amendment No. 296 today and go ahead with a British plan if, in a short time, we have a European plan which requires us to give every dog and cat in Britain a nationality certificate?
  Another major problem arises over neutering. I know that Britain, by and large, has been neutral on the question of neutering, but the EEC proposals argue for a cheaper dog registration fee for neutered dogs. The idea is to try to encourage neutering.
  The European plan would subsidise neutering and requires that every dog should have a national passport of a kind. No matter whether we think that that is good or bad, how can it be right for Parliament to discuss amendment No. 296 without the European information? This raises an important issue of principle. I am seeking to defend Parliament. Some of my colleagues and I are worried that we are being deliberately denied information.
  On trade, for example, we know that we are shortly to have another discussion on European monetary union. What is Britain's trade with other countries? Until three months ago, we could ask that question and receive the information, but now the question is transferred to the Chancellor, who always says that one can find the information in the database. We cannot get that information.
  We shall shortly be discussing agriculture and——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it increasingly difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion before us. He must stick to that motion.
  Mr. Taylor: Should we discuss amendment No. 296 today, without all the necessary information? If the House choose to do so, fair enough, but what on earth is the point of discussing a dog registration scheme today when the whole thing could be swept aside by a European proposal, the details of which are not available to most hon. Members?
  If you think this does not matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should go to the Vote Office and say, "Can I please have a copy of the Euro-regulations?" Others have asked, but those regulations are not there.
  This issue is fundamental to our democracy. Why on earth should we discuss amendment No. 296 when we cannot obtain the European plans? Unfortunately, this is not a new problem. I know that some hon. Members have made great play about food mountains. They should table a question on the Order Paper today and ask what is the current size of the food mountain. They will not receive the information because the Government have said that they will transfer it to the database.
  If anything matters at all in the House, it is that hon. Members should be informed about issues that they are discussing. Some people say, "What the hell—what does it matter if we pass our British plans and then a Europlan is passed?" It matters that time is being taken up in the House of Commons debating something that could soon be overturned. We have already done that—the Merchant Shipping Bill is a clear example. I know that our splendid Transport Ministers put forward overwhelming arguments about why we should have that Bill. There was a great debate and we spent 18 hours on the subject, but then it was overturned by a Euro-decision.
  I am desperately trying not to make a pro or anti speech—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but I am trying to say that there is a new democratic position. What is the point of us trying to pretend that it does not exist? One sensible way, of which we might hear from an Opposition Member, is that we could always send all our legal proposals to Mr. Delors. I know that he is a busy man, so perhaps we could send them to his secretary. We could say, "Here is what we have in mind to discuss—will it contradict any of your Euro-plans?" That would be one way of avoiding our problem.
  The 1992 plan for dogs and cats is totally different from what we are to discuss tonight. I am also thinking of animal welfare. What is the point of me having to have a British mark placed on my dog when it will have to have a Euro-mark, with its nationality on it, if the Europlan comes through?
  Hon. Members may say that the Euro-plan is nuts. They may say that the proposal is good and the British plan is grand. They may say that the British plan is nuts. But why should hon. Members go ahead tonight and debate a proposal on dog registration that can be fundamentally overturned by a European decision?
  We must wake up to this. Even though the Government do not want us to have the information and have taken effective steps to ensure that we do not, even though we cannot go to the Vote Office to get the Euro-document, which is a scandal, we should realise that we are living in a different world and playing a different ball game. The

  755
  Government must not waste our time. There are still some things that Parliament can do and talk about. We should talk about those matters with the help of information.
  This is a serious issue, so I make the following appeal to the Government: if they care about democracy, do not want us to waste our time in the House talking about something that may be completely overturned by a Euro-decision and do not want to cause harm to animals, could they not say that they will not propose the motion, but instead table a manuscript amendment to put amendment No. 296 at the end of our debate so that it is the last one we discuss? What would the Government lose? They would lose nothing at all: the debate would still take place.
  The only difference would be that, between today and tomorrow, all Members could get a copy of the report, which was passed by 24 votes to nil, and would have the information. In addition, a Minister should come and make a statement to say just how near the Government believe the Euro-proposal to be.
  Therefore, I ask the Government, and the Chief Whip, who sometimes gives advice although he never speaks: what would he lost by putting amendment No. 296 at the end? We should not discuss amendment No. 296 now. Under my proposal, no one would lose. We would merely have the debate tomorrow, not today. Does anyone lose in any way? It will not curtail the debate—we would still have it—and it will not meant that other things will not be discussed. It is simply a tiny change to show that we care a little about democracy.
  I am sure this will not happen because the Minister is a decent guy, but if by any chance we go ahead and discuss dog registration tonight without knowing about the Euro-plans, we will not only be making a nonsense of Parliament, but insulting our constituents and being unfair to the dogs that we allege we are trying to protect.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. McWilliam.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order, or does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak in the debate?
  Mr. Cryer: On that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should make it clear that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was speaking to the motion and was not on a point of order. Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wish to raise a point of order?
  Mr. Cryer: I shall speak to the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely in favour——
  Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that you called me to speak on the substantive motion. It would be deplorable if an hon. Member was allowed to barge in on a point of order.
  It seems that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has a point. One of the problems that we shall come to later——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South was rising on a point of order, but it now appears that he wishes to contribute to the debate. I called the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) first, so he should speak first, and then I shall call the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
  Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not delay the House long, but the hon. Member for Southend, East has a real point. In the face of the Single European Act, under which the determination of the issue will not be a matter for majority, veto or the House—except in a secondary sense—it seems difficult to go on to debate an amendment which, if carried tonight, will entail considerable costs for local authorities when they are strapped for money. According to the hon. Member for Southend, East, that cost will be otiose and the money will be spent on things for which Europe is not asking and not spent on things for which Europe is asking.
  It seemed that the hon. Member for Southend, East made a reasonable request and that we should at least delay the debate until tomorow when we have had time to see the document and make up our own minds about whether we are prepared to waste local government money in this way before we vote. I hope that the business managers of the House and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who moved the motion, will at least listen to the reason behind the motion, which is not pro or anti, but which tries to react to the realities that face us. It seems to be a fundamental point that in any debate in the House we should have in front of us all the relevant documentation. It is quite clear that we do not have that. I believe that the reasonable request of the hon. Member for Southend, East should be met.
  Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) will realise that there was no attempt to intrude in the debate. On several occasions, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker said that the motion should be adhered to and the debate was going a little bit wide, so I thought I would begin on a point of order, but I am happy to speak on the motion.
  The basis of the questioning of the motion is that amendment No. 296 should be deferred because of the dog registration scheme proposed in the Common Market Assembly. I believe, and have long believed, that the House should be prepared to stand up for its legislation and pass legislation on the basis that it applies in the United Kingdom. I believe that the Government should be prepared to resist any legislation emanating from the Commission because the Assembly is not a Parliament. It calls itself a Parliament, and until the Single European Act, the Government called it an Assembly, but the Government now claim that they will stand apart from the Common Market on the issue of monetary union, a common currency and a central bank.
  The Government put through the Single European Act on a three-line Whip. That Single European Act changed the title of the assembly to Parliament, but the reality has not changed, which is that it is a consultative assembly with no legislative powers. It has been tarted up a bit since——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion, which

  757
  involves purely the order in which we should debate the Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman must stick to that.
  Mr. Cryer: The proposal was that a section of the business should be deferred to the end of our debate because of a report being produced by the EC Assembly. I am pointing out that that report does not at present have the position of legislation and so does not represent a clash with the Government's view. [Interruption.] However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is now a Euro-fanatic, murmured from a sedentary position, it will, which is the issue that I want to address because it is relevant to the motion.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if this Euro legislation—which we detest—is passed, we shall have to buy dog collars in mark-dominated Euro currencies? Will it affect the royal corgis? We do not know where all this will end. My hon. Friend is right to say that the amendment should be moved to the end of the proposed order for debate.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has raised issues that are rather broad of the motion.
  The EEC Assembly will discuss the report, which will then go to the Commission and the Council of Ministers—and this initiative was probably taken as a result of their attitude—and Commissioners appointed to £100,000 a year jobs plus tax-free expenses will produce a directive. It is at that stage that the Government can say, "Our legislation is adequate. We spent a great deal of money introducing it in the United Kingdom and we shall resist any suggestions from the EEC that the scheme should be altered."
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Surely the whole point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the effect on the animals. What is the point of passing legislation today that will mean animals being pierced with lead, if we then have to undo the legislation because of a Europea directive?
  Mr. Cryer: The Government should resist the EEC directive, and they well know that it is possible to do that. Indeed, it is possible to resist a directive for many years. The Government have ignored, delayed or resisted directives for more than 10 years. They implement some parts of directives by statutory instrument—the usual procedure—but leave other parts lying in desuetude. They are never brought into operation.
  The Prime Minister wants to resist the Common Market onslaught for a common currency, a completely irresponsible central bank and all the rest of the paraphernalia of federalism that is being peddled around the Common Market. Are the Government supporting her attitude? The deputy Prime Minister appeared to be deliberately undermining her, in what I thought to be a disgraceful fashion, when he appeared on the Walden programme. It was a complete breach of Cabinet unity and collective responsibility——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying from the motion.
  Mr. Cryer: I shall return to the narrow motion by giving way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: We cannot resist the directive, although we can vote against it. However, as it is in preparation for 1992, it can be decided on a majority vote. The Common Market can and probably will pass directives laying down things that must happen to our dogs, such as the necessity for dog passports. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, whether we like it or not, if the EEC says that a dog must have a passport or a computer chip we must comply. Hon. Members should be aware of what is involved before we debate the issue tonight.
  Mr. Cryer: One problem is that other member states apply EEC directives in a leisurely and selective manner to suit their circumstances. The Government have a new-found air of independence, and I suggest that they take the same attitude that they are taking towards a central bank and monetary union. Directives are pouring out of the Common Market. I am in favour of a dog registration scheme. The proposals that we shall debate later tonight are useful and important. Local authorities need some certainty, and the Government should not allow Parliament to be sabotaged by a collection of appointed Commissioners and through majority voting in the Council of Ministers. We must be prepared to retain the sovereignty of Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East said that we cannot resist. It has always been an important negotiating weapon that Britain is prepared to say that we have a continuing right to withdraw from the Common Market and that we shall never forgo it. If we use that power, some of the Commissioners—who are, as Henry VIII described his barons, over-mighty subjects—will realise that we are serious. By all means, let us work with other countries, not only in Europe but throughout the world. The Opposition are international socialists and we look rather wider than the narrow confines of a handful of states in western Europe. We are not prepared to accept the dictates of the Commission.
  I look forward to a Government statement that will help us to examine the business motion. We must be certain that our work in Parliament today will not be wasted in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is a tremendously important issue. Not many of us have the privilege of having in our possession documents from those who are our masters. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that Parliament should resist the directive and fight, but they are the masters——
  Mr. Skinner: Who are?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The Common Market is the master. Once it lays down regulations——
  Mr. Skinner: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that when those in the Common Market read his words, they will think that the Conservative party has caved in? People such as Leon Brittan will be laughing like a drain. The hon. Gentleman should understand that alliances and treaties

  759
  in Europe do not last for centuries. Some people think that alliances such as the Common Market go on for ever. They should read the history books——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) were to respond to that intervention, he would be out of order.
  Mr. Skinner: Let me put it another way——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I shall not respond to the intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Every hon. Member should realise that, once something becomes Common Market law, if individual countries do not obey they can be taken to the judicial court and be forced to enforced the law. Those of us who are pro-Common Market by nature are trying to explain that if we surrender our rights, as we are being asked to do, we do not know where it will all end. Dog registration is a comparatively minor issue, but the principle is not.
  The European Member of Parliament for Highlands and Islands—the Common Market calls her Mrs. Ewing because it is easier to remember—tabled a motion under rule 63 of the EEC's rules on procedure. As we might imagine, the ladies and gentlemen in Brussels refer to that document as (B9/0390/89), and for five pages they go on and on about dogs. We are meant to debate an amendment tonight for five, six or seven hours, and then to pass needless legislation. In due course, we shall be told what to do by our betters in the European bureaucracy. Does any hon. Member realise that the bureaucrats on the Commission intend to remove all barriers not just to trade—in which they constantly interfere—but to the free movement of dogs between member states?
  I agree that the Common Market is a powerful institution, but why should it he allowed to decide what is good for our country? Why should it be allowed to determine when rabies has been extinguished in Europe or in the world? Is this country and this Parliament left with nothing to decide? Is the Common Market to decide what we do with our dogs and cats? Why should it be allowed to dictate to us in that way?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Dicks: Perhaps my hon. Friend is doing the Minister an injustice. Perhaps he will be able tell the House clearly that he has taken our points on board and that we will all have an opportunity to read the document. My hon. Friend should not be too unfair to the Minister, who I am sure will make the documents available, and will not make any statements tonight that could in any way impinge on the EEC directive.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will enlighten us in the near future. None of us wants to be difficult or to stand in the way of progress, and nor do we want to stand in the way of this country, France, Germany or the other member states deciding the issue for themselves and how they shall treat their pets. Britain has managed perfectly well, generation after generation, to decide what is good for its dogs and cats.
  I would have known nothing of all this had it not been for the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who has served as a bastion in defending British interests. I did not know that five pages of rubbish from the Common Market existed and
  760
  that they were to be the subject of a motion. Why should we waste our time if, whatever we decide tonight after hours of firm debate, and having listened to the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—whether or not we agree with them—we are then told that we must anyway abide by a directive?
  We are used to Bills returning to this House from another place with a message that Her Majesty the Queen has acceded to them and commands our presence in attending to that law. But we may now expect to come through the door into this Chamber not the Queen's representative but Jacques Delors's representative, saying "By the way, this is what jolly Jacques says that you must do." If that is so, let us not waste time in debate, but instead all go and have a good dinner until we know what the Common Market wants. However, we may think it right to defend our country and our rights to decide matters affecting our cats and dogs, and not wait for Jacques Delors to come through the door.
  Too many people in this House and in the country are willing to sell us out and to sell us short. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I shall have no part in it.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made important points concerning the competence of the House and the availability of relevant documents that could inform our debate. When I was elected to the House in 1979, I thought of it as a sovereign House of Commons because it represented a sovereign people. However, we see increasingly that this House cannot make decisions. We may protest and pass Acts of Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East cited the case that demonstrated that this House is not competent on a whole range of issues. I refer to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I have always understood that when Parliament passes a law, it gainsays those previously enacted. We now have a House of Lords that is dancing on the head of a pin trying to justify the supremacy of a preceding Act of Parliament, demonstrating that a 1972 Act of Parliament takes precedence over subsequent legislation.
  Today, we are being asked to address ourselves to an issue in which none of us doubts the Common Market has competence. I know that the Government do not want: to pass legislation that conflicts with the views of the Community or the Commission. We went through the performance of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, when we tailored it to meet what we thought were the Commission's requirements and those of European law. As it happened, we found otherwise.
  The most startling new development in our constitutional history is the Law Lords, in recognising where power lies—as they traditionally have done—trying to make judgments to accommodate the view of the European Court. That is increasingly happening.
  Today, in an area in which the Community clearly has competence under the 1972 Act and under subsequent legislation, such as the Single European Act and that concerning majority voting, this House is having imposed upon it, through our own Law Lords, subordination to the European Court. The Government could avoid the dilemma by proceeding with their own reckonings and allowing the House time to consider the matters that are to come before it shortly.

  761
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in that respect, and if it comes to a vote, I shall certainly vote in favour of his proposition.
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The purpose of the motion is to decide whether amendment No. 296 should be taken sooner rather than later. Hon. Members suggested that it should be taken today, and I personally hope that that will be the case. The House has not yet made up its mind whether it will accept the views of another place. The motions on the Order Paper make it clear that the Government seek to overturn the Lords amendment and to propose amendments in lieu of them.
  I moved the motion because, were we fortunate enough to put the debate on the record, in Hansard, it would then at least be courteous to another place to consider the arguments that were advanced. If the amendments—I emphasise the word "if'—are overturned, what then would be the point of the ordering motion? I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and of other hon. Members, but they were referring to a proposal which has been debated in the European Parliament and gone no further than that. Were it to get any further, it would have to be considered by others, not least by the Council of Ministers. Whether or not I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, the outcome is a matter for conjecture or hypothesis and is not a matter of fact.
  You may agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the views aired in this debate could have been aired when the question of dog licences was previously debated in this House. I have no doubt that hon. Members will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at a later stage.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Unusually, I support the Minister, and think that we should get on and vote. If it takes as long for the 11 other nations of the European Community to resolve a matter that it has already taken the British Parliament two years to resolve—I refer to the question whether we should introduce a dog registration scheme—the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) need have no worries. It may take a proportionately longer time—or at least 24 years—for the European Community to determine the matter. We have taken two years to reach the point of deciding on a logical replacement for the abolished sheep dog licence scheme. The sooner that we can get on and establish that replacement, the better. If we can establish one tonight and defeat the Government in the process, even better still.
  Mr. Peter Fry: I am in a dilemma. My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government intend to overturn the amendments that have come from another place. We are entitled to know whether the Government want to overturn those amendments because they are against dog registration for ever. If the Government are saying only that they oppose such a measure but will have to accept it in accordance with the European guideline, that is a very different argument.
  Those hon. Members who happen to take this matter seriously believe that we should not put ourselves in a ridiculous situation. I accept that, because of the Single European Act, the Government are in great difficulty. My
  762
  credentials are that I was one of 11 Conservative Members to vote against the Single European Act on Third Reading. This issue illustrates the sort of difficulty that the Government will get themselves into. Perhaps it might be better if my hon. Friend the Minister made his and the Government's position clear on registration. If he is suggesting to the House that the Lords amendment should be overruled, we shall expect him and the Government to fight hard against some of the extreme legislation that emanates from the European Parliament.
  Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that I have always supported the principle of dog registration, and I shall do so in the Lobby tonight. Before we move on from this short debate, one allegation has been made which will clearly be picked up by the popular press if it is not refuted immediately and it will cause alarm. I should like to give way to my hon. Friend the Minister so that he can assure the House that under no circumstances would the Government agree to any European directive or legislation which would weaken our control against rabies. I look to my hon. Friend for an answer.
  Mr. Trippier: I am certain that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
  Mr. Gale: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am a firm opponent of dog registration. I take seriously the argument made about debating this matter when only three hon. Members on this side of the House have read what the European Community is suggesting. The Government's policy and my own on dog registration is that we think that registration is simply bureaucratic nonsense. However, the European Community is trying to say that it has serious problems with rabies and other infectious diseases in the rest of the European Community—in at least 10 of the other 11 nations. Therefore, it is asking for permanent identification on the animal to tie in with its inoculation records.
  We cannot properly debate this issue when most hon. Members have not considered that part of the argument and therefore whether, in a few years' time, the European Community will say that it cannot allow our special regulations for keeping rabies out of Britain because we attempted to overturn its regulations for dealing with that disease; that is its regulations on the vaccination of dogs against rabies and allowing vaccinated dogs with identification marks into the United Kingdom.
  Without seeing this document or understanding what the European Community is driving at, we do not have the necessary information to come to a proper decision.
  Mr. Derek Conway: I am somewhat disappointed by some of my hon. Friends' arguments and I hope that they will take my hon. Friend the Minister's advice. Like one or two other hon. Members I, sadly, felt obliged to join the Opposition when they declined the invitation of the Patronage Secretary to vote for the Single European Act, precisely because of the majority vote that that Act provided. It staggers me to listen to a debate among my hon. Friends who also defied that three-line Whip to vote against the Act, but are now saying that we should postpone what we are doing until we find out what the Europeans are playing at. Surely that is contrary to what we are driving at. I hope that the House

  763
  will get on with the debate tonight and tomorrow, get it out of the way and not give a damn about what the European Parliament is doing. But if the Government are stupid enough to get themselves on the hook, in six or 12 months' time they will be wriggling and perhaps will not receive much support from Members on their own Benches.
  The tenor of the debate—that we should stop what we are doing tonight to enable the Europeans to crack on with it——
  Mr. Mc William: I am worried that local authorities will be required to spend money that they do not have. The legislation will be funded by the poll tax, which will be otiose because it will be overtaken by other legislation that we know is coming but, because the document is not available in the Vote Office, most hon. Members do not know exactly what is happening. It is important that we put this debate in context. The only way that we can do so is to read about what is intended and thus avoid spending money needlessly.
  Mr. Conway: The hon. Gentleman is right to take these matters seriously. He and I have long experience of local government. I believe that many local councils are itching for an opportunity to bang up the poll tax and would probably use this measure as just another reason, so I cannot accept his arguments.
  I hope that the House will reject this attempt by their unelected Lordships to impose yet another tax on our constituents. Some hon. Members who have spoken are quite wrong. The sooner that we get this measure through and put the views of the House on the record, and thus defy what overpaid and underworked Europeans are trying to do, the better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 1 to 173, 296, 299 and 436, 174 and 295, 297, 298 and 300 to 435.

  Environmental Protection Bill
    Clause 1

      PRELIMINARY.
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2 line 13, after ("and") insert ("the air within")
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments No. 4 to 6 and No. 285.
      Mr. Trippier: The amendments in this group are drafting and technical amendments, and I am sure that the House will not wish me to dwell on them, although I shall be happy to answer any questions hon. Members may wish to ask. While on my feet, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her recent election to the shadow Cabinet.
      Mr. Fry: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions about the Lords amendments, which I understand were intended to tighten up the original
      764
      wording of the Bill. The reason for my questions is that these clauses have serious implications for certain aspects of British industry.
      One of the great problems which often arises with such legislation is that clauses refer to regulations which may be drawn up by the Government. I am sure that the House is aware that regulations made long after the original legislation are often lightly debated in the early hours of the morning, and British industry wakes up to discover that a statutory instrument has been passed and it is not even aware of its significance.
      For example, statutory instrument No. 1159, which was issued just before the summer recess last year, stated that any trade effluent discharges which raise the concentration of prescribed substances above background level meant that sector fell under integrated pollution control even if the presence of prescribed substances was occasional or intermittent. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members are aware that I act as a consultant to the British Leather Confederation which is very worried about the implications of these clauses and the regulations that will flow from them.
      As I understand it, with the absence of any de minimis exemption, small companies with as few as a dozen workers could come under full integrated pollution control, with all the associated monitoring and registration costs.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has always given a sympathetic hearing to the leather industry, and I remand him that that industry is now presented with real problems. For example, under the proposed regulations to which these clauses relate, the industry could find that, although a firm is not responsible for polluting a waterway, because skins were treated with some sort of insecticide, it could unknowingly affect the water supply and be prosecuted.
      I therefore hope, that my hon. Friend will take note of the industry's very real anxieties and those of other related industries, and will give me an assurance that, when the regulations are drawn up, they will take the interests of British industry into account—especially the interests of many small firms, which could become hopelessly enmeshed in bureaucracy and might never be able to afford the measures needed to avoid prosecution under the Act when it becomes law.
      Mr. Trippier: I am concerned about the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). I have had the opportunity, which I valued, of meeting both my hon. Friend and representatives of the British Leather Confederation. The difficulty is that tanneries discharge an obnoxious substance that affects the water. It is included among the red list substances that are referred to in part I.
      I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, the Government do not intend to introduce legislation that would result in these companies having their backs against the wall. We hope to reach an agreement with the industry. We want Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to sit down with representatives of the industry. I would not accept the introduction of such legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that assurance.
      Secondly, the views of the British Leather Confederation and the Chemical Industries Association have been consistent throughout. They welcome the main thrust of what we are trying to achieve in part I: higher

      765
      standards for the control of emissions and for those polluting processes that affect the land, water and air. They also want the regulations to be fair. I have repeatedly given assurances about those matters to them.
      The new regulations for the British Leather Confederation would not be introduced before 1996. I am giving small and medium sized companies a period of between three and five years after Royal Assent to comply with the new regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that we are concerned and that he will accept my assurance that we intend continually to review the matter.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert ("(which in this Part means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951)")
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11, 15, 21 to 23, 35 to 38, 41, 323 to 326 and 142.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Both Lords amendment No. 2 and the other Lords amendments are technical and consequential.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 2

      PRESCRIBED PROCESSES AND PRESCRIBED SUBSTANCES
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 19, at end insert
      ("and to which conditions as specified in directions in accordance with section 7(3A) below shall apply")
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 13 and the Government motion to disagree; Lords amendment No. 14 and amendments (a) to (d) thereto, and the Government motion to disagree.
      Mr. Trippier: As the Opposition have tabled several amendments to Lords amendment No. 14, I fully respect their wish that there should be a debate on this issue, which involves the Valdez principle. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Opposition to open the debate so that I have to speak only once.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the Opposition with the opportunity to outline their case. If he listens to the debate, I hope that he will reconsider the Government's position on Lords amendment No. 14, which was added to the Bill in the other place after a constructive debate. Ministers in the other place did not answer the case put forward by our colleagues there.
      If the Government insist on rejecting the Valdez principle, their rejection of it will be even further proof that they are not using the Bill to improve environmental protection and that they are continuing to waste the
      766
      opportunity that the legislation could provide. We have said all along that the title "Environmental Protection Bill" is very grand, but the contents of the Bill do not match its title.
      The fact that the amendment is incorporated in part I, which deals with integrated pollution control, is significant. Integrated pollution control is a principle that the Opposition have supported throughout consideration of the Bill—in Committee, on report and in another place. The problem is that the Government have taken a good principle and implemented it in a second rate way. They have not laid down with sufficient clarity the principles on which authorisation should be based. They have never said that they are ambitious about implementing integrated pollution control. They refer to changing the structure of applications instead of to the imposition of new and progressively tighter controls on industry.
      The Government's attitude led the Opposition in the other place to table the amendment that incorporates the Valdez principle. We are keen that that principle should remain part of the legislation. We want to take the matter further and use part I to establish an environmental protection agency to co-ordinate all the policy aspects that ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control and all other aspects of environmental protection.
      I remind the House of the Valdez principle. It is strange that the Minister should seek to reject it. It is not only Labour politicians in this country who have put forward such an amendment. The Valdez principle was established in the first place by United States investors, for ethical reasons. That group of people will grow in number and influence. I hope that the principle that the group advocates—that companies should carry out environmental audits—will be taken on board by the Government. The Opposition regret that they have not yet done so.
      According to the Valdez principle, certain other policy aspects ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control. The ones that are mentioned specifically in Lords amendment No. 14 are

      "(a) The minimisation of pollution to environmental media;

      (b) the protection of the biosphere;

      (c) the development of the sustainable use of natural resources;

      (d) the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste;

      (e) the conservation of energy;

      (f) the minimisation of environmental health and safety risks to employees and other persons;

      (g) the adoption of voluntary controls over the safety of goods and services produced for sale;

      (h) the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation …

      (i) the disclosure of adequate information …

      (j) the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits".

      I am at a loss to understand to which of those principles the Government can object. The principle to which the Government may object is that which involves energy conservation. When the matter was debated in Committee, we pressed the Government to a Division on incorporating energy conservation in the integrated pollution control conditions. The Secretary of State was present on that occasion but even he voted against it.
      The Government's record on energy conservation is absolutely pathetic. The Government's White Paper states:

      767
      "Energy efficiency is the cheapest and quickest way of combating the threat of global warming."
      However, the same Government and the same Ministers have significantly cut the energy efficiency budget. They say that energy efficiency ought to improve in the future. In real terms, the energy efficiency budget was halved between 1986–87 and 1989–90. The real advances that could have been made on energy efficiency have not been made. That may be one reason why the Government object to the amendment.
      Hon. Members received an interesting letter today from the CBI on the amendments that the Opposition have tabled and the inclusion of the Valdez principle in the Bill. The CBI seems to be panicking enormously about the prospects of including such measures as I have mentioned. The minimal brief that it sent shows that it does not seem to understand the implications of the amendment passed by the other place.
      6 pm
      The fact that the CBI sent that note to hon. Members asking them to reject the Valdez principle, and the fact that the Minister will ask us to reject it, shows that Ministers and industry have far too negative an attitude on environmental protection as simply a cost rather than an opportunity. It would be in the interests of industry to push it to have industrial environmental audits and energy efficiency programmes. The Minister knows that many problems could be alleviated if industry changed its attitude, and environmental audits are certainly one opportunity.
      Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically unfair and is giving the House the impression that perhaps part I of the Bill was the idea of the Opposition. She cannot be allowed to get away with that, because it is perfectly clear that part I, which we put together and which, admittedly, was amended from time to time by the Opposition, is intended to raise standards of pollution control. It was entirely the idea of the Government and it is entirely to our credit that the legislation is before the House. It certainly will not be easy for industry to comply with the new regulations. Is the hon. Lady trying to deny that?
      Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is mistaken. I did not claim credit for the ideas behind the Bill. We can claim credit for trying to widen the implementation of IPC to ensure that industry takes on board all the needs of environmental protection rather than the narrow definition that the Government are giving it. If the Government persist in trying to implement IPC in this limited way, they will not be serving the best interests of industry. If they continue to say to industry, "All environmental protection is a great cost, and that is the end of the story," we shall not get industry to move in the direction that we want. If British industry does not take on board environmental considerations, it will be left behind because industries and companies elsewhere are becoming the leaders in many areas of clean technology. If the Government continue to send out the wrong messages, we shall slip further behind, instensifying the economic problems that we face.
      I am sorry that the Minister persisted in insisting that there should be a negative approach to those problems. The concept behind IPC is an integrated approach to pollution control. Where better than the Bill, therefore, to introduce all the other considerations that I have
      768
      mentioned, from energy conservation to environmental auditing? If the Minister persists in talking down industry and talking about the problems of environmental legislation rather than the opportunities, he will not be doing industry any favours, and he certainly will not be doing the environment any favours.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her election. I hope that it is a sign that I, too, will benefit from having responsibility for this subject. When she left the House temporarily, I inherited her office. It may therefore be a good place to do one's apprenticeship on the way up the environment-political ladder.
      The Lords amendment was sponsored jointly in the other place by the Labour party and Liberal Democrats, and my noble friend Lord Ross spoke in support of it for my party. I do not therefore need to elaborate on the view that we hold—that it is entirely appropriate to set out the specific principles for defining integrated pollution control.
      The list, which has come to be known as the Valdez principles, sets out directions that the Secretary of State should give when permission or authorisation is sought. As the Minister will readily concede, the directions are general and cover subject matters rather than specific requirements. For example, they relate to the requirement that the conditions develop
      "the sustainable use of natural resources".
      I should have thought that he would happily welcome that principle. They require that the consequences of the conditions are
      "the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste."
      I should have thought that that was entirely acceptable.
      I am aware, for example, that if waste disposal were environmentally best achieved by incineration, the consumption of energy would be higher than if another method of waste disposal were used. In absolute terms, therefore, one could not say that that method was the most energy efficient. That, however, is not inconsistent with the principle, in as much as it can be achieved, of "the conservation of energy", as set out in paragraph (e) of Lords amendment No. 14.
      I join the hon. Member for Dewsbury in saying that the CBI's fears, which are set out briefly, appear to relate to a misunderstanding of the principles of Lords amendment No. 14. The CBI asked the House to reject the amendment for three main reasons: that the principles impose on industry
      "absolute liability for damage, compulsory environmental audits and total disclosure of information."
      The proposal on absolute liability for damage is that there should be an undertaking of adequate—I underline "adequate"—provision for compensation for damage
      "caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products."
      It is an entirely proper principle that somebody who pollutes is required to pay adequate compensation.
      The proposal on compulsory environmental audits reads:
      "the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits to monitor the effectiveness of any principles of actions adopted."
      I should have thought that the CBI would welcome that. It should be built into the practice of industry and business that it periodically assesses, audits and monitors the effectiveness of its work. I do not see that Government or industry could have any objection to that. Yes, it may cost

      769
      more, but the price of the environment is worth paying, and Parliament should be saying to industry and individuals, "You should pay it."
      The principle on total disclosure of information—I remind the House that the amendment received sufficient support in the other place for it to have been passed only a couple of weeks ago—is that there should be
      "the disclosure of adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on matters relevant to the environment and health and safety".
      That is not total disclosure of information, but adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on relevant matters.
      Other provisions in the Bill protect proper confidentiality, and we shall debate amendments on that in a few minutes. I do not think that the CBI is right to say that, if the Lords amendment is passed, it would detract from the need to bring integrated pollution control into operation as smoothly and quickly as possible. The fact that there has not been enormous consultation on the principles is a less strong point because, first, there is international precedent for the desirability of the principles being incorporated into enabling legislation and, secondly, because the principles are consistent with an enabling part of the Bill. I ask the Minister to say that they do not tie his hands.
      The amendments deal with the Labour party's proposal for an environmental protection agency. The hon. Member for Dewsbury may have read our document, which was produced this autumn a little before her document, and even before the Government's, and was entitled "What Price Our Planet?" In it, we reiterated the view, which my colleagues have enunciated for several years, that we support the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency. My only reason for not adding my name and those of others to the Labour amendment is that that would have been unfair to the hon. Lady and her colleagues. The details in one Labour amendment about the agency's functions are slightly different from ours. Given that the amendment was on the amendment paper, I thought that it was a sufficient peg on which to hang our support for the principle, without being tied to every word of the Labour party's proposal.
      We think that there should be a Department of Environmental Protection, which would take some of the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Trade and Industry and even the Foreign and Commonwealth Office where it deals with international environmental issues. We believe that there should be an environmental protection agency, bringing together the functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and of the National Rivers Authority, funded by but independent of the Government and backed up by a national environmental information law centre.
      I want to give one example showing why such a system would be important, and today is an appropriate day to do so. As we all know, the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here because he is in Luxembourg at the meeting of European Community Environment Ministers before he goes on to Geneva and the world conference on climate change. The most controversial item on today's agenda is the limit to be set on CO2 emissions. The Government have made clear their policy. They believe that we should seek to achieve a limit at present levels by the year
      770
      2005. As we all know, their reason is that there will then be more emissions and first a subsequent reduction, so in 15 years we shall only be back to where we are now.
      The Labour party argues that this level could be achieved by the year 2000 and prays in aid other countries that have achieved that. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats argued for a better principle, for a tougher target. We argue—this is not unsupported by precedent elsewhere—that there should be a 30 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions by the year 2005, a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2015 and a 55 per cent. cut by the year 2050. We believe that that is achievable by a range of policies—taxing pollution, energy efficiency, renewable technology, more public transport and less private transport and a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. The Minister is unwilling to accept that as a target—indeed, he would give the Secretary of State a bit of trouble if he did so, given that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to persuade the European Community differently in Luxembourg.
      The benefit of having an independent environmental protection agency is that we would have a body that could say with authority to whichever party was in government, "We believe that this is the best advice." If an environmental protection agency existed now, it would find that the Government's environmental policy was inadequate. I may be wrong, but that is suggested by the evidence.
      The argument for an independent agency of Government to advise the Government on environmental protection has never been stronger. I hope that the time will come when the Government accept that all environmental wisdom does not lie with them. We have never believed that it lies with politicians and, increasingly, politicians are aware that their views have been behind those of experts. I hope that even if the Minister does not accept the amendment for an environmental protection agency, he will say that the Government have not rejected the idea. The hon. Gentleman would find such a body a helpful ally, certainly for the environment.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Robert Adley: Listening to the claims and counter-claims of the Labour party and the Liberal party one could be forgiven for forgetting that it was the incoming Conservative Government in 1970 who first established a Department of the Environment and the present Government who have brought forward this large Bill—the first serious attempt to deal with a range of environmental problems. [Interruption.] The interventions from the Labour Front Bench remind me that the 1974 Labour Government took public transport away from the overall responsibility of the Department of the Environment and we have been regretting the consequences for many years.
      Clause 2 refers to "Prescribed processes and prescribed substances". The one prescribed substance which, sadly, is eliminated from consideration under the clause is carbon monoxide emitted by the internal combustion engine. I hope that that omission will be rectified in future legislation.
      I am conscious of the fact that one or two of my colleagues may not agree with me about pollution emanating from aircraft, but aviation fuel, particularly aviation exhaust, is an increasing problem in small pockets of the countryside around airports. I hope that, in due

      771
      course, whether under the aegis of an environmental protection agency or through another organisation, transport matters will be brought back under the general heading of the environment and that, sooner or later, some Government will bite the bullet and include emissions from the internal combustion engine and from aircraft in the term "prescribed substance".
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Lords amendment No. 14 deals with the Valdez principles. I do not understand why the Government object to these nine or 10 principles which are to be incorporated as conditions to be considered in the granting of licences. They are all reasonable targets for all industries, obliging them to minimise pollution and waste, to protect the biosphere, to conserve energy, to conduct periodic environmental audits and so on. These principles are at the heart of the Bill. Without them, what is the Bill about?
      Our amendment deals with setting up an environmental protection agency. In many environmental issues, Britain is 10 years behind Germany, Sweden, the United States and so on. Through the EPA, the functions carried out by the NRA, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Nature Conservancy Council and the environmental work of local authorities would all come under one umbrella organisation.
      The National Rivers Authority involves the right kind of regional infrastructure and could provide the basis for such a powerful environmental organisation. Working independently of the Government, the body would monitor the environment, conduct research, advise the Government on new legislation and enforce existing legislation. It is a disappointing fact that, although the NRA is a powerful body in many respects, the enforcement of its work in connection with river pollution is not nearly strong enough.
      Meanwhile, the pollution inspectorate is plagued by all sorts of problems. For example, it is in charge of air pollution, in respect of which there have been only nine prosecutions in the past 10 years. Those figures speak for themselves and clearly illustrate the limited extent to which the relevant provisions are enforced. An environmental protection agency responsible for enforcement is therefore desperately needed.
      Amendment (b) calls for the creation of a Minister for Environmental Protection. At the moment, the full range of responsibilities falls to the Department of the Environment, which also has to deal with the community charge, housing, local government finance and so on. The Department has far too many responsibilities and they are too disparate for one Secretary of State to deal with them. The establishment of such a post would constitute a recognition of the importance of green issues and the environment. A Minister for Environmental Protection should take over some of the responsibilities of the Departments of Energy, Transport and Industry and especially of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      The amendments would greatly strengthen the Bill. Having served on the Committee, and having been involved at various stages in the consideration of the Bill, I believe that at present it is a weak Bill. When one considers that the Government have been in power for 10 years and that this is their first major Bill dealing with the environment, it is remarkably weak. For example, it involves hardly any financial commitment, although we
      772
      know that the problem of acid rain will take billions of pounds to tackle, as will the problems of sewage and our beaches. The curbing of the greenhouse effect through energy efficiency measures will also require billions of pounds worth of investment.
      Instead of tackling those major problems, the Bill deals mainly with peripheral issues. The Opposition acknowledge that, under parts I and II, structures are being set up for integrated pollution control and the better regulation of toxic waste, but nevertheless believe that the amendments would greatly strengthen the Bill.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I should like my hon. Friend the Minister seriously to consider the Opposition's two main proposals. The Valdez principles are important principles and important policy objectives, and I should like the Government to endorse them as acceptable principles and objectives to follow. Whether they are proper subject matter to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, and whether they are capable of enforcement, is an entirely different matter. Personally, I do not believe that, if we state them in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, we shall be doing anything more than state a series of platitudes. We shall diminish their importance if we list them as proposed, because they cannot be made effective in terms of legislation. Nevertheless, I repeat that I should like my hon. Friend to confirm that the Government endorse those objectives and would like them to inform our view of the problems of the environment and environmental pollution.
      The amendment would also require the establishment of an environmental protection agency. I do not think that I need say a great deal about that on this occasion. I have spoken about it extensively and I have also written about it. The House will know that, in its toxic waste report, the Select Committee on the Environment put forward the concept—before it became part of the policy of any of the political parties. I support such a concept because. at present, the way in which we deal with environmental monitoring, auditing, regulation and control is far too fragmented and leaves a great deal to be desired.
      Having said that, I agree that we cannot rush the establishment of an environmental protection agency through at the tail end of our proceedings on this Bill, as the Opposition propose. I should like the Minister to tell us that the Government do not dismiss out of hand the establishment of such an agency, that the Department will continue to work out the details of how the matter can best be legislated for and that, eventually, we will introduce legislation that will establish a proper agency of the kind envisaged by the Select Committee.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Are the Valdez principles merely platitudes, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) suggested, or are they practical guidelines that should govern our conduct towards the environment? That is the question before the Minister, and I hope that he will respond in detail on the Government's attitude. If the Government reject the principles as laid down in detail in the amendment, we should be told, why they are doing so and, what they propose to put in their place. How will the good will expressed on both sides of the House be turned into practical measures? The amendments deserve a detailed

      773
      response from the Government, because they provide both a theoretical and a practical basis for tackling environmental problems in the long term.
      The amendments are intended to probe the seriousness of the Government's commitment to genuine environmental improvement on a practical basis and founded on internationally agreed general principles. In implementing the Valdez principles, the Government would be following what is now becoming accepted international practice. If they reject them, they will be stepping out of line, and I should like to know why. The Valdez principles are internationally agreed and accepted, and the amendments are merely an attempt to integrate United Kingdom practice in that international context.
      The principles relate directly to industry and industrial practice and attempt to integrate them into good environmental systems and practices. I doubt whether many people in this country would object to the protection of the biosphere or the sustainable use of natural resources or the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste or the wise use of energy. I doubt whether they would object to environmental risk reduction or the marketing of safe products and services or to damage compensation—that is very much of live issue—or to the disclosure of incidents or to the appointment of an environmental director. That should become the industrial norm, as should environmental assessment and annual audits in industry.
      In a practical way, the amendments would bring industry into consideration and allow it positively to contribute to an improved environment. I hope that increasingly, environmental or compliance auditing will become standard practice in industry and that it will be accepted as a natural and important part of business practice.
      The amendments are a taste of the future. Sooner or later, they will be accepted, out of common sense and fairness towards the environment. I hope that they will be accepted sooner rather than later, and that that is what the Minister will say in his response.
      Mr. Keith Mans: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he would consider these matters in relation to the publication of the White Paper on the environment, and the agency was, indeed, mentioned in the White Paper.
      Another matter that is relevant to the amendments is the experience that we have now gained in relation to the National Rivers Authority—in many ways, the first stage in the creation of an environmental protection agency. In that respect, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said: we must not do everything too quickly.
      We have now had some experience of the NRA, and we can see how it is operating. I do not fully agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who referred to the NRA's weakness. Over the past few months, the opposite has been the case. There have been a number of prosecutions, most notably against various oil companies in the north-west, which have proved highly effective and have acted as a good discipline against those worst polluters of the environment.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend recall that the first prosecution took place on the very day that the authority came into operation? It was certainly quick off the mark.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Mans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. That proves that the NRA is effective.
      We should not stand still. We should move quickly towards the creation of a fully fledged EPA to cover subjects other than water pollution. We are already entering slightly dangerous territory in which there is a demarcation dispute between HMIP matters and NRA matters. We must progress towards a situation in which we have a fully fledged Environmental Protection Agency which is separate from the Government. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the need to remove some of the expertise from local and national Government and place it in an environmental protection agency.
      Unless we make progress relatively quickly, we will be duplicating a lot of work on the environment. There will be little departments at district and county level and also within the Department of the Environment dealing with exactly the same matters which one EPA could deal with. With a lack of environmental expertise in the first place, there is a danger that we might spread that expertise too thinly. We might not achieve a firm view of the policy that we should adopt in this country towards the different aspects of pollution control, which must increase in importance in future.
      Mr. Trippier: I was quite amused by the reference by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to his temporary location in the office that was formerly occupied by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). A wonderful thought flashed through my mind: if it is as lucky for him as it has been for her, he might find himself in a shadow Cabinet. My next thought was that he is already in a shadow Cabinet. It may not be a very big shadow Cabinet, but he must be a member of one. In fact, I suppose all the Liberal Members must be members of such a Cabinet.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Not quite all.
      Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman must enlighten me further about that important issue later.
      If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were to be a member of the Cabinet of Her Majesty's Government, in the unlikely event of the Liberal party ever taking office, it is safe for me to say from the Dispatch Box that the hon. Gentleman can say any darn thing he likes about pollution control target dates for CO, emissions, because they are unlikely to be delivered. Although I hugely enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's catalogue of proposals about how the Liberal party would introduce stabilisation and then the reduction of CO, levels, he should have included the proposals incorporated in the alternative White Paper put forward by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
      The Labour party's alternative White Paper refers to stabilisation by the year 2000. At present CO2 levels, all the research, particularly that undertaken by the Department of Energy, shows that it will be impossible for that to be achieved unless there were nil economic growth

      775
      —no Opposition Member mentioned that—and half the coal mines were closed. How on earth the Labour party can square that with Arthur Scargill's National Union of Mineworkers stretches credulity to breaking point, but it might be hugely amusing.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I assume that the Minister, like the Secretary of State, has seen our alternative to the Government's White Paper, which we published in September. The Minister must not ask me to defend the Labour party's fossil fuel policy, which I believe prevents the circle from being squared with regard to stabilisation by the year 2000. The Minister will be aware from reports in the press today and over the weekend that the target of stabilisation by the year 2000 is easily achievable, because the Government's advice that there would be a great expansion of CO2 emissions by the year 2005 is inaccurate. The projection was an overestimate.
      Therefore, the Labour party target is not difficult, although we believe that it is inadequate. The Minister should reconsider. I would not be content with resting on the laurels of the Labour party as a sufficient backstop as a second choice for the Government's policy.
      Mr. Trippier: I would not rest on the laurels of the Labour party, and I do not want to be taken down this side street. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want knowingly to mislead the House. With regard to his earlier comments about the presence in Luxembourg of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, no hon. Member should assume that any member state has made the target level as categorically clear as this Government have. That is disquietening. When I attended Council of Ministers meetings in Europe recently, I found to my horror that people are saying what they think they might be able to achieve, but are not prepared to sign up to that while others say that there is an aim or a target, but no commitment. The difference is that we have a clear commitment. When this Government sign any document, we deliver. We are respected for doing that, and I wish that that applied to many other countries.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Not about dumping in the North sea.
      Mr. Trippier: I do not know about that, but I look forward to debating the matter tomorrow.
      There is not much between the Opposition and the Government on how tough integrated pollution control should be. The measures enshrined in part I of the Bill were taken from recommendations made by the Royal Commission on environmental protection, which have been applauded and welcomed.
      The only question that arises is: how tough should those measures be? Although I was interested to hear Opposition Members say that they should be tougher or very tough, I wonder whether they have squared that view with some of their trade union colleagues or those sponsored by them who might have something different to say if it meant that, in the rush to achieve the much higher standards enshrined in the legislation, thousands of people were to be laid off work. That is the difficulty which the Government must address. We have struck a balance between economic development and environmental enhancement. I am entirely content with that.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: With regard to jobs, the future and the future of industry, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who said over the weekend:
      "British business has been losing opportunities in European markets by failing to take a lead on the environment"?
      Surely the Secretary of State is acknowledging that jobs can follow environmental protection.
      Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. In trying to achieve the balance between economic development and environmental enhancement, many opportunities arise as a result of our being the pathfinders and trail blazers within Europe on integrated pollution control. If anyone doubts that, I can state that we have been asked to send a secondee from the Department of the Environment to Europe to help put together a European directive with which we can easily comply, but which many other countries will have to run very quickly to keep abreast of.
      I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Indeed, we lead the world on water consultancy, and a great deal of business can be done on that, not least in central and eastern Europe now that those areas have been emancipated.
      We have debated this issue several times in the past in Standing Committee; however, I must address the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members—not least ray hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—with regard to the structural alterations affecting Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. From what was said in the White Paper, it must now be clear that we did not consider the time right to think of further major structural changes to the system, such as the amalgamiation of the existing regulatory bodies.
      The National Rivers Authority has been in existence for a year; Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has not existed for much longer, and recieves considerable new functions in the Bill. There has been a period of dramatic change. However, we were careful to make it clear in the White Paper that, although the Government have concluded that the case is insufficient
      "to outweigh the disadvantages of further administrative upheaval at just the time when the new organisations are getting into their stride",
      we certainly had it in mind to move towards establishing a regulatory body on the lines of the environmental protection agency at some stage. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who addressed the same issue.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister consider that that would require legislation?
      Mr. Trippier: I think that it would require legislation. At this stage, it is not clear to anyone—least of all the hon. Gentleman and me—whether the new regulatory body should have, for example, a waste-regulation function. Such matters must be addressed. The commitment that I—along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—have given constantly, on the Floor of the House and outside, that HMIP will have the necessary resources to do the job is the most important undertaking that I can repeat in this debate.
      Let me say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury that I find, what has happened to the EPA in America very interesting. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) constantly refers to the EPA; he did so in Committee as well, and I understand why. The EPA,

      777
      which is completely separated from the federal system in the United States, has now been brought back into the federal system, and its administrator Bill Reilley has been appointed as a Cabinet Minister—at least, I hope that his position will be confirmed shortly, as I have the highest regard for him.
      I wonder how that appointment would be viewed in this country. The hon. Member for Carmarthen—and perhaps even I—might view it as a case of someone being bought off if it had happened in the United Kingdom. My point, however, is that the EPA has now been brought back into the main stream of Government; my hon. Friends who sit on the distinguished Select Comittee know that to be the case. I would not always pray in aid the EPA in the United States; I think that we must look to something rather different.
      I can understand why Lords amendments Nos. 3, 13 and 14 were accepted in the other place. The main amendment that we are addressing here sets out a number of principles concerning the Valdez principles, which on the face of it are as unexceptionable as motherhood and apple pie. However, the question is whether it is appropriate to enshrine them in legislation aimed at a system of pollution control.
      Lords amendment No. 14 gives effect to nine out of 10 of what have become known as the Valdez principles, which were prepared after the Exxon Valdez oil spill of April 1989. One might think, so far so good; however, putting the principles into legislation goes against the founding aims of those who prepared them. The aim of the group that prepared the principles was
      "to create a voluntary mechanism of corporate self-governance with the goals of sustaining our fragile environment for future generations."
      In America, it is recognised by the most environmentally responsible individuals, companies and institutions that the Valdez principles en bloc are not feasible—as they stand—for companies. When the principles were discussed in the United Kingdom at a seminar arranged by the Green Alliance, members of environmental and other voluntary groups and the ethical investment community, it was agreed that the implications of the advent of the single market, proposals for eco-labelling, developments in public access to environmental information and the development of environmental auditing in the United Kingdom, all needed to be explored, as they would affect the applicability of the Valdez approach in the United Kingdom. In other words, environmental groups in the United Kingdom would not agree that the Valdez principles should be imported lock, stock and barrel as a United Kingdom policy objective, let alone enshrined in legislation. So much for the overview.
      How does the main amendment in this group affect the systems of integrated pollution control and air pollution control? I believe that they are confusing, contradictory and incongruous; in short, the amendment is an almighty spanner in the sophisticated works of the two pollution control systems established in this part of the Bill. Let us examine each of the "sub-headings" of clause 7(4)(a) in turn. There is nothing wrong with paragraph (a), which concerns the minimisation of pollution as a general statement of intent, except that it does not belong here.
      We have already provided for something much more specific in the Bill: clause 7(2) states:
      778
      "the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost will be used",
      not to minimise pollution of the environment, but to prevent releases of specific substances to the environment. Only if releases cannot be prevented will they be minimised. In all cases, BATN EEC—best available technique not entailing extra cost—must be used to render all releases harmless. That is not good enough.
      6.45 pm
      Let us look at another "sub-heading". The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) specifically asked me to address what was wrong with the Valdez principles. The principles state that we will
      "make sustainable use of renewable natural resources."
      The amendment that I have been talking about goes further: it would require an operator of a process to develop the sustainable use of natural resources. I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I do not know what that means, and I think that most hon. Members would have enormous difficulty in defining it.
      I am not being in any way clever, but let us pose some questions. Does it mean that a timber treatment plant operator would have to cultivate his own forest, or that a chemical operator would have to conduct research into wildlife habitats? The amendment is nonsense—and I could go on down the list. Its implementation would become a bureaucratic nightmare.
      Rather than go on down the list, I must address a point made by at least two Opposition Members concerning the green audit, including the hon. Members for Angus, East and for Southwark and Bermondsey. It was the point to which the noble Lord McIntosh addressed a number of his remarks in the upper House when introducing the amendment that we are considering.
      Environmental auditing as a principle is good. The United Kingdom environmental groups accept and support it, as I do myself. For heaven's sake, we have spent a great deal of time and a number of pages in the White Paper making clear what we believe about environmental auditing. I am delighted to say that this is a movement that is growing rapidly. The hon. Member for Angus, East said as much, and we should all welcome it. However, we stop short of making it mandatory. We do not regard it as helpful for the Government to be prescriptive about when or how techniques should be used.
      The development of environmental audits is most assured if individual companies are encouraged to adapt the techniquies best suited to their particular circumstances. The voluntary nature of the techniques, as it has been developed by business, has encouraged a positive, objective and self-critical approach. That technique is still developing, and I do not wish to see it stop at industry; I want to see it developed throughout local authorities, and I think that I would carry the whole House with me on that point.
      I am sorry that I cannot accept the strictures of the official Opposition, or indeed, members of the Liberal party. I must end, however, by completely rejecting the remarks made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. He suggested that the Government's record on environmental protection or enhancement was bad; in fact, it is outstandingly good—and compared to that of the Labour party, it exceeds all expectations. The last time that a Labour Government were in power—and that is difficult to remember—they did not even introduce part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974: what a disgrace.

      779
      Now the Labour party is talking about renationalising the water industry, which frankly it cannot afford to do. It cannot possibly afford to replace the £28 billion programme that has been made available only because of privatisation. It sickens me to my back teeth that, when they were last in power, Labour Members constantly cut support to water authorities, even when they were nationalised. No one believes that Labour is the party of the environment. Labour Members would have to look to all my colleagues as those who believe in environmental enhancement and an improvement in the quality of life.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments and Government motions to disagree with Lords amendments, agreed to.

    Clause 22

      EXCLUSION FROM REGISTERS OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
      Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 23, line 42, at end insert—
      ("(2A) A determination under subsection (2) above must be made within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the application and if the enforcing authority fails to make a determination within that period it shall be treated as having determined that the information is commercially confidential.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.[Mr. Trippier.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 40.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The key task in this exercise appears to be to keep one's eye on the amendment paper and to make sure that a crucial moment is not missed.
      The amendments relate to the consequence for confidentiality of a determination under clause 22. Amendment No. 39 would add an implication that, if no determination had been made about a matter of confidentiality within 14 days, the information would automatically fall to be treated as confidential.
      The logic of that is to make local authorities hurry up to determine whether something should be confidential. Does the Minister agree that 14 days is a tight deadline and, as he will appreciate in a local authority's cycle, often too tight a deadline? What will be the consequences if a local authority cannot meet a deadline? The best parallel that I can think of on the hoof is the allowed period in which to determine a planning application. If it is not determined by a deadline, it automatically goes to appeal for non-determination. Local authorities will often not be able to make a determination, or will not do so, and the consequence is that something will be held to be private when it should be public. If local authority staff are either incompetent or do not deal with the matter, or if they try to deal with it inadequately, we may end up with the wrong decision. That makes for bad law.
      We should consider giving a longer time to local authorities so that the best principles of open local government are applied and we do not make confidential what should not be confidential. On environmental matters, the principle should be the availability of the maximum information possible. I am troubled that it is an
      780
      over-restrictive timetable and that it will result either in wrong decisions or in secret conclusions. Has the Minister a comment in response?
      Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman would be right if we had left the Bill in that way. Amendment No. 40 in particular deals with his concern. A variety of suggested times was trailed in Standing Committee. We discussed who will say whether the time is adequate. From memory, 14 days was just about in the middle. We thought that it was adequate. If we are wrong and the hon. Gentleman turns out to be right, amendment No. 40 enables that time scale to be altered by order. That is fair enough. It enables the hon. Gentleman's point to be met, and his concern can now be abated.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 30

      AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PART
      Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 29, line 1, at end insert
      '(", subject to section (power to create regional authorities for purposes of waste regulation) below")'
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: This issue was debated at length in Committee—in probably one of the best debates that I have ever known in Committee—and it was also debated on Report. On that occasion, the Minister was not prepared to accept our amendment that would have set up regional waste regulation authorities. I told the Minister that I thought that it would not be too long before he came back with a proposal on waste regulation authorities if he was in Government long enough to be able to do so.
      This proposal comes from the Environment Select Committee report, which clearly recommended that the poacher and gamekeeper roles should be separated, and that, if we were serious about environmental protection, we should have separate regulation authorities. We recognise that the Government's compromise is a somewhat timid step along the lines that we would wish. We shall not oppose the proposal because it establishes the right of voluntary groupings in the original instance. It reserves the Secretary of State's right ultimately to establish regional waste regulation authorities.
      The Labour party and the Environment Select Committee are serious in their proposals for environmental protection and associated problems. The question is whether the Government are as serious as we are. As has been said many times, we believe that waste regulation authorities, together with the National Rivers Authority, which has already been established, would ultimately form the basis of an environmental protection agency. The voluntary groupings can provide a stronger role for waste disposal plans, with proper integration of those plans at regional level. They can also provide a joint approach to licensing and enforcement policies, regional consultation on the regulation of hazardous wastes and better deployment of specialist resources across the authorities.

      781
      Those are the reasons why we believe that we should have gone a step further and established the waste regulation authorities now.
      Nevertheless, the Government are moving in the right direction. We hope that the voluntary groupings will succeed. I have no doubt that it will not be too long before waste regulation authorities are established to ensure proper and adequate control of private and public waste disposal and the best possible protection of our environment.
      7 pm
      Sir Hugh Rossi: It has been interesting to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). We have worked together on the Select Committee on the Environment on these concepts. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered those issues. Normally, I hesitate to make party political points on environmental issues because I like to see the Select Committee on the Environment working unanimously and as an all-party Committee—but my understanding was that it was Conservative members of the Committee who tabled amendments for the formation of regional waste authorities, but that they felt unable to proceed because they were not given the assurances, help and support that they required from the hon. Member for Burnley, who was also on that Committee——
      Mr. Pike: It is unusual for me not to agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. However, he will find that I was a signatory to those amendments in Committee and that I supported them at every stage. I told the hon. Gentleman's colleagues that if they put their amendments to the vote, the Labour members of the Committee would support both amendments. The first debate convinced my hon. Friends that we were right in our approach. As I said, it was an extremely good debate and it was as a result of that debate that many of my hon. Friends became convinced that the Select Committee report was the correct course to follow.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent throughout and that the position has been somewhat misreported to me. However, I know that my colleagues on the Committee were unhappy at that stage because they could not carry the matter in the way that they had hoped. Nevertheless, that is all water under the bridge.
      This has been a difficult issue between the Select Committee and the Government. When we first suggested the proposal, it was rejected by the Government mainly because they did not want to enter into confrontations with the local authorities once again or to embark on another reorganisation of the local authorities having done so very recently. That was one of the matters that hindered the Government when dealing with the issue. Incidentally, I understood that the local authorities had been making strong recommendations to friends of the hon. Member for Burnley and that that was another difficulty in making progress with the matter in Committee.
      Be that as it may, I welcome the fact that the Government have now recognised that the Select Committee, which spent a great deal of time and took a
      782
      great deal of evidence on the way in which the present structures of the waste authorities were failing the country, concluded that such a system could be operated adequately only on a regional basis. We cited the London Waste Regulation Authority as an example of what could and should be done.
      It is a pity that the Government are simply taking reserve powers to create regional waste authorities and that they are not going the whole hog. I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley that, as night follows day, sooner or later we shall see the creation of regional waste authorities. We shall then have reached what the Select Committee, on an all-party basis, set out to advise the Government to do.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I are not in any way against regional waste authorities. There has been much debate and discussion on that and I recognise the work done by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and his Committee, and others.
      However, I should like to highlight one concern, which is that the amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to create new authorities. I hope that he or his successor will recognise the views of local government. If the Secretary of State is given this additional power, there is a danger that the plans that have been voluntarily agreed between local authorities in a particular area will suddenly be intervened upon by the Secretary of State, who could decide to create a new authority irrespective of the wishes of those local authorities.
      I believe that the whole process will be a matter of logic; that logic will dictate economic viability, and that geography and economic viability will dictate the right size for a regulation authority, which may well be regional. However, I hope that that conclusion will be endorsed by a Government decision only if it is the view of the current authorities at a lower level. I warn against any over-hasty intervention from the Government that might disrupt what would otherwise be the preferred approach of the democratically elected local councils.
      Mr. Trippier: It kills me to say this, but I agree with every single word that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has just said. We have already been listening to the local authorities with regard to the regulatory function and waste disposal.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for reminding Opposition Members that a number of people in some local authorities, not least in some Labour-controlled authorities, hold different views on what should be done in terms of this matter from the parliamentary Labour party—not surprisingly.
      I think that what I am hearing, from both the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, are two cheers for what we are doing. I am satisfied with that for the moment because, when I was responding to the debate in Committee, I did not think that I should get even one.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 44

      RECEPTACLES FOR HOUSEHOLD WASTE
      Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 48, line 11, leave out first ("receptacles or")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 93 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Nos. 94, 96, 97, 109, 110 and amendment (a) thereto.
      Mr. Pike: Although I should have pressed the amendments if the Government had been willing to accept them, we do not intend to divide the House because we are aware of the time. In all seriousness, the Government should be prepared to accept these modest amendments. If they do not, they will restrict the intention to move forward with recycling. I do not believe that the Government would want to admit that they are not in favour of recycling, so they should be prepared to support the two amendments.
      The amendments refer to clause 46, which deals with
      "Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected."
      The clause also deals with recycling of waste by waste collection authorities. Subsection (6) states:
      "A waste collection authority may, … provide plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste".
      It should be noted that by implication that clearly identifies such functions as a function of the collection rather than the disposal authority. However, subsection (7) states: "Subsection (6) above does not apply to an authority which is also a waste disposal authority; … the authority may make arrangements with a waste disposal contractor" to undertake the recycling function.
      In Committee and on Report, we discussed on several occasions the varying division between regulation, collection and disposal authorities. No one system is common throughout the country. I certainly do not intend to go through those arguments again, but it is because of the variation in functions that the anomaly in the Bill would create a nonsense. The Government would not wish that to be the case.
      The restrictions in subsection (7) will apply to metropolitan and local authorities, which are not part of a statutory waste disposal authority and to the Welsh district authorities. In each of those cases, the authority will be a collection and a disposal authority at the same time. In addition, in London there are four statutory disposal authorities, which may be abolished under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985.
      In January 1989, the Government consulted on the role and functions of waste disposal authorities. When their decision on the results of the consultation were announced, they stated:
      "the four statutory disposal authorities in London will be abolished when their assets and liabilities are transferred to local authority waste disposal companies".
      Since then the Government said:
      "We have therefore agreed to reconsider the case for each of the authorities to remain in being"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1990, Vol. 522, c. 1274.]
      Indeed, they did so, and it was reported in the Official Report of the other place of 23 October. Of course, that is not sufficient to guarantee the position. The Government should be prepared to move in the direction that we seek.
      784
      7.15 pm
      The amendment also has the support of Liberal Democrat Members, who will express their support in a few moments. The problem remains that a waste collection authority which is, or could become, a waste disposal authority as well, will be prevented from undertaking recycling activities. It is no good the Government supporting the principle of recycling during hours of debate in Committee, on Report and in another place if they do not deal with an anomaly in their Bill—which will become an Act in a few days—which in certain instances will physically prevent recycling from taking place. That is why we tabled the amendments. They are an attempt to ameliorate the effects of clause 46(7).
      The Government have attempted to clarify which activities would be permissible. Despite the fact that the Bill refers to plant equipment sorting and baling, the Government have suggested that the provision of bottle banks will be allowed. However, it is doubted whether the Government's assertion that a bottle bank is a receptacle and, by implication, not a piece of equipment for sorting waste, is a rational distinction that could survive the test of law. Not only is a wide range of other banks used for collecting different types of waste but often other associated specialist equipment could by no means be defined as a receptacle.
      I could give details of various activities in the London boroughs affecting Richmond, Westminster, Sutton and Havering. The same could be instanced for the Welsh districts. However, it would be wrong to take up the time of the House by going through those details. The Bill creates a problem and the Government should accept the modest change made by the amendments.
      The Government must also recognise—they still fail to do so—that recycling is not a lucrative exercise. Even schemes that are considered economically successful have resulted from considerable pump-priming by local authorities, and it was necessary to plough back any income to maintain the viability of such schemes. As the Bill is drafted, an authority could engage contractors to do the work. Any proposal would inevitably entail additional costs or variations in the scheme, which would reduce its viability.
      There is an important principle here, and if time permitted we should press the amendments. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept that the Bill creates an anomaly that he would not want. He would not wish to bar any London authority or Welsh district authority, which was both a collection and a disposal authority, from dealing with recycling when other authorities are encouraged to undertake recycling. That would be nonsense. If the Minister is sensible, he will see the logic of the amendments and accept them.
      Mr. Paul Marland: According to the rules of the House, I begin by declaring an interest in metal recycling, which enables me to speak with some authority on the industry and, I hope, to point the Government in the right direction under the heading of recycling arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, it is with a certain sense of disappointment that, despite being at my most persuasive, I have not managed to persuade him that the right way forward would be to separate scrap metal from the general definition of waste. He continues to insist that that is what it is and that that is how it should be treated. In fairness, I must admit that

      785
      he has left his door open to me by giving me an assurance that, if I can find a metal recycling merchant who is finding it difficult to have his premises licensed, my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me. If I submit full details to him, he will investigate the matter. As yet, I have not come up with a scrap-metal dealer who is encountering such difficulties, expecially as local authorities have only just started to license scrap-metal yards.
      There are some difficulties about the length of time for which local authorities are prepared to issue licenses. Sadly, some are not prepared to issue them beyond five years, but the investment required for the efficient recycling of metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, means that more than five years is needed in which to recoup such investment. The industry is, however, living with that problem.
      At the moment, George Lyons and Co. of Liverpool is having trouble with an unco-operative Merseyside development corporation. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I will be able to sort that out without resorting to ministerial help. It is important to remember that most local authorities are only now beginning to embark on the licensing of their scrapyards.
      On the definition of waste, we must look for assistance where we can. Perhaps the Confederation of British Industry has come to our rescue because, in its documents on the business agenda for Europe in the 1990s, it seeks for a clear distinction to be made between waste and secondary raw material so that recycling is promoted and resources are better utilised.
      As I said in many speeches to the Committee on this subject, I understand that the European Community may be issuing a directive on inter-European movement of waste. Exemptions to regulations may result from that directive based on the category of waste to be moved across frontiers. The categories of waste are as follows: white, grey and black. Obviously, the most hazardous material falls into the black category. Such categorisation would benefit the movement of ferrous scrap, which would obviously come in the white group. Eurofer, the European equivalent of the British Scrap Federation, has had assurances from the Commission that it is aware of the problems created by calling scrap metal waste and it has agreed that ferrous scrap could be removed from the category of waste.
      If ferrous scrap is removed from the category of waste or is classified differently by the Commission, will my hon. Friend the Minister preserve our Euro-credentials and follow suit in the United Kingdom? In common with many other hon. Members, I dislike the expression "a level playing field", but the United Kingdom reclamation industry needs reassurance that it will be treated the same as the European reclamation industry. It is disconcerting to record that the licensing of scrapyards has not yet begun in Denmark, Belgium, France or Italy—Lord only knows what is happening in Ireland. What is required is fair competition across Europe.
      There are some other specific matters on which I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend. Will representatives of the reclamation industry be consulted about any future changes to the licensing procedure? When Lord Hesketh was at the Department of the Environment he gave me and
      786
      other members of the industry the reassurance that such consultation would take place. Now that Lord Hesketh has moved on, I should be glad if my hon. Friend could reaffirm that commitment. Consultation on the annual costs and criteria for the licensing of scrap yards would also be enormously reassuring. Similarly, it would be reassuring to have discussions with the Department of the Environment on the waste management paper concerning advice to local authorities on the procedures for licensing.
      Lest the House should think otherwise, I want to emphasise that the reclamation industry does not in any way want to pollute or to irritate. It wants to set high standards and to ensure that their enforcement is practical and efficient. I am pleased to tell the House that two scrap-metal recyclers have been awarded the British quality standard award BS 5750 for setting a high standard in their own businesses. I believe that we owe a great deal to the scrap-metal industry and to farmers, who are probably the most active promoters of a clean environment.
      There is some confusion over recycling credits and who shall get them from the county council in rural areas. Will the skip operator and the reclaimer obtain those credits or the district local authority, which, in many cases, is already charging for bottle banks and the like? Will those authorities be reimbursed for doing so, as well as being paid? Will the waste collection authority receive the credits?
      It would be commendable and emotionally appealing if recycling credits were given to the boy scouts for collecting old drink tins or bottle tops or to a local women's institute for collecting waste paper—many of whom make a first-class job of it. If such functions are undertaken by a professional organisation, such as a refuse collector or a scrap-metal dealer, will it collect a recycling credit? After all, those organisations perform a commendable job. We also need clarification of exactly what a recycling credit is. Is it a cash payment? Is a credit note to be offset against some local authority charges or something else? Whatever it may be, it would be helpful to have some clarification.
      There are other on-going problems that must be addressed. Firstly, will the reclamation industry be consulted on any enabling legislation as a result of the Bill? It should also be consulted about any changes that the Department of the Environment may want to introduce once the Bill is enacted. Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that the inspectors, or whoever, who follow the regulations to ensure that they are adhered to, all work to the same brief, regardless of their location? It is difficult for the industry if the inspectors in Liverpool are working to a different brief from that used in Guildford. I must insist that the cowboy operators do not profit at the expense of the legitimate trader.
      Finally, I should like to put on record how much I have appreciated my hon. Friend's willingness to discuss these matters during the passage of the Bill and the ready way in which he has sought to familiarise himself with ferrous metal reclamation.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 110, which has been tabled by my hon. Friends and I, is extremely straightforward: it requires that those who carry out the recycling are paid for the process.
      Our amendment relates to the new clause proposed by Lords amendment No. 110. It changes the option that there "may" be payment to the waste collection authority

      787
      to a requirement that there "shall" be. I hope that the Minister will be favourably disposed towards that amendment.
      I do not dissent greatly from the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), but he will not be surprised if I speak to another specific concern—one which I am sure the Minister expected that I should want to express. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has already mentioned the problem, which is now the subject of amendments tabled by the Labour party and my party. If a waste collection authority should become a waste disposal authority, it would be prevented from carrying out certain recycling.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues have received written representations on this matter and the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was questioned about it at a recent conference. Concern about this matter is especially prevalent in authorities such as the London boroughs of Richmond and Sutton, which have taken the lead in recycling initiatives under the administration of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
      Richmond is a collection authority and also one of the constituent members of the west London waste authority—one of the four statutory London waste disposal authorities. I do not think that there is any party political doubt that that borough has been at the forefront of recycling activities. It operates a range of collection activities covering bottles, rags, cans, office waste paper, computer paper and commercial glass. There are many points around the borough for the collection of board, waste oil, plastic and so on. It has storage bays for recycling, which other boroughs also use. It is now investigating micro recycling centres. It has a lot of fairly sophisticated equipment either already commissioned or planned. It clearly has a sophisticated process for servicing the facilities and doing an extremely good job.
      To take up the point of the hon. Member for Burnley, it would be invidious for a local authority to have to pay and make a loss on some environmental and recycling activities if, on the rare occasion when it was to make a profit—which it normally uses to encourage voluntary activity—it was to be prohibited from any activity.
      7.30 pm
      My colleagues in Richmond are worried that the Government's approach will mean that my colleagues will not be allowed to retain in house, organised by the local authority as opposed to contracted out, all the recycling initiatives which it is accepted have been among the best in the country.
      The Sutton case is parallel. It is a collection authority and, as the Under-Secretary will know, it is also a disposal authority by virtue of being a member of the voluntary south London waste disposal joint committee. It has purchased vehicles for glass collection, put its in-house direct labour operation out to compulsory, competitive tender and won the contract. As a result, it has begun to programme a range of activities that require investment of money and officer time. It is equally concerned that that project is likely to be thwarted by the current trend of Government activity.
      I expect that the Under-Secretary has seen the letter written to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, dated 22 October, by the leader of Sutton borough council, Councillor Graham Tope. Councillor Tope asks a
      788
      limited number of specific questions, which I shall repeat because, as far as I know, they have not yet been answered and go to the core of the issue. He asks whether it is the Minister's intention that the Bill will allow a waste collection authority that is also a waste disposal authority to provide and operate, either by direct labour or private contractor, a recycling facility and be in receipt of a rebate which will be a transfer from its waste disposal or waste collection account to a recycling account. It seems to the councillor, as it does to my colleagues and me, that that is an encouragement to be a good recycling authority. It is a perfectly proper activity.
      What is intended to be the commercial, financial interaction between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities? What about commercial contractual commitments entered into, as at present, by local authorities, either with other local authorities to do their recycling for them, or with direct service organisations or private companies? Will they be allowed to go ahead and honour those or will they have penalties imposed on them if they do? Will there be a programme whereby waste collection authorities will have to invite tenders for the receipt of waste that they collect? How will they be able to carry out what they are presently doing without breach of contract?
      I confirm the concerns that have also been taken up with Ministers by my colleagues in Richmond upon Thames. The Minister will be aware that my colleague, Lord Ezra, raised those matters in the other place in the debate only a week ago. There has been correspondence, including some from Lady Blatch, as the Under-Secretary of State responsible for such matters in the other place, and from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to officers of the London borough of Richmond, but they do not address the fundamental concern. We have not yet had a reassurance that local authorities will be able, if they are in the constitutional position of being both collection and disposal authorities, to carry out in house the recycling activity that they have clearly done well and wish to carry on. There are all sorts of practical implications in that.
      I hope that the Minister can be far more positive and will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 110. I hope that he will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 93 and say that, where recycling has been pioneered by good local authorities, they will be allowed to go on doing it and will not be forced by what I can only assume is an initial mistake to have recycling out of house, so that it is no longer an operation in which they can lead the local community and volunteer effort, and set an extremely good example that many other local authorities are willing and happy to follow.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: While we are considering the statutory responsibilities and the question whether the amendment should read "may" or "shall"" it is possible to re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) talked about—the commercial recycling and reclamation, and the individual and voluntary groups. Obviously, they can mesh together. If we ever forget to emphasise how important it is for each of us to consider what we can do and try to ensure that those with commercial opportunities

      789
      for selling and reclaiming products receive some response to what they do, whether they do it correctly or not, we shall not achieve the full spectrum of necessary activity.
      I pay tribute to the mayoress of Cambridge. When she bought a plastic product packed in a container that stated that it was recyclable she tried to find out how it was recyclable and was told that at some future stage it might be possible to sort out different sorts of plastic and perhaps that form of plastic could be melted down and used. I regard that as offensive. We must start with current products that can be recycled, with voluntary help to overcome the transport and collection costs, as with aluminium and paper, and then move to the time when the value of waste paper is taken from £3 a tonne back to £30 a tonne and promote more commercial opportunity in collection and disposal.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal to provide a focus for all the efforts, but when people consider the results of the legislation, they will remember the role of voluntary organisations and domestic households, as well as commercial premises.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I am a Member who recognises that world resources are finite and recycling has an important part to play. However, experience in my constituency during the past 18 months makes it clear that recycling has to be carried out within a framework of adequate and ongoing supervision and regulation. I recognise the need for the reclamation of metals. As a Member with a significant part of the British special steels industry in my constituency, I should be foolish not to do so.
      I shall restrict my speech on the group of amendments to a local incident with which the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is familiar and to which he has devoted a fair amount of time and energy. About 18 months ago, a consignment of toxic waste, contained in a load of copper scrap, reached my constituency. The material was supposed to be uncontaminated, but after it had lain in the open for some time it was discovered to be contaminated by carcinogenic materials—what I described last year as a poisonous cocktail.
      That incident has cost my local authority considerable sums in supervision. It has also had to bear the burden of anxiety felt throughout the local community. The saddest part is that the material was already in Britain and had been here for some weeks before the poison was discovered, which suggests that the regulations should be changed and that the role of the local authority and its capacity to meet the costs that it incurred should be enshrined in new legislation.
      The Minister may care to offer his latest comments on the position, but 18 months later the material is still in my constituency. It is now contained in more than 2,700 drums and has been there for 12 months—heaven knows when it will go. While that material remains in my constituency, it is evidence of the inadequacy of regulation and the need for care and supervision to assist local authorities to ensure that their communities are protected. It may be that it was unwitting poisoning, although we cannot be sure until the court case is resolved in the United States. However, that incident provides adequate evidence to sustain continuing concern in the House. We want a commitment from Ministers that, if existing regulations
      790
      prove inadequate and bring the risk of a repeat performance of that which has blighted my area, they will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation—which I believe will be necessary at an early stage.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am delighted that he is now speaking from the Front Bench; his presence there is long overdue.
      I am concerned that we are endangering the legislation by making recycling less practical and more difficult, rather than easier. We should be encouraging recycling. There are two approaches to the problem—pre-collection sorting and post-collection sorting. Unfortunately, the legislation tends to put those two approaches in competition, rather than encouraging co-operation. Pre-collection sorting was pioneered in Huddersfield 10 years ago—I think that it was an Oxfam scheme—but, unfortunately, it ran into financial difficulties and ceased operation. More recently, Friends of the Earth, in co-operation with the Sheffield local authority, operated a recycling scheme.
      Both schemes involved the householder separating his rubbish into four or five different piles and putting them into separate containers, which were then collected from the households. People in other authorities separate their rubbish, although the refuse collection service does not deal with separated items. The householders have to take them to bottle banks, waste paper collection points, tin can collection points and so on.
      There are considerable attractions in the pre-sorting process. For example, it increases public awareness of how much is being thrown away and the value of those items. The scheme is cheap to operate because it relies on the householder to sort the rubbish. However, the scheme has disadvantages. It can be inefficient because some people will not go to the trouble of sorting their rubbish; the elderly and the disabled may find sorting difficult; and in tower blocks and flats there is often the difficulty of only one refuse chute for rubbish, so that it is difficult to sort it effectively.
      Another problem is that, however hard one tries, a large proportion of rubbish is not sorted. A certain amount can be extracted, but it is difficult to extract and sort all the rubbish into reusable materials. The process can also be expensive. There are many examples of people who religiously take paper and bottles to collection points, but in fact they use more energy transporting the rubbish than is saved by recycling.
      I suspect that the pre-sorting process causes problems for waste disposal authorities that have begun to develop post-sorting of refuse. The temptation is to take from the refuse the one or two valuable materials that will command a high price. That destroys the economics of sorting all the rubbish. That is why I disagree with the Liberal-Democrat amendment to replace the word "may" with "shall". If a collection authority is separating paper, bottles or any other materials in the rubbish that might otherwise go to landfill, it is doing a valuable service and should receive some remuneration to take account of the fact that it is reducing the amount of landfill. If a local authority sorts all the refuse in its depot, the pre-collection method that takes out the most valuable items—for example, aluminium and tin—may destroy the economics of that authority's attempt to recycle all the waste.

      791
      One disadvantage of post-collection sorting is that it does not impress upon the public the importance of the resources being used. It is unseen by the public, because it takes place in the waste disposal depot. The process can also be expensive, especially because of the capital costs of installing equipment to separate the rubbish. However, almost 100 per cent. recycling can be achieved. The Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is running an experimental scheme, and I understand that an authority in the west midlands also has a recycling contract.
      Paper, tin, aluminium and different sorts of plastic can be extracted and, eventually, there is a residue of humus material that can be turned into an acceptable substitute for peat, which is environmentally attractive. If all that takes place, Iandfill can be avoided and there is a recycled use of the materials. The danger is that that approach can be destroyed if the pre-collection authority extracts one or two of the more valuable materials. That destroys the economic viability of the large plants that are intended to sort all the refuse.
      7.45 pm
      There needs to be a co-operative approach in any local authority area. The collection and disposal authorities should discuss whether pre-or post-collection is the most reasonable. They should make financial arrangements to take that into account. The Government also have a key role in that because, whether it is pre- or post-collection, the paramount question is what price can be commanded for the recycled materials. The Government should be doing much more to ensure guaranteed prices for recycled materials. They should increase the specifications, especially in Government purchasing, for the use of recycled materials.
      The Government have made some progress in the use of recycled paper, but they could go much further. It is regrettable that, in other areas of Government purchasing, there is no requirement for the use of, for example, recycled glass. I ask the Minister to ensure that this legislation does not produce an artificial conflict between the collection and the disposal authorities. The Government must do as much as possible to ensure guaranteed prices, especially in a period when it appears that there will be a general slump in industrial activity. We must not destroy the impetus of the recycling industry.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The debate has echoed some of our discussions in Committee, and they were some of our best debates. There was an especially striking speech from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who, in an associated debate on packaging, brought to the Committee a shirt box containing a new shirt. He used that to show how the manufacturer could do without a great deal of the packaging, pins, labels and so on. It was an excellent prop.
      In other debates, there were contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who impressed upon the Committee the fact that this country has a good record in reclamation and scrap reprocessing. He instigated a visit by me to a large and important scrap merchant in London which showed me what was happening on the ground. It also showed me the importance of doing nothing in the Bill that might impede the recovery of ferrous and other scrap.
      792
      I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue closely to consult the relevant industry. My officials have already had preliminary discussions with the British Secondary Metals Association, and they will be happy to extend them to the British Scrap Federation. Those discussions will be most usefully held after we have issued a first draft of our licensing regulations and the associated guidance, so that there will be something definite on the table to discuss. Those notes and regulations will meet my hon. Friend's concern that different standards might apply in different parts of the country—and that is something we certainly want to avoid.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the boundary transfer of waste. We are determined that regulations on an international or EC basis, although necessary, will not impede or inhibit the legitimate recycling trade. However, I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that we must not assume that all potentially recyclable waste is by definition non-hazardous.
      My hon. Friend asked about recycling credits. T he Lords amendment sets out in detail how those credits are to be paid, and the philosophy is comparatively simple. When material is reclaimed from the waste stream and recycled, there is a saving on disposal costs. Put simply, each tonne of glass that we recycle is a tonne of which we do not have to dispose. The purpose of the amendments, which I believe have cross-party support, is to capture that sum of money in cash terms and to attribute it to the recycling activity.
      Several hon. Members asked who is to receive those credits. Under amendment No. 92, they should, as a requirement, go to the waste collection authority, and also to third parties where appropriate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted to ensure that that arrangement will not impede the more general recycling undertaken in the voluntary sector. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that that sector is an essential part of the activity, and we must do nothing to inhibit it.
      I ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment, because there may be instances where economies of scale will make it more appropriate for a recycling scheme to be run by a waste collection authority rather than by voluntary bodies. In other cases, a number of voluntary bodies may be operating similar schemes in the same area, and it would not necessarily be appropriate for a waste disposal authority to pay credits to a number of competing schemes—especially if some of them recycle only small amounts of waste.
      One can imagine a situation in which the viability of a large door-to-door collection scheme depends on collecting and recycling of all the materials, including more valuable items such as aluminium cans. It would be unfortunate if a small-scale competitor went down the street in advance of the recycling wagon and simply picked up the more valuable aluminium cans, as that might render the competing scheme uneconomic.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Are not boroughs such as Sutton and Richmond concerned that it might operate the other way around? The local collecting authority may have established a viable business and then find that it is taken away and given to another agency, private or public, so that the authority would lose that revenue. Sutton was the first local authority in Britain to introduce the

      793
      recycling of CFCs, and my own local authority of Gordon was the second. They do not make money from that activity, and it is only reasonable that they should be able to secure some benefit, so that they can cross-subsidise. If revenue is lost to local authorities, a greater burden will fall on poll tax payers.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I intend to address the question of unitary disposal or collection authorities, but I was making the point that some discretion must be allowed as to the type of third party recycling scheme that a local waste disposal authority wants to encourage in its area. Because we believe in such discretion, we reject the idea of making it compulsory that recycling credits should be given automatically to every scheme in any particular area.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sutton, and I am happy to acknowledge the work done by that London borough, which is something of a leader in certain aspects of recycling.
      That leads me to the disquiet felt by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). In Committee, it was agreed that waste disposal authorities should transfer their disposal operations to what were called LAWDCs—local authority waste disposal companies. A local authority will be required to transfer all the relevant plant and equipment for the keeping, treatment or disposal of such waste to such a company, or to make alternative arrangements with the private sector for its provision. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, I take it that he accepts the LAWDC principle.
      It follows that it would not be sensible to allow those that happen to be both collection and disposal authorities to provide and operate as collection authorities equipment that they would be unable to provide and operate as disposal authorities. A line must be drawn somewhere, as to which plant and equipment a collection authority should operate. Our view is that the line should be drawn at the plant and equipment that a collection authority would normally provide as part of its collection duties.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister says that a line must be drawn somewhere, but surely local government should be allowed to make its own decisions as to the most appropriate arrangement for a particular part of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the tremendous variations that exist in the areas and populations involved. Instead of imposing legislation nationally, would it not be better and more democratic to allow such matters to be decided locally?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and must be aware that the establishment of LAWDCs underpins this part of the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that LAWDCs need not be privately owned but can be entirely in the public sector, joint ventures, or companies jointly owned by the private and public sector.
      The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrote to me to ensure that, in clause 46(6), the words
      "plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste"
      include bottle banks and other collection facilities. I examined carefully the wording of the Bill, and I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the title of clause 46:
      "Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collection."
      794
      It implies that we are here considering waste that has already been collected and is at the disposal phase. Only those facilities, and that plant and equipment, will be that from which we are precluding the collection and disposal authorities from owning. Consequently, bottle banks and light plant and equipment of that type should be permitted to be owned and run by the London boroughs that are both collection and disposal authorities. I hope that I have put the hon. Lady's mind at rest, and I invite the House to reject the Opposition amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 66

      POWERS OF ENTRY ETC. OF INSPECTORS
      Lords amendment: No. 157, in page 71, line 32, after ("treated") insert (", kept")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 163 and 298.
      8 pm
      Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend the Minister feel that he should say anything about the effect on airports, railway stations and ferry ports, because of the changes made by another place in clause 72 and their references in paragraph (b) of their amendment No. 163 to
      "any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of transport services by land, water or air"?
      Mr. Trippier: Amendment 163 updates the definition of industrial waste in clause 72 in such a way that it no longer relies upon who owns or operates the industry or on what it does. That is a safer means of delivering the same effect. I remember that my hon. Friend mentioned this subject in Committee, and I am grateful to him. The amended clause would have a wider application, and it would be more stringently enforced. I think that that meets his concerns in every particular.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    New Clause

      DOG REGISTRATION
      Lords amendment: No. 296, after clause 134, insert the following new clause—
      (".—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the registration, identification and control of dogs.
      (2) Regulations under this section shall include, provision for the regulations to be administered by local authorities, and for the charging by them of registration fees of such amounts, and subject to such exemptions, as they may determine or the Secretary of State may prescribe.
      (3) Any person who without reasonable excuse—

      (a) fails to comply without any requirement imposed on him by regulations under this section to register a dog, or

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

      shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
      (4) in performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter into such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
      (5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall lay the first draft regulations before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
      (6) In this section "local authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council of the City of London, and in Scotland means an islands or district council.")
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments (e) to (g) and (a) to (d) to the new clause; Lords amendment No. 299, and the Government motion to disagree; and Lords amendment No. 436 and the Government motion to disagree.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In previous debates on the subject of dogs, there has been widespread agreement that measures are necessary to deal with the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership.
      We have now placed before the House a package of measures on dog identification and straying. But we remain opposed to the idea of attempting to register all dogs in the country. That would be an expensive and bureaucratic diversion from the need to act decisively against the actual problems. In short, we want to solve the problem, not register it.
      A registration scheme would be expensive—according to the RSPCA's own figures, it would cost some £20 million a year simply to administer the scheme. That sum would have to be spent before providing any dog wardens or kenneling facilities at all.
      Mr. John P. Smith: Surely the whole point about the dog registration scheme is that it would be self-financing?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will hear me demonstrate that a dog registration scheme is an extremely inefficient way to raise money for providing dog control services. As I have said, if one takes the RSPCA's figures, £20 million a year would be diverted not into providing wardens and kennelling facilities but simply to run the scheme. Therefore, it would be entirely unproductive in dealing with the problems that exist. Registration is not an effective way to raise the necessary revenue to enforce dog control measures.
      Mr. Gale: The figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned, which is not in dispute, represents £3 per dog. Does he consider that that is excessive?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is assuming a high level of compliance. In Northern Ireland they have been attempting for the past seven years to enforce a dog licensing system costing only £5 a year. It is estimated that between one third and one half of the dogs in the Province have a licence. Widespread concern has been expressed in this country about the likely level of fees, especially for low-income dog owners.
      796
      Last year, the RSPCA commissioned a study from the London School of Economics. I can be forgiven, therefore, for quoting figures and sums that have come not from my Department but from an independent and authoritative study. It calculated that, with a 60 per cent. compliance rate, which I regard as highly optimistic in the light of the Northern Ireland experience, a one-off fee of £121·50 would be necessary. Alternatively, there could be a first-year registration fee of £29 and continuing annual fees. That would be a financial burden for some and a disincentive to register for others. It is the irresponsible dog owner who would be the last to comply and pay up. The law-abiding owner would therefore subsidise the irresponsible owner whose dogs create all the problems.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister refers to the experience in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the problem of stray dogs worrying sheep has dramatically diminished in Northern Ireland due to the introduction of the scheme? Might it not be that, although some people are reluctant to register their dogs, they now make sure that they do not cause any of the nuisances in Northern Ireland that we are so concerned about?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The number of stray dogs that have to be destroyed has not fallen. Despite the fact that the licensing system has been in operation for seven years, that pile of dead dogs that the RSPCA is so fond of showing us has been either stable or growing in that part of the United Kingdom where dog licensing has been enforced.
      Mr. Hugo Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree with the chief environmental health officer of Belfast, who is on record as saying that, without dog registration, the problem would be a great deal worse?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My point is that, despite the enforcement measures that have been taken during the last seven years, fewer than half the dogs are licensed. The fee is only £5. If the fee were higher, as the scheme proponents suppose it would be here, I suggest that it might be difficult to reach even those standards of compliance.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I happened to be a Northern Ireland Minister at the time that the scheme was introduced. It was not anticipated that there would be a substantial take-up of the licence, whatever figure was set. Circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that it is very difficult for the Government to recover dues from sections of the population. The rent and rates system has been subject from time to time to rent and rate strikes. The notorious black taxis that run up and down the Falls road are unlicensed and cannot be licensed. The scheme is totally unenforceable.
      Nevertheless, the experience in Northern Ireland is that the scheme has had a beneficial effect. Sheep worrying has diminished. As those who are responsible for administering the scheme are the first to state, the situation would be far, far worse without the scheme.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I would not lean too heavily on the experience in Belfast, where doubtless the conditions outlined by my hon. Friend obtain. There is no reason why compliance should not be higher in rural areas of Northern Ireland. Regrettably, in the Province as a whole, the licensing system appears to cover fewer than half the dogs.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the Minister who was formerly responsible for agriculture and sheep worrying, I confirm that the number of complaints is low, although it is rising. The fairer way to put it is that, during the first year of the scheme's operation in Northern Ireland, if one added together the number of animals impounded and the number of animals that owners asked to be collected, the figure came to fewer than 11,000. During the last year for which we have figures, the number of animals impounded and the number of animals that owners asked to be collected came to 17,000. Those comparative figures do not self-evidently demonstrate that licensing deals with the impounding of dogs or with the dogs that their owners no longer want to keep.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I respect my hon. Friend's point. The critical factor is how many dog wardens, kennelling facilities and vehicles are used to round up, collect and hold strays. It is exactly in order to do that that we are introducing the present package of amendments.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that the Northern Ireland scheme resulted in an improvement. May I put it to the Minister that the scheme that he is suggesting would, in Northern Ireland circumstances, produce an even greater improvement? The burden of my hon. Friend's case is that his proposal is better than the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Any improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland is not attributable to the licensing system. It is due to the wardening facilities that are available in the Province.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: There is an intractable case i n my constituency which demonstrates how foolish the present regime is. In a small terraced house, there are six chow dogs and three border collies, as well as two cats. The neighbours nearly go mad. There is no law to prevent that. Such foolishness, widespread in many areas, would be deterred if people had to contribute to a sensible scheme. I have a file about the case, but I can do nothing about it. I know that similar cases occur in many other areas.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The owner of the six chow dogs might resent having to register and pay the full fee when it is not those dogs that create the problem.
      Dame Janet Fookes: To refer to the position in Northern Ireland, I have spoken personally today to the chief dog warden for Belfast city council. He assured me that Belfast welcomes licensing and regards it as absolutely essential if the council is to carry out its job properly. Is the Minister suggesting that that man is an incompetent fool?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has drawn attention again to Belfast. I had not intended to lean too heavily on the experience of that one city, with its particular problems. The Government's duty, however, is to consult more widely and to talk to others, apart from the people who are employed to do the job in Belfast. We sent over officials to discuss the matter with the USPCA and local authorities and to examine statistics from a number of different sources. We concluded that the level of
      798
      compliance in Northern Ireland was low and that any improvement in the stray dog problem in the Province could not be attributed to the licensing system.
      As for exemptions, I have already mentioned that those who comply and pay the full fee might resent the fact that it is the irresponsible minority who create the problem who may be deterred from registering. The problem could be made worse if there were widespread exemptions. If old-age pensioners or those on income support were exempted from charges, or if there were exemptions for guide dogs or working dogs, all those animals would still have to be registered, but no income would accrue. Still higher costs could fall on the long-suffering, law-abiding owner who registers. In short, a registration scheme would be an expensive and bureaucratic way of not solving the problem.
      That remains our view on dog registration, but I have always agreed about the need for action. As I said in April, and as my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said in another place, we intend to introduce measures to deal with stray dogs.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among responsible dog owners that they will have to bear the burden of this increased bureaucracy and the enormous army of dog wardens that will be required because a significant number of irresponsible dog owners will not pay their registration fee? Is he aware that the burden of my constituency mail has changed since the House of Lords voted for a registration scheme? The majority of people who now write to me are against such a scheme, and today a petition of more than 14,000 signatures has been placed in the House of Commons against a dog registration scheme. Public opinion is turning on this issue.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend underlines the point that I was making about the responsible dog owner. I am aware of two large petitions that have been handed in against dog registration.
      The Government always intended to deal with the problem of stray dogs, which was why last year we announced a consultation paper, "Action on Dogs". It was returned to the Department with a substantial measure of agreement. Its suggestions could not be incorporated into the original Bill as they were outside its scope, but since then the long title of the Bill has been amended in another place. It brings dog control measures clearly within the scope of the Bill, and we wish to accept that. The package of measures that we propose will, I think, tackle the problem on the ground.
      Let me deal with the need for identification. Since 1930, every dog in a public place has been required to wear a collar and identification tag, with certain exemptions. Enforcement, which is split between local authorities and the police, has been extremely patchy. Amendment (g) places this duty squarely on district councils. It providces a simple, visible and immediate way of linking owner with dog and enables dogs to be returned to their owners without the need for the authorities to be involved.
      I invite the House to compare that with the complexity of an electronic registration scheme, by which an implanted microchip must be read by a specialist scanner to give a number, which is then fed into a central computer

      799
      to give the last recorded address of the last registered owner. We propose, instead, a practical solution to a practical problem, which dog registration does not supply.
      Similarly for stray dogs; since 1906, the police have had powers to collect and hold strays and local authorities have had such powers in recent years. But no one has had the duty to collect and hold strays. We propose that this should be settled at district level. District councils will be responsible for collecting and holding stray dogs. To do that, they may employ an agent such as a dog welfare body, but they will remain responsible for carrying out their duties properly.
      To encourage the public to continue to help in dealing with the stray dog problem, they will, as at present, be able to continue to take stray dogs to the nearest police station or direct to the local authority. District councils will hold stray dogs for at least seven days. If the owner retrieves the dog, he will have to pay the cost of kennelling and, in addition, a fee to defray the cost of the warden and collection service. If the dog remains uncollected, it will be sold, given away or humanely destroyed.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend has given slightly the wrong impression. Will he confirm that the Lords amendment does not include anything about placing an implant in a dog and electronically monitoring it? It leaves the decision on the methods of control for further discussion at some other time.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The national registration scheme which has been advocated by its roponents—[Interruption.] It is an inescapable part of that scheme that there should be a central computer and a means of linking a dog in any part of the country with that computer. All the descriptions and advice that I have received, certainly from the RSCPA, have been along the lines of an electronic device. I have already described how that is an imprecise and inefficient way of doing what is better done by enforcement of the collar and tag requirement.
      I have already said that, in addition to paying the kennelling fee, a person collecting a stray dog will have to pay a fee towards the cost of the warden service. That will raise additional revenue, but I recognise that acting against strays in this manner, and the new obligation on district councils, will mean increased expenditure. Before implementing the package, we would need to discuss its details with local authorities and take the new duties into account in determining revenue support grant. More than 200 local authorities already employ dog wardens within existing resources, and I believe that the city of Bradford employs five.
      Authorities can expect additional revenue when stray dogs are collected by their owners, who will pay a fee which will be retained by the district council. According to the LSE report, about a quarter of stray dogs are returned to their owners, so this source of revenue could be significant. It also has the great advantage that the dog owners who create the problem will pay directly for its solution, and again this is an advantage over a national dog registration scheme.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I should be grateful if the Minister would not, unintentionally I am sure, mislead the House on another matter. Not only has he not yet confirmed that the Lords amendment was a general amendment with no specific scheme allowing for regulations, but he has not said that more than 200 of the 250 local authorities which
      800
      responded to his consultation favoured a dog registration scheme. The reality of his proposal—that people who turn up to collect their stray dog will pay—is that the fine will be paid after the dog has bolted, which is a ludicrous stystem. Is it not better that people pay in advance and become responsible from the moment the dog is theirs?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that an electronic tagging system is now deemed impracticable, he will agree that the collar and tag requirement provides a simpler, more immediate and more direct means of linking an owner with his dog.
      Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate): Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I must get on. Will my hon. Friend forgive me?
      In earlier debates, we promised to offer local authorities improved byelaws aimed directly at curbing dog nuisance. Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office published details of such byelaws.
      There are already byelaws giving local authorities the ability to require owners to clear up after their dogs, the so-called "pooper scoop" byelaw. The Home Office has now greatly extended the discretion of local authorities. They can also require dogs to be kept on a lead or banned from certain areas at certain times of the day. With the other measures against dog fouling in another part of the Bill, local authorities will have these additional clear. specific and well-targeted powers to deal with dog fouling and other nuisances in their areas.
      8.30 pm
      For the sake of completeness, I should remind the House that dangerous dogs were the subject of another consultation paper which we issued in June this year. Consultation on it ends on 15 November, and again we shall look for a suitable opportunity to legislate if those measures achieve wide support.
      Mr. Robert Banks rose——
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no one dog problem and no one solution. I notice that the advocates of dog registration have begun to downgrade its powers. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ended a recent open letter with the rather lame statement:
      "A national dog registration scheme is not the answer, but it is the key to a package of measures".
      I am proposing that package. It enforces identification, it acts directly against stray dogs; and it penalises the irresponsible owner. It does this without the need to get every dog on a computer. This evening, I invite the House to pass the measures which we propose. That will he a big step along the road to creating a more responsible dog-owning country.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I must oppose the Government's motion and support the amendment that was carried overwhelmingly in the House of Lords a few weeks ago. I hope to be brief—unlike the Minister—because we all want to make progress, and a good number of hon. Members want to speak.
      My instant reaction to this debate is to say, here we are again. It is remarkable that, once again, the greatest Government effort on the Bill so far seems to be to defeat dog registration. It is clear that the Minister was not happy with the task allotted to him. It is not very comfortable to

      801
      have to argue that people will not pay to register their dogs but will pay to collect them once they have strayed. I understand the Minister's problems.
      The reason why Ministers have had to make such heavy weather of this debate is not that they are not convinced of the need for dog registration. The story that Ministers at the Department of the Environment were willing to accept the Lords amendment and the Government's defeat there has not been denied. It seems clear that the reason why we are having this debate is that one person, the Prime Minister, wants to persist in her opposition. Here we are again having this debate, with the Government refusing to do the obvious and introduce dog registration.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I remind the hon. Lady of an amendment tabled on Report to the Control of Pollution Bill in 1974 proposing a scheme for dog registration. It was not taken, but instead a working party was set up and it came forward with proposals for a dog registration scheme. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour party had the opportunity to introduce a scheme of the kind before us. Why did not it do so?
      Mrs. Taylor: I think that opinion generally during those years was moving in favour of dog registration schemes. Without doubt, the problems that have arisen in the past 10 years prove that we need to do something urgently and stop the kind of talk on which the Minister has always embarked.
      What we have seen from the Minister today is what we have seen from him on every other occasion. Every time we have this debate, the Whips scurry around and tell Ministers that they are not sure that they can carry the day. They ask Ministers to pull something out of the hat and whether they will have one of their famous incentives and produce yet another package. We have had consultation papers and discussion documents, everything from Ministers except what we need—a commitment to a dog registration scheme.
      That happened again last Thursday, when there was a planted question and the Whips were worried about tonight's vote. The package that the Minister outlined this evening is exactly the same as all the other so-called packages: it is all wrapping and no content, not least because Ministers are extremely worried that if they concede anything, the Prime Minister will have her say and they will all be in trouble.
      I see that the junior Minister had yet again been left isolated to deal with the problem.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Lady keeps making the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is behind this, but she keeps forgetting that many hon. Members are wholly opposed to such a scheme because it would not work and does not address the problem.
      Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Every time we have had a vote, every time we have had a debate on dog registration, it has become clear that the majority of Members—Ministers apart—have always voted for dog registration.
      The Minister should step back from his brief and instructions and think about the problems that are involved and that he has mentioned—of dog control, dog
      802
      fouling and dangerous dogs—and ask himself why so many people are in favour of dog registration. Why are the majority of the public in favour of dog registration? The majority of Back Benchers, members of the House of Lords and dog owners are in favour of dog registration.
      Many responsible organisations that have experience or expertise in these matters are committed to a dog registration scheme: the Association of District Councils, which is mainly Conservative controlled; the Battersea dogs' home; the British Veterinary Association; Child Care Concern; the Country Landowners Association; the Institution of Environmental Health Officers; the National Canine Defence League; the National Farmers Union; the National Federation of Women's Institutes; the Police Federation; and the Townswomen's Guild—not organisations that always support the Labour party. They are a cross-section of people who have had different experiences of the problems about which we are talking. I hope that Ministers will not push their concerns to one side and will not simply say that something will be done at some time. Ministers and Conservative Members should realise that it is about time we had action.
      We must be absolutely clear about the content of the Lords amendment. It is a straightforward amendment, which states that a dog registration scheme should be established. It is not, as the Minister implied, a prescriptive amendment in terms of the exact scheme that has to be introduced—that is to be left to the Government, presumably after consultation with local authorities. As the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, it is not an amendment that prescribes an electronic or tattooing scheme or any other scheme; it simply establishes the principle of the introduction of a dog registration scheme.
      What is more, the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords now allows two years for the process of introducing the scheme. That followed a Government-inspired amendment, which the Opposition did not oppose, in the hope of getting the amendment on to the statute book. Before Conservative Members take note of what the Minister said about electronic schemes, they should remember that the House of Lords decision is a vote in principle for the establishment of a dog registration scheme, not any one variation of that kind. Dog registration is a pro-dog measure. It will promote better and more responsible dog ownership. It will make people think before they obtain a dog.
      The Minister argues that a dog registration scheme would be extremely bureaucratic. That is rich coming from a Government who introduced poll tax registration and all the measures that went with it. The Minister also said that dog registration would be expensive.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: If, as even I acknowledge, a number of people are reluctant to pay the community charge, why should they be so keen to pay for dog registration?
      Mrs. Taylor: I hardly think that the dog registration fee will be as high as the poll tax, although I am sure that Ministers could contrive to make it so if they put their minds to it. They could certainly make it as complex and bureaucratic if they so wished.
      The Minister referred to the expense of introducing the scheme and, in an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) expressed his

      803
      concern about the cost to local authorities of a registration scheme. I think that local authorities will have more reason to worry about coping with the problem of dog control under the amendment suggested by the Minister without the income that a dog registration scheme would provide. All the Minister's proposals will place extra burdens on local authorities and penalise those authorities that take the most action, because they will provide nothing in the way of extra resources to allow the authorities to deal with the problems that the Minister is passing on to them.
      We must make a positive decision. Ministers have given us enough promises in the past. The public and the majority of dog owners will not understand if we let the problem drift further. I hope that the House will support the dog registration scheme and the amendment.
      Dame Janet Fookes: It gives me no pleasure whatever to be at variance with the Government on the question of dog registration. With regard to the other measures that the Government propose, some are better than others, but I fear that, without dog registration, they will be largely ineffective.
      If any measures are to be enforced, it is absolutely essential to establish the ownership of the dog. I do not believe that ownership can he satisfactorily established without registration. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, the Lords amendment—like my earlier new clause—does not seek to lay down details but rather to establish the principle of compulsory dog registration with the local authorities charged with implementing it. That was done purposely because there are different ways of dealing with the details of the scheme.
      Perhaps I may describe how I think the scheme would and should work. If we had a computer system, with each dog given a distinctive identification number or mark, dogs would be registered for all time. Whether that is done by collar and tag or whether by collar and tag plus an implant or tattooing is up for consideration during the two-year period that the Lords envisage. The point is that each dog would have its own distinct identity mark. That would make it very much easier for the authorities—particularly dog wardens, who would, I imagine, be the enforcement authority—to check the records and trace the owner.
      In that connection, it is interesting to note the experience of Battersea dogs home, which has decided, as a matter of principle and policy, to use the implant system. It has been doing so for some months and there have been some beneficial results for dog owners who have lost their dogs and have been reunited with them very quickly. Apparently, it has also made a great difference to the way in which those who take over stray dogs and give them new homes have felt about the matter. It has made them much more responsible. They know that if they do not look after the dog and if it goes on the streets again, it can be traced back to its owner. That registration scheme in microcosm is in operation on a voluntary basis. It is an extremely interesting scheme, and I urge any hon. Members who are doubtful about the matter to go to Battersea dogs home.
      8.45 pm
      We also know that it is perfectly simple to set up a computer system to register all dogs. On a voluntary basis, that is happening now among owners who wish to keep control of their animals through the computer scheme organised by the Wood Green animal shelter——
      Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dame Janet Fookes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think that he is with me on this.
      Mr. Hardy: The hon. Lady knows that I share her concern for dogs and that, even if I do not necessarily agree with her approach, I respect her commitment. She was courteous enough to allow me to intervene in her speech last time we debated the matter and I asked her what she estimated the cost of registration would be. I recollect that she informed the House that it would be £2·50. Clearly, we shall have to debate these matters again during the next two years, but does she agree that if a system of identification by transponder is introduced, it will cost a great deal more than she suggested? Does she also agree that it will be resented by pensioners with their poodles and widows with their Pekinese who do not particularly want to have electric gadgets inserted into their dogs' ears or necks?
      Dame Janet Fookes: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is correct. I said that it would cost about £2·50 and certainly less than £3 for the registration scheme alone. Much will depend on whether the transponder system is taken up and on whether we wish to load on to the registration fee some or all of the costs of the dog wardens, who will presumably act as the enforcement agency. All that is up for negotiation, but the basic cost of a simple computer registration system will be under £3 per dog per year.
      There is plenty of scope for deciding what the fee might be. I should not wish the fee to be huge, for reasons that I am sure hon. Members will understand. We do not wish to discourage dog ownership or to place an onerous burden on those who cannot afford it. It would be possible to use the licence fee to introduce a differential system. For example, we might wish to encourage people to spay or neuter their animals, in which case we could charge a lower fee for those who did so and a higher one for those who wished their dogs to remain entire. That is one possibility. If we wished, it would certainly be possible to grant exemptions or charge very small amounts in the case of worthy groups such as people on income support and those with guide dogs or working dogs. Those are all possibilities. The details are not inherent in the scheme proposed in the amendment; it is merely a scheme in principle. I warmly welcome the Lords decision that we should allow two years to give ample scope for discussions with all the interested parties.
      Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that licensing has to be considered in relation to the cost of keeping a dog and that as one cannot keep even a small dog for less than £4 a week—allowing for vets' bills, grooming and food—a licence fee of even £10 or £15 a year is not a vast amount?
      Dame Janet Fookes: I entirely agree. However, by accepting the amendment in principle, we are not tied to some vast figure. It is perfectly possible to arrange the scheme as we wish. As it stands, the Government are asking local authorities to take on a great deal without the technical means to bring the scheme about. I am referring to the need for dog wardens, RSPCA inspectors and others to be able to trace owners and lay the responsibility on them.

      805
      It is extremely interesting that all those people who have to deal with the problem want registration to enable them to carry out their duties. For example, RSPCA inspectors have told me that they have lost cases in court or have not taken cases to court because they could not establish ownership. Dog wardens have the same problem. The inspectors, the dog wardens, the Association of District Councils and everyone who must work the system wants registration.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that the identification of dogs is important. But what advantage does a registration system have over my plan for the enforcement of the wearing of a collar and identification tag? After all, a tag is a visible means by which anyone can link a dog to its owner. To the extent that an owner may refuse to place a collar and tag on his dog, he might be the same kind of person who would refuse to register in the first place, particularly as the privilege of registration will entail the payment of a fee.
      Dame Janet Fookes: That sounds an extremely interesting and ingenious argument. I believe that collars and tags are important, but that system should be linked to a central computer scheme so that, in addition to the tag, there are details on record in a central computer where they are easily available. As I understand it, that is not what the Government are suggesting. If they are suggesting that, it is a different matter, but that is not my understanding of the Government's proposal.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend emphasises the need to establish the ownership of the dog. However, as many people did not pay the old dog licence, as many people do not pay the road fund licence and as many people do not pay the television licence, what guarantee is there that the irresponsible dog owner would pay this tax?
      Dame Janet Fookes: Before I answer that, may I invite my hon. Friend to tell me whether he is advocating the abolition of all those licence fees?
      Mr. Marshall: The dog licence fee was abolished because the cost of collection was so much greater than the revenue raised. I suspect that my hon. Friend would have similar problems with this cock-eyed scheme.
      Dame Janet Fookes: Those who have been in the House for some time and have followed my views on this matter will know that I was one of those who most earnestly urged the Government in those days to increase the dog licence fee. Of course it was not working and I said that it should be reformed. We have now moved on to registration, which is an improvement. However, the scheme did not work when the cost was only 37·5p, simply because it was not worth while for the police or any other authority to press the matter. That would have been ludicrous. However, that is no reason not to have a proper registration scheme now. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has advocated so weak an argument.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: Has my hon. Friend considered that this proposition, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the House should never pass a law if that law is likely to be broken by some members of the general public?
      Dame Janet Fookes: My hon. Friend, with his legal training, has put it excellently. Moreover, it is clear that we could divide dog owners into various groups. Some will comply with the proposal immediately because it is the law; I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Minister in thinking that that group will be very small. I believe that it will be a large group. Another group of dog owners will register if they are pressed and pushed to do so. With the kind of system that I have in mind, with dog wardens to enforce it, a large number of owners would register. That would leave a relatively small group causing the problems. However, the dog wardens would be more able to concentrate on those problems.
      I suspect that in practice people who are disturbed by dogs which bark, bite or run around causing a nuisance, and who find it virtually impossible now to bring a court case against a neighbour because people must live with their neighbours—who would want to bring a court case against a neighbour with all the difficulties that that involves?—will find it easier to tell the local authority that a problem exists. That problem will then be handed over to the dog warden who will deal with it. That would be a very good and practical beneficial arrangement.
      In short, there is no substitute for dog registration. I admire their Lordships for taking up the issue and I hope that we shall not be so foolish now as to throw out this amendment which their Lordships have invited us to accept.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I will speak briefly in favour of the Lords amendment, which is backed by more than 80 per cent. of dog owners, by the experience in Northern Ireland and by more than four fifths of the local authorities which were consulted.
      I want to deal first with the intervention by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the proposition that a scheme which is incapable of perfect application is better than no scheme at all. There may of course be some people who will not pay a dog registration fee, just as the hon. Gentleman implicitly concede'. that some people do not pay their vehicle excise licence fees. I did not hear him deny that we should have such a vehicle excise licence fee when invited to do so by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). The alternative is a scheme under which the owner pays only if the dog is rounded up as a stray and then collected by the owner. To have a proper control system for dogs, we need more money than that.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to state that the question is how we pay for the warden service. We must also consider how the dog is traced back to the owner. At what charge would half the money go to the dog warden service, and not just to the cost of the registration scheme? If we had some way of tracing a stray, caught dog back to its owner, would we be required to have a last-owner liability clause? If not, someone could deny that the dog was still his.
      Mr. Hughes: A last-owner liability clause would probably be necessary. On his first point, as he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, he will know that the fee in Northern Ireland has been £5. That fee was mentioned in his own written answer on 1 March this year, when he described it—in col. 304 of the Official Report—as part of a system that was "working well". I presume that that is consistent with the accurate point made by the

      807
      hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake that it may be necessary to charge £2·50 or perhaps £3 for the cost of administering the scheme. Therefore, even a £5 fee would produce almost an equivalent amount to go to the dog warden service—and, therefore, the local authority's costs in dealing with the problems arising from dogs.
      There are some obvious issues with which the country must deal. We must deal, for instance, with the pollution that is caused by dogs. The Government always say that they believe in the polluter paying. The nearest we can get to that—as dogs cannot pay—is the owner paying. The logic of the Government's position is that the owner should pay. There is also the question of noise pollution—we are to have a debate on that on Wednesday. One of the obvious examples is the noise from barking dogs. Whether they are personally or corporately owned, it is much more likely that a responsible attitude would be taken if those who purchased dogs had to pay a charge in advance.
      In relation to dogs that roam or stray, or are out of control, I do not dissent from the Minister's propositions that responsibility for stray dogs should be transferred from the police to the local authority, and that the control mechanism should be changed. However, the Lords amendment is not an alternative to his stray dog scheme and his change of scheme.
      As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), for the whole of his lifetime there has been a control-of-dogs provision by way of collar and tag, which derives from the Control of Dogs Order 1930. How many prosecutions have there been in those 60 years? The answer is, very few.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: No; other hon. Members wish to speak.
      Mr. Bruce: The number of prosecutions has gone up since we abolished the dog licence.
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, but the reality is that they are minimal. That will make only a minimal contribution to linking the dog with the owner, which is the key issue in this debate.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory rose——
      Mr. Hughes: I had better give way to the Minister.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There were 188 successful prosecutions last year, which I agree is too few, given the scope of the problem. The reason is that no one body has the duty of enforcing the collar-and-tag requirement. The police and the local authorities have the power to do so; what we are proposing is that local authorities should have the duty. That would give real effect to the measure, and real identification. Everyone will know that it will be enforced.
      Mr. Hughes: I wish that that were the case. Although there may be one enforcement agency—the local authority—without additional resources it will not be enforcing the measure. Without the money to employ the people, it will not succeed.
      The Minister knows the statistics as well as I do. The example of Bradford—which he cited—shows that 95 per cent. of stray dogs are never recovered by their owners. Only one in six stray dogs that arrive at Battersea dogs' home is recovered by its owner. We will not receive the
      808
      money for the local authorities by collecting stray dogs; that can only be done by means of a principle which requires people to pay when they acquire a dog, and which means a much higher revenue income for the local authorities and a much better chance of enforcement thereafter.
      9 pm
      We have been offered a set of measures from the Government that are limited, minimal and likely to make only a small improvement to our present system. The principled alternative proposed by the Lords allows the mechanisms to be worked out by popular debate. The Government have been once bitten by the measure at the other end of the Palace not many days ago; I should have thought that they would be twice shy, but they have been foolish enough to come back. All that I can say to Conservative Members who have expressed a strong view on this topic is that I hope they make it clear that this Parliament is no one's poodle. I hope that tonight will be the night when Parliament bites back.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The whole House will admire my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) for the way in which she has supported the welfare of animals over the years, and the consistency with which she has been willing to put forward propositions that at times have been unpopular, to the extent that Governments have not followed them through. When she argued for an increase in the dog licence, successive Governments ducked the issue. That is why the 37·5p fee decayed in terms of value and fund raising, although it was not hypothecated to a dog warden service.
      It is quite clear that there are a number of problems, one of which is stray dogs. That can be a major problem, as the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) could confirm. In our borough, there have been times when the postal service has been suspended because the number of attacks on postal delivery workers has made it unsafe to let them continue with their work. Many other hon. Members can confirm that, especially in some urban areas, there are problems associated with dogs straying and dogs attacking people. There is also the problem of dog mess. Many people should be more explicit in saying that the number of dogs in cities and towns is too high and needs to be reduced.
      The problem lies in trying to link the problems together and whether the RSPCA has hit upon the key. I do not say that it argues that it will solve all problems; however, it argues that registration is the key to everything else. I have doubts about that.
      My doubts have been confirmed by the fact that, since I gave a parliamentary answer as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office some months ago, and since I put out a press statement in the early summer, there has riot been a bark in my direction—there has not even been a woof or whimper or even a suggestion that we might get together. It strikes me that, if RSPCA officials think that their arguments are sufficient to convince someone like myself, who is obviously well known to be open-minded, they would have made some approach to me.
      Let us consider why RSPCA staff were so reluctant to be involved in direct debate. They have not persuaded the other place that a particular scheme will work. The House of Lords and many other supporters of the amendment say that there is a problem and that, as the RSPCA has said

      809
      that registration is the answer, therefore registration is the answer to the problems. Links have not been demonstrated.
      Sometimes, people build on my parliamentary answer and say that the Northern Ireland licensing system, which is different from registration, is fulfilling its objectives. That takes us back to sheep worrying. No doubt the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will say that this matter is not just about sheep, because he was one of the Ministers involved in the matter, and that others with Northern Ireland experience can talk also. From the figures for 1984–89, one can demonstrate that very little has changed in terms of the number of dogs that were registered, impounded and destroyed. It is not the answer to most of the problems that concern people in most of the built-up areas of Great Britain.
      One should examine the number of prosecutions for animals that have bitten or harmed human beings. I do not think that the RSPCA has put forward its registration scheme as dealing with that issue, except to the extent that it may deal in part with the excessive number of animals. We need to make it unfashionable to own a dog if it is not possible adequately to cope with it and its consequences.
      Mr. Roger Gale: It is certainly true—I do not think that, with his experience, my hon. Friend would gainsay it—that, since registration, the number of dog attacks in Northern Ireland has been dramatically reduced. My hon. Friend chides those of us who are in favour of dog registration for not making contact with him. Upon reflection, he will appreciate that we read his parliamentary answer in which he said that the scheme was working well in Northern Ireland. Naturally, we assumed that he would be consistent and join us in the Lobby tonight.
      Mr. Bottomley: I look forward to my next invitation to speak in my hon. Friend's constituency—I shall talk about dogs instead of politics. The RSPCA has been briefing Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) saying that, because I as a Minister gave that answer, it copes with problems associated with dogs. However, it does not deal with the primary question of how to get people voluntarily to reduce the number of dogs that they keep in cities and built-up areas.
      People need to answer the question of how they will cope with dog mess for a start. Each person who owns a dog needs to be able to answer to their neighbour, especially if that neighbour has children, where dog mess will be laid and whether it will be left there by the owner. People in Bermondsey, Eltham, Manchester and all urban parts of this country need to ask dog owners, "Can you answer that question?"
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question. Does the former Northern Ireland Minister think that it will be an incentive or a disincentive to people who contemplate acquiring a dog that they might have to pay something? If it is a disincentive, it is surely likely to reduce the number of dogs in Eltham, Bermondsey and elsewhere.
      Mr. Bottomley: If that is the basic issue for reducing the number of dogs, the RSPCA, the hon. Gentleman, myself
      810
      and others should all be saying so out loud, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman at least has the courage to give the answer which the RSPCA has not, according to my knowledge, given up to now.
      For the registration scheme to work and for us to be able to track a dog back to its owner, last-owner liability will be necessary. We have had problems with such an approach to cars, and it has proved controversial. I hope that those who say that registration is the answer to these problems will have the guts to say that in public and more often, because I am not aware that they have done so. It has been one of the cosy little exclusions from the public debate.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the RSPCA has still not learned its lesson in terms of giving half or untrue statistics? One of its advertisements today states:
      "There are still 500,000 homeless strays roaming our streets".
      That figure of 500,000 is taken from an RSPCA report in which the London School of Economics states that the vast majority of such dogs are not homeless strays, but "latch-key dogs" which are let out by their owners.
      Mr. Bottomley: Instead of "latch-key" perhaps my hon. Friend should describe them as "poop" dogs—people are embarrassed by dogs' natural functions.
      It is not my aim to get at the RSPCA, because even those of us who do not recognise the merits of the registration scheme admire much of the RSPCA's work. Many of us believe that, if the RSPCA had put half the effort into its "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas" campaign, as it has into this, it could have achieved a great deal more in the past few years than it has by managing to persuade some people that the answer to this problem is for the House to pass, in principle, a requirement for registration without going into the necessary details. That would be an undesirable precedent.
      May I work towards a conclusion by referring——
      Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the hon. Gentleman's view?
      Mr. Bottomley: I had been trying to put forward my view before the hon. Gentleman intervened from a sedentary position.
      There are problems that need dealing with. I have dealt with the question of numbers. Many people who keep dogs cannot cope with them adequately. Others can cope, but are not prepared to do so. People may laugh at the pooper scoop idea, but unless people are willing to cope with the consequences of owning a dog in an urban area, they are not facing the consequences of owning a dog. The Kennel Club, dogs clubs and the RSPCA should be saying that clearly, as should pet shop owners.
      In various positions of responsibility, I have had to face the issue whether an extra law would be the best way of making a difference. The greatest parallel with this issue is that of drink-driving. I do not want to go into that in depth, but in 1986 it was calculated that there were 2 million occasions per week when men would drive when above the legal limit. Many people said that that was a problem.
      In politics, the conventional thing is to go from saying, "There is a problem," to saying, "They should not do it," to saying, "I should not do it", then, " I intend not to do it," to saying, "I do not do it."

      811
      The conventional way of approaching that series is to offer legislation, money transfers or exhortation. In practice, we need to get the people who are part of the problem to become part of the solution.
      Between 1986 and 1988, without any change in the law, enforcement or sentencing, the number of occasions when people drove above the legal limit was reduced from 2 million to 600,000. That happened as a result of giving information and letting people realise that there were things that they could be doing. What was happening——
      Mr. Ernie Ross: Rubbish.
      Mr. Bottomley: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting "Rubbish," because it is a fact.
      Instead of people believing that the problem could be solved by some wishy-washy system of registration, it is better to approach the dog owners themselves and to ask them whether they are willing to do now what the law and the RSPCA are asking—without even half the cost of a registration scheme.
      I hope that the House will support the Government, and that the various stages that were announced last week and those which are set out in the Government amendment will be supported. I also hope that the Lords' approach will be rejected, because it does not give the House the necessary details for a scheme that could cope with 7 million dog owners. The problem needs a better solution than that suggested by the Lords.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Tom Pendry: Much has rightly been said in the House and in another place about the Northern Ireland scheme and, of course, we have heard something of it again tonight. That is right. When I was junior Minister in the late 1970s I was engaged in the long consultative process that eventually resulted in the order which, it must not be forgotten, was introduced by the Government in 1983.
      The Northern Ireland experience is central to the debate. We must examine it closely if we are to convince some of the waverers on the Conservative Benches to accept amendment No. 296. The director of the environmental health service in Belfast city council has already been referred to. He believes that the scheme works well. We also heard from the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 1 March this year that the scheme was working well.
      We should consider some of the Government's arguments on the matter. First, they argue that the Northern Ireland scheme has failed to meet the problem of strays because the number of stray dogs put down in the Province has not decreased. Yet the Government seem not to listen to the evidence provided by the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which reported a dramatic reduction in roaming packs of dogs and strays on the streets. Indeed, Robert Wilson, the director of USPCA, has pointed out that although absolute numbers—this is where Conservative Members are confused—of impounded dogs have shown little sign of falling, wardens are collecting from a reduced pool of strays on the streets. In any case, to concentrate solely on strays can be misleading.
      812
      The main thrust for change in Northern Ireland came from the Ulster Farmers Union lobby, and rightly so. A great number of sheep were being killed by dogs and it was a worrying factor.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pendry: I shall not give way because of the time factor. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
      Many instances of sheep worrying involved dogs owned by hitherto so-called responsible owners. Identifying the owners was a large part of the problem. Since the introduction of licensing, the Ulster Farmers Union has reported a reduction in livestock worrying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will be aware of that. That was despite a growth in the sheep flock from 1 million in 1983 when the order was introduced to 2·3 million sheep and livestock in 1989.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: A 100 per cent. increase.
      Mr. Pendry: As my right hon. Friend says, a 100 per cent. increase.
      If the Government have not listened to the environmental health officers who administer the scheme, the USPCA—which deals with some of the problems caused by dogs—or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, of which the traffic division has noted a 25 per cent. reduction in road accidents involving dogs since the introduction of licensing, who have they been talking to and listening to?
      The Government's main failure is in recognising the central ethos of the Northern Ireland scheme, which is a positive approach to dog ownership. The scheme seeks to support and sustain a package of comprehensive measures with the general aim of encouraging responsible dog ownership. It has at its roots a dog licensing scheme. That welcome approach is encapsulated in the amendment. The Government propose to introduce nothing further than a handful of provisions for dealing with stray dogs after an offence has been committed. In other words, they seek to deal with the problem once it exists. The approach of the amendment is to suggest a scheme that would facilitate a host of realistic measures to encourage widespread responsible dog ownership before an offence takes place.
      The RSPCA sees registration as an essential element in introducing health and welfare programmes, neutering advice and effective enforcement. Furthermore, the knowledge that their dog is registered should have a beneficial effect on owners' treatment and care of their dogs. They will know that the dog could be traced back to them and that they could be held responsible. That would therefore reduce the risk of dogs being allowed to stray or to cause a nuisance in the first place. We should adopt the course tonight.
      The Government have manifestly failed to listen to those with first-hand experience of the problem in Northern Ireland, but have they sought the opinion of the 200-odd authorities up and down the country that already run dog warden schemes? If my local authority, Tameside, is anything to go by, however, the Government have failed in that respect as well. If they had sought such opinion, the Government would have learned that the lack of resources available to Tameside and other authorities to finance

      813
      their dog wardens is severely hampering their efforts. That is why my local authority and most others will support our efforts tonight.
      The Government argue that the proposed registration scheme is an inefficient means of raising revenue for dog control services. Their amendments, however, provide no means of financing their proposals other than leaving it to local councils to find the funds in their already overstretched budgets.
      In truth, the Government do not see the problem in the same way as the rest of society. The amendment is supported by those at the sharp end who must deal with the problem caused by the absence of responsible dog ownership. The only similar scheme operating in the United Kingdom is a success.
      The Government should not be dragged along by the collar when it comes to introducing a dog registration scheme. They should appreciate the force of the argument put forward by those who know the extent of the problem at the sharp end. They should withdraw their amendment and promote a dog registration scheme in the interests of all responsible owners, local authorities and the public.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Butterfill. If the hon. Gentleman should like to speak from a sitting position I will understand.
      Mr. John Butterfill: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak from a sedentary position. I should explain that my present indisposition arises from a minor operation to my left ankle and not from being savaged by a particular breed of dog.
      I address the House as a member of the general council of management of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. I must stress, however, that I am speaking in a purely personal capacity and not on behalf of the PDSA. As a matter of principle, the PDSA does not take a political stance on any issue, unlike some other societies, although it often works in close co-operation with the RSPCA and other animal organisations.
      The PDSA confines its activities to providing veterinary care to those people whose financial circumstances would otherwise prevent them from obtaining such care for their animals. As such, it does a great deal of work particularly with small animals, but the bulk of its work is concerned with the care of dogs.
      It is interesting to consider why dogs come into the care of the PDSA in order to assess its relevance to our discussion. Dogs are often brought for medical attention to the PDSA because of ignorance about how to care for a dog. Another reason may well be the poverty of the owner. Poverty often dissuades people from having their dogs neutered—a desirable method of keeping the dog population down. I believe that neutering would be a far more effective means of controlling the dog population than the deterrent posed by the cost of the fee. The only way in which to reduce the dog population is to prevent dogs breeding.
      Dogs also receive care from the PDSA because of problems arising from lack of inoculation—another desirable treatment that prevents disease in the inoculated
      814
      dog and the spread of disease to other dogs. Dogs also receive treatment because of simple neglect, injury or other infections caused as a result of being strays.
      It is important to consider the problems that arise, to see whether the registration scheme might have the effect of remedying some of them. Certainly, there is rarely a suggestion that there is a problem in identifying the owners of fierce dogs. If the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it should be mandatory for a dog to carry a tag were taken up, and if that were enforceable by a responsible agency, that problem would be overcome.
      I do not see how registration will prevent the problem of dogs straying. Dogs stray for all sorts of reasons, often simply because their owners do not take sufficient care of them. I do not see how that would be remedied by registration. In addition, I do not see how registration would prevent the fouling of public places, which will surely be prevented only by owners being more responsible for their dogs' care.
      The cost of the scheme such as that proposed by the RSPCA is far greater than has been recognised tonight. I have studied the report by the London School of Economics, published in 1989 for the RSPCA, which states that the total annual cost of such a scheme would be about £40 million if the cost of wardens were included.
      If we accept that the dog population is about 7 million and allow perhaps two years' inflation on that figure, it works out at about £7 a dog, but that would be only if all dogs were registered and all owners paid. I am sure that Opposition Members would wish to exempt the elderly, the blind and those in receipt of state benefits, which might reduce the number paying by half.
      Mr. Sayeed rose——
      Mr Butterfill: I should get on.
      If such exemptions were to be made, it would halve the number of people paying for the scheme and double the cost to £14 or £15. In Northern Ireland about 60 per cent. of owners fail to register, which could double the cost again and we could be talking about an effective cost of £30 a dog.
      Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to be quite clear on this—I believe that the figures that my hon. Friend just quoted from the LSE report were based on a 60 per cent. compliance rate, not a 100 per cent. rate, as he seemed to intimate.
      Mr. Butterfill: The report assumed a compliance rate that was considerably worse than that experienced in Northern Ireland. That was one reason why I questioned the figure.
      I am worried that we would need an army of bureaucrats to enforce such a scheme. We would need clerks, wardens and inspectors—the latter would presumably need powers to enforce their activities. Would hon. Members be prepared to grant inspectors the right of entry into people's homes if those inspectors suspected that an unregistered dog was being kept there? I do not think that that would be particularly attractive to those concerned about civil rights.
      I believe that the Government have the right answer. Their proposals for the seizure of strays and their delivery to the authorities, for the proper enforcement by responsible authorities of collar and tag, for the right of disposal of stray dogs to the finder or elsewhere if they are

      815
      unclaimed and to give local authorities powers to enforce byelaws on fouling are right. My own local authority, Bournemouth borough council, has made vigorous representations about its need to have the right to produce new byelaws to deal with the fouling problem, which is particularly prevalent in Bournemouth. The other proposals that the Government have suggested that they may bring forward, such as muzzling to deal with fierce dogs, are to he welcomed. I await, as I am sure do other hon. Members, the results of the Government's consultations, which are to finish on 15 November.
      There is another remedy that would perhaps do more than anything else to solve the problems that we experience with dogs—a voluntary neutering scheme for dogs. The heart of the problem is that we have too many dogs and many of them behave badly. Neutering makes fierce dogs less aggressive, male dogs much less likely to stray in search of female company and reduces the unwanted dog population. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister were inclined to consider that as a possibility, I am sure that the PDSA would welcome it.
      9.30 pm
      Miss Kate Hoey: I wholeheartedly support the Lords amendment and I hope that there will now be an end to the long discussions on this issue. I pay tribute to the work not only of the RSPCA, but of an organisation that has been campaigning on this issue for a great deal longer—the League for the Introduction of Canine Control. When the issue was not as popular as it is now, many people put their heads over the parapet, but they were laughed down. The change in public opinion over many years owes much to the work and the campaigns of many organisations, not least the League for the Introduction of Canine Control. The licence fee should never have been abolished; it should have been increased. It was not, and we are paying for that.
      I want to make a brief point about Northern Ireland. People will be interested to know that many hon. Members have suddenly taken an interest in Northern Ireland's handling of the issue. There is not usually so much discussion about Northern Ireland matters. In fact, the scheme has been successful, as all responsible opinion will confirm. If the Minister believes that it has been unpopular and unproductive, why does not he propose abolishing the scheme in Northern Ireland? He will not do that because he knows that the people of Northern Ireland want the scheme and that it has been successful.
      I direct most of my remarks at a group of people who have been greatly affected by dogs—the 110,000 postmen and women who have been attacked many times while doing their jobs. Together with newspaper delivery boys, meter readers and so on, they visit every address in the country. The figures clearly show an increase in dog attacks during the past two years. It is astonishing that in 1989 dog attacks on postmen and women increased by 9·5 per cent. over the previous year—7,717 were attacked in the course of their duties. Those are only the recorded attacks, and they are in addition to an 18 per cent. increase in 1987.
      Not only do such dog attacks cause trauma, misery and distress, but they result in many lost working days. Indeed, the number of lost working days between 1987 and 1988 increased by 45 per cent. Dog attacks were directly responsible for 4,711 lost working days—[Interruption.] I
      816
      know that some hon. Members may not want to hear the figures, but they are important statistics that show the number of dog attacks on working people. Those lost working days represented 15 per cent. of all days lost through sickness and injury in the Post Office service—and they are only the reported attacks. Hon. Members should appreciate that many people do not report them.
      The Union of Communication Workers has been campaigning to highlight the incidence of dog attacks. Many jokes are made about them, but in one incident a postwoman in Gloucester had her ear bitten off, and in another, a postman was so badly injured that he was compelled to seek early retirement and will need medical attention for the rest of his life.
      I bet that most of the letters received on the subject by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House come from women. They have campaigned for many years, complaining that whenever they allow their children to use parks, they return with the mess left by dog faeces all over them—and I am sure that it is usually women who have to clear it up, not men.
      Mothers on housing estates in inner city areas are terrified to let their children play outside because of the danger posed by roaming dogs. Unless a link can be made between a dog and its owner, such problems cannot be controlled. All the measures in the world will not work unless there is a registration scheme. If we want to enforce such a scheme, we can—in the same way as we enforce television licensing and vehicle registration, which the Government take very seriously.
      The Government—if not the majority of Conservative Members in this case—take a laissez-faire, do-nothing approach. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members who will vote tonight to examine their consciences and ask themselves how many more children must be bitten, how many more postmen and postwomen attacked, and how many other members of the public must suffer before they realise that their vote can make the difference and will really matter tonight? It is not just a question of voting with one's party but of voting in the way that one knows one's constituents want.
      I hope that the Government realise that they are isolated on this issue. Dog ownership is not a right but a privilege, and with that privilege goes responsibility to the dog and to the rest of society. Just as one cannot walk into a garage, buy a car and drive it away without proof that one can drive, so one should not be able to walk into a shop and buy a dog without proving that one can look after it and without registering it. None of the Government's measures will work unless there is at the top a simple administrative measure for a national registration scheme. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to end the debate and vote to introduce a dog registration scheme, to make people's lives safer and dog owners a lot happier.
      Mr. Gale: The Government had the wisdom to introduce a dog registration scheme in Northern Ireland and, contrary to some of the information that the House has been offered this evening, that scheme has worked. The chief warden for Belfast, who has been in the House all day, has informed many right hon. and hon. Members that, since the introduction of a registration scheme in Northern Ireland, the incidence of sheep worrying has fallen dramatically, as have the number of traffic accidents caused by dogs and the number of attacks by dogs on people, particularly children.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Do all these good things that have happened in Northern Ireland have anything to do with the fact that there is a charge for a licence—there is no identification on the dog—or is it because they introduced a dog warden scheme at the same time?
      Mr. Gale: I was going to come to that. This afternoon an hon. Friend challenged me with that argument saying, "Ah, yes, but that is because of the warden scheme: it has nothing to do with dog registration." Again, I am assured by the chief dog warden, who I suspect knows a little about this subject, that dog registration needed to be on the statute book. Non-registration had to be an offence to give the powers that exist in Northern Ireland some teeth. Without registration those powers are ineffective.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister is in the unhappy position of having to salute a flag nailed to the mast some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), which has been fluttering there in tatters ever since.
      I have supported the cause of dog registration consistently since we began to discuss it shortly after I entered the House. I shall support it again in the Lobby tonight.
      I have listened with great care to the Minister's arguments and read with great care the amendments tabled by the Government. All amendments depend upon identification of the dog if they are to work, and identification must be dependent on some form of registration scheme. I do not accept the Minister's argument that a tag round the neck is sufficient identification. There is a proper and sensible way to do it.
      The Minister said that registration would lead to awful bureaucracy. I am a fervent supporter of the community charge. I find no problem whatever with a registration system that requires more than 20 million charge payers to be registered, so I find even less problem with a system that would require about 7·5 million dogs to be registered.
      This morning, an interviewer asked me whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that the introduction of what will inevitably become known as the dog tax is unpopular. I had to say yes; it will be unpopular. Once people are asked to pay for something as opposed to voting for it or talking about it they will not like it, but that does not mean that it is not right or worth while. For those reasons, I know of no reason for going back on my commitment to a dog registration scheme.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The Northern Ireland experience is that registration did not prove unpopular. About 20,000 dogs were registered before the new dogs order was passed. Once it was introduced and the fee went up to £5, the number of dogs registered went up to 80,000, which is four times the previous figure.
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have heard much about the fee this evening. Hon. Members who believe in dog registration are talking about a funded system, on the "user pays" principle—something in which I thought the Government believed. The Minister is putting forward an unfunded system, which will ultimately have to be funded by local authorities. The Minister will say that the scheme will be funded through rate support grant and he may go on to say that it will be fully funded. I doubt that very much.
      I fear that if the Government amendments are passed and the Lords amendment is defeated, it will be open
      818
      season for every local authority to increase its community charge because it will be required to provide a dog warden system which no one else is paying for. I shudder to think what increase in community charge the socialist republic of Lambeth is likely to levy to provide wardens under the scheme which, as it stands before us tonight, is unfunded.
      I believe that the system devised by the Lords and the two-year consultation period is a workable answer and I offer my hon. Friend the Minister my services to seek ways through the maze to a solution.
      I hope and believe that many of my hon. Friends, on reflection, will join other hon. Members to support the Lords amendment and see this scheme through once and for all.
      Mr. John McAllion: There have been two main objections tonight to a dog registration scheme: first, that it is unworkable in practical terms and unenforceable; and secondly, that it cannot be made to work because irresponsible dog owners will refuse to register and thereby render the scheme ineffective. I have never found that argument convincing. I find it even less convincing after listening carefully to the Minister's alternative to registration.
      9.45 pm
      Let me take, for example, the Minister's proposal that new powers should be given to local authorities to levy fees on owners who are irresponsible enough to abandon their dogs in public places. Earlier, the Minister told us that these are the same irresponsible owners who would refuse to pay a licence fee and register their dogs. They are owners who have failed properly to look after their dogs and abandoned them. We do not know the extent of their irresponsibility. These owners may abuse and undernourish their dogs. However, the Minister expects us to believe that they would trot down to the kennels, own up to their negligence and accept the imposition of a heavy fee by the council. The Minister expects us to believe that they would co-operate in poop-scoop schemes, obey leash laws and ensure that there were identification tags on their dogs' collars. That scenario is utterly incredible. I am surprised that the Minister had the effrontery to put it before the House.
      The Government cannot have it both ways. Irresponsible owners cannot be prayed in aid if one rubbishes a dog registration scheme and then conveniently be ignored when a case is made for one's own package of measures. That is being two-faced and hypocritical. The irresponsible will always seek to flout the law. However, that can never be an argument for refusing to pass laws in the first place. If we ever accepted that principle, hon. Members might as well pack their bags and go home.
      The other objection to registration is that it would be costly and bureaucratic. What, however, is the Government's alternative to registration? A new range of duties would be imposed on local authorities. Dog warden schemes would give effect to the new duties. There would be what the consultation paper called a new local government finance system to fund the scheme. With breathtaking effrontery, the consultation paper. referred to the new financing system as "simple" and "effective". I remind the House that it was referring to the poll tax. In Scotland, England and Wales the poll tax has been proved to be enormously bureaucratic, horrendously costly and spectacularly ineffective. How can the Government, who

      819
      gave us the poll tax and promised that dog control measures would be funded by means of the poll tax, dare to object to a registration scheme on the ground that it would be costly and bureaucratic? It makes no sense.
      The case for action is unanswerable. The question that divides the House is, what kind of action? The Government are seeking to slide out of their clear responsibilities on dog control measures. They want to place that duty on local authorities, to place the burden of financing it on local taxpayers and to allow breeders and owners to sidestep their responsibilities. They want also to abandon their own newly adopted principle of making the polluter pay. That is entirely unacceptable.
      This is not a joking matter, as some Conservative Members make it appear. It is not just a question of the tonnes of faeces and gallons of urine that are deposited in our streets, parks and playgrounds every year. It is not just the cost of coping with stray dogs, in both financial terms and in terms of the suffering that has to be endured by those animals. It is also for me the far more frightening prospect of the growing threat to human safety that is posed by the increasing number of dangerous breeds of dogs that are now kept as domestic pets.
      The House knows that American pit bull terriers have killed, and killed again, in the United States and that those animals are coming into this country in increasing numbers. The House will know, too, that one of my constituents, 11-year-old Kelly Lynch, was savaged to death by two rottweiler dogs just over a year ago and that there is no control whatever over the ownership of dangerous breeds of dogs. The House must understand that unless effective action is taken by us, there will he more attacks and, tragically, more deaths.
      No one wants the tragedy that befell my constituent to happen to anyone else, least of all Kelly's parents, Veronica and John Lynch, who have campaigned ceaselessly for stricter control of dogs. Central to their campaign has been the demand for a national dog registration scheme. That aim is endorsed by the majority of agencies concerned with the welfare of animals, by almost all local authorities and overwhelmingly by public opinion. We heard earlier that it is about to be endorsed by the European Community, and in the form of the Lords amendment it has already been endorsed by the other place.
      Will the House persist in alone setting its face against the tide running irreversibly in favour of dog registration? It is no longer a question of whether we should have a registration scheme but when we shall have one. All reasonable argument and informed opinion tells us that the House must act now to introduce dog registration. I beg hon. Members who seriously have the welfare of their constituents at heart to vote for the Lords amendment and to ensure that this is the moment when the House faces up to its responsibilities.
      Sir William Shelton: I must refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), for whom I have high respect. She is my neighbour in Lambeth, but she did not make the link between the wretched attacks on postmen, of which I am quite aware, and whether a dog is registered. She would agree that a registered or unregistered dog is just as likely to attack a postman or anyone else. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to urine and faeces, but a registered or unregistered dog behaves in the same way.
      820
      I have two golden retrievers, which presented us with eight puppies a month or two ago. Our family has had dogs since it started being a dog family. [Laughter] I have had dogs all my life, and my family has too. I was deeply attracted by the registration scheme proposed by the RSPCA. It seemed a good solution until I started looking at it and discussing it with dog owners. Let me tell the House why I have changed my mind and propose to support the Government.
      We have heard vast differences in the suggested cost of dog registration. Whatever it is, it would certainly cost quite a lot, especially for those who are less well off and who must bear the cost of a dog. Hon. Members have suggested that registration would be low. I suspect that it would be, and more dogs would be put down and abandoned in the first six months or a year following its introduction. People would say, "I cannot afford this dog," and push it out of the door on to the motorway. That would be a danger.
      The main question is, what is the purpose of a national or local register of some 7 million dogs and their owners? The answer if therest, to provide a living for those who run it. Secondly, of their is an implant in the dog or a tattoo on its ear, yet all that is read from it is a number, a national register is essential to link the dog with its owner and the owner's name and address. If a dog carries an implant or a tattoo, there must inevitably be a national dog registration scheme.
      I should add a third answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) said that she believed in a register because—I hope that I am not quoting her incorrectly—every dog should have its own identity. She caught my attention with those words. I put it to her that the identity of a dog can come just as well from a collar and tag as from a number in some computer in some part of the country. The true identity of a dog comes from the loving home where it lives.
      If all dogs wear collars and tags in public places, instead of an implant or tattoo, and there are council-appointed dog wardens—as the Government recommend—to enforce the wearing of collars and tags, we do not need a national register to link a dog's number with its owner. It is essential only if dogs have a tattoo or implant.
      There are many advantages of a dog wearing a collar and tag rather than having a tattoo or implant. First, all dogs in public places should, by law, have a collar and tag, and many do. Secondly, it is much quicker and easier to identify a dog that breaks into one's garden or bites one's leg or a dog that bites a postman if it has a tag on its collar, because one can easily see who owns it. If it has a tattoo or implant, I imagine that one would need a machine to read the information. If a dog wearing a tag fouls a pavement, one can see who owns it—one need not go to some computer bank. That means that it costs the owner less and we do not have a bureaucracy.
      What are the disadvantages of not having a register? There is one major disadvantage. A collar can be removed or transferred to another dog—I accept that—while an implant or tattoo cannot be removed without some difficulty by the owner. However, I can see few occasions when that is important. If a dog has been abandoned deliberately, the sort of owner who would do that would probably not have registered it anyway. If he registered it and wanted to abandon it, he would probably kill it. A latch-key dog would have a collar and tag. The problem

      821
      about being able to remove a collar and tag seems, therefore, to be relatively unimportant. That is why I shall support the Government.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Many arguments for and against have been put in the debate, but I think that I should bring the House back to what we are discussing—the Lords amendments and the principle of a dog registration scheme. Many hon. Members have put forward sincere and valid points about how a scheme would operate and its various costs. But we should come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes)—we need a framework for dealing with what we all recognise is a growing problem.
      The difference between the proposal in the Lords amendments and the Government's amendments is that, although the Government's amendments are welcome in what they set out to do, they do not tackle the main problem of increasing difficulties and problems that come from irresponsible dog owners. It is worth emphasising the point made by hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The kind of problems associated with a registration scheme are exactly the problems that the Government's proposals would have—there is no real difference in terms of the practicalities.
      Dog registration provides a framework that would allow dog wardens to intervene when dogs cause a problem. That is why organisations such as the Police Federation strongly support a system that involves a framework for enforcement.
      Although the Government's proposals will place far more responsibility on local councils, they do not entail the provision of any extra funding to allow councils to carry out their duties. Registration would provide some income—the amount depending, as I said, on the kind of scheme that is agreed after due debate. For example, where local authorities provide dog wardens, that little extra income could be used to increase the amount of education about dog ownership and could be of benefit in such ways.
      Mr. Colvin: It has been suggested by those who support the dog registration scheme that there should be a system of exemptions for old-age pensioners. If that happens, every granny and granddad in the country will become the family's dog owner and income from the dog registration scheme will fall to nothing.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Question again propoposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
      Mr. Morley: The Lords amendment proposes a two-year period during which valid points such as that made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) can be worked out. I argue that the fees charged under the dog registration scheme could be used to encourage positive elements in terms of dog ownership. I do not doubt that there will be evasion of a dog registration scheme, just as there is evasion of any law that is passed. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, it is not a valid argument against a scheme that is of benefit to the community to say that some may evade it.
      822
      The concept of registration is becoming increasingly widespread. This Bill introduces the concept of registration for all food outlets. It is not valid for the Government to argue that registration is bureaucratic when, for acceptable and understandable reasons, they are introducing registration schemes elsewhere in this and other Bills.
      Northern Ireland and just about every European country have registration and licence schemes, and those who travel abroad regularly will know that European countries have far less of a dog problem than we have. I know that many hon. Members here represent rural areas. Organisations such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association are strongly in favour of the scheme, given the experience in Northern Ireland, which was outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who referred to the fall-off in sheep and stock worrying since the licensing scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland. Organisations responsible for the countryside endorse that view and argue strongly for a scheme.
      Many members of the public are puzzled as to why the Government continue to oppose dog registration when so many other people are firmly in favour of it. This is not really a political issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave the House a list of the supporters of a dog registration scheme, ranging from the women's institutes to the British Police and Services Canine Association.
      The Lords carried the amendment by an overwhelming majority and hon. Members will know from their mailbags of the tremendous popular support that the scheme has. In national independent opinion polls, it has been found that 94 per cent. of the public are in favour of a scheme and only 3 per cent. against, while 80 per cent. of dog owners are in favour. I have received hundreds of letters—mainly from dog owners—in favour of a dog registration scheme and only two against. This is a popular proposal and it will be well received by the public if we agree tonight on the principle of such a scheme.
      The councils are in favour of a scheme, including the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils. One of my councils, Conservative-controlled Glanford borough council, wrote to me asking for my support for a registration scheme, which I was pleased to give.
      We know that all the animal welfare and veterinary organisations are in favour of such a scheme and we know that action must be taken. We can have an honest debate about the details of the scheme. There is a debate about tattooing versus implants and collars and tags. All those issues have positive and negative sides and we can work them out in the interim period laid down by the amendment.
      I held meetings in my constituency with dog breeders and at one point had 10 alsatians in the front room with them. Dog breeders have a successful registration scheme which operates well and, I suspect, makes a great deal of money for those who administer it. Why cannot we extend that successful dog registration scheme to all dogs? If it can work for pedigrees, there is no reason why the concept cannot work on a wider scale.
      The Lords amendment also has positive advantages for responsible owners. Under a national scheme, those who lose their dogs will have a far greater chance of finding

      823
      them again. As I said, inoculations and neutering can be encouraged through a registration scheme by offering discounts to those who carry those things out for the benefit of their dogs and of the community at large.
      The clinching argument in favour of a registration scheme is that it will go a long way towards deterring casual dog ownership. It will deter people who do not think carefully about the responsibilities of dog ownership in terms of the animals's welfare and their responsibility to the wider community. Dog ownership is for life. A registration scheme would benefit the community and responsible owners and it would act as a framework to crack down on the irresponsible owners who have caused so many problems. Above all, the scheme is a step forward and would deal with the problem which is not addressed by the Government's amendment.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: With the leave of the House, I rise briefly to reply to the debate because I sense that the House wants to bring the matter to a conclusion.
      The debate has shown that we are unanimous in the belief that there are too many irresponsible dog owners and too many stray dogs. Supporters of dog registration have told us that such a scheme is essential. It has become something of a totem because very few reasons have been advanced in the debate for making such a scheme an essential component of any solution to the problem.
      If the identification of dogs is necessary, how can that be better achieved by registration than by our proposals for enforcing the collar and tag requirement? We propose a simple, visible and direct way of linking a dog to its owner and we shall enforce it. There is already a maximum £2,000 fine for those failing to comply. We shall place a reauirement on district councils to enforce the collar and tag provision.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend read the report produced by the London School of Economics, which was commissioned by the RSPCA? Has he received letters, as I have, from constituents who would like a registration scheme and would pay between £5 and £10? On a 60 per cent. compliance rate with no money off for the old or disabled, such a scheme would cost £29 for simple tattoo or £40 for a transponder to register a dog in the first year and a fee of £11 afterwards. Is my hon. Friend aware that only £3·50 would go towards the warden service?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I referred to fees earlier. Nothing has altered my view that the higher the fee, the greater will be the disincentive for irresponsible owners to comply with the scheme. Although doubtless some owners would still fail to place a collar and tag on their dogs, exactly the same people would fail to register in the first place, especially as registration would entail the payment of a considerable annual fee.
      We have also been told in the debate that electronic implants may not be necessary, although such an approach underlay the study by the London School of Economics—published last year—which assumed that dogs would have electronic implants, which would then have to be linked up to a central computer. We certainly have not been told how such a scheme would be run without electronic implants. Presumably a central computer would still he required. It is still a clumsy way of identifying a dog if it has to be linked up with a central computer, which will then give the name and address of the last registered owner. If identification is a requirement—and I agree that
      824
      it is—I insist that it would be better and more simply done by means of the enforcement of the existing collar and tag provisions.
      The costs of national registration are not simply the costs of the electronic equipment. The real costs lie in tracing the owners who have moved, itinerant owners and dogs that have been given away, traded or sold; deregistering dogs that have died; and attempting to find owners who have moved or gone abroad. All that is entirely unproductive. I want the money and resources to be spent on the ground, dealing with the real problems.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) mentioned a 60 per cent. compliance figure. That would mean accepting nearly 3 million unregistered dogs. Almost by definition, those dogs would belong to the irresponsible owners who create the problem in the first place. That is the very reverse of the "polluter pays" principle that underlies the rest of the Bill. I want the effort directed towards solving the problems of strays.
      Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the money that the RSPCA spent on its advertising campaign would have been far better spent on animal welfare and education? My hon. Friend has referred to stray dogs. In my opinion, dog registration would lead to more strays, and would increase the heap of dead dogs on the RSPCA poster rather than diminish it.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I take my hon. Friend's point. It has been pointed out to me that each full-page advertisement taken in today's press costs about the equivalent of employing a dog warden for a year. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view that some of that money might have been better spent, if not on employing dog wardens, at least on joining us in helping to educate dogs' owners and to give them a sense of responsibility.
      Dame Janet Fookes: Will the Minister give way?
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I want to direct our efforts towards solving the problems that exist on the ground. That is why we are laying down specific duties to require district councils to collect and hold stray dogs and to keep them for at least seven days. Owners collecting dogs will pay a fee, not just to cover the cost of kennelling but as a contribution towards the warden costs. That is the embodiment of the "polluter pays" principle, and that is why I ask the House to disagree with the Lords on dog registration.
      10.15 pm
      Let us dispose of the irrelevance, complexity and expense of trying to enforce a national registration scheme. I ask the House to vote for a positive, specific and well-targeted package of measures to deal with the problems caused by dogs and a minority of irresponsible owners.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 271.

      Division No. 344]

      [10.15 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Amess, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      825

      Ashby, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Atkins, Robert

      Grist, Ian

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Ground, Patrick

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Grylls, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hague, William

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boswell, Tim

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bottomley, Peter

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Harris, David

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bowis, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayward, Robert

      Bright, Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hill, James

      Burns, Simon

      Hind, Kenneth

      Burt, Alistair

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butler, Chris

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cash, William

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Chope, Christopher

      Irvine, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Couchman, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cran, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Critchley, Julian

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Curry, David

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lang, Ian

      Day, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Eggar, Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lilley, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Favell, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forman, Nigel

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maclean, David

      Forth, Eric

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      Madel, David

      Gardiner, George

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gill, Christopher

      Mans, Keith

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maples, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorst, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mates, Michael

      826

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Shersby, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mellor, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Squire, Robin

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Steen, Anthony

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Stern, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Needham, Richard

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stokes, Sir John

      Neubert, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Paice, James

      Thorne, Neil

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Pawsey, James

      Trippier, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Trotter, Neville

      Portillo, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Price, Sir David

      Viggers, Peter

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Redwood, John

      Walden, George

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Riddick, Graham

      Waller, Gary

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Ward, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Whitney, Ray

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Ryder, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wilshire, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shelton, Sir William

      Sir George Young and Mr. David Lightbown.

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Alexander, Richard

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Alton, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Anderson, Donald

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Blair, Tony

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Blunkett, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Boateng, Paul

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Body, Sir Richard

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Boyes, Roland

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bradley, Keith

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Battle, John

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Beggs, Roy

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Beith, A. J.

      Buckley, George J.

      Bell, Stuart

      Caborn, Richard

      Bellotti, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bendall, Vivian

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      827

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Gregory, Conal

      Cartwright, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clay, Bob

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clelland, David

      Hannam, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Cohen, Harry

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Coleman, Donald

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corbett, Robin

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Henderson, Doug

      Cousins, Jim

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Crowther, Stan

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cummings, John

      Holt, Richard

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Home Robertson, John

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Howells, Geraint

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Dewar, Donald

      Hoyle, Doug

      Dobson, Frank

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Doran, Frank

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dover, Den

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Dunn, Bob

      Illsley, Eric

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Ingram, Adam

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Janner, Greville

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Fisher, Mark

      Kilfedder, James

      Flannery, Martin

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Flynn, Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Knox, David

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lambie, David

      Foster, Derek

      Lamond, James

      Foulkes, George

      Leighton, Ron

      Franks, Cecil

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Fraser, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Fry, Peter

      Litherland, Robert

      Fyfe, Maria

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gale, Roger

      Livsey, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Loyden, Eddie

      George, Bruce

      McAllion, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McCartney, Ian

      Gordon, Mildred

      McFall, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Graham, Thomas

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      McKelvey, William

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      McLeish, Henry

      828

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      McWilliam, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Short, Clare

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sillars, Jim

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Snape, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Speller, Tony

      Mills, Iain

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Stott, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Straw, Jack

      Morley, Elliot

      Summerson, Hugo

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mudd, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Paul

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Turner, Dennis

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      O'Brien, William

      Vaz, Keith

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wallace, James

      O'Neill, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Patchett, Terry

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Watts, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Prescott, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Radice, Giles

      Wilson, Brian

      Raffan, Keith

      Winnick, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Redmond, Martin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wolfson, Mark

      Reid, Dr John

      Worthington, Tony

      Richardson, Jo

      Wray, Jimmy

      Robertson, George

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Rogers, Allan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Ray Powell.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Government amendments in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.
      Government motions to disagree with Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 76

      STATUTORY NUISANCES AND INSPECTIONS THEREFOR
      Lords amendment: No. 174, in page 80, line 45, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (5)".
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The group of amendments headed by amendment No. 174, which we are about to consider, contains amendment (a), which will be moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Perhaps we can hear from the hon. Gentleman later about his amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 81, line 18, at end insert
      "and, where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to it by a person living within its area, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint."
      Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment in line 4, at end insert
      'and where the complaint is against the local authority to ensure that the investigation is independent of the department of the authority complained of and that a person independent of the local authority is authorised to take further proceedings if the investigation reveals grounds for further action.'.
      Hon. Members may not have noticed, but page 204 of the Bill, schedule 14, part III, repeals sections 91 to 99 of the Public Health Act 1936. Section 99 of that Act is a piece of legislation that I use more often at my advice bureaux than any other public health legislation. It enables a person to take proceedings in a magistrates court when the state and condition of a house makes it unfit and prejudicial to the health of its occupants.
      Generally, section 99 is used by a health authority, a local authority, to take proceedings against a private landlord or, more rarely, against a housing association. But in a case decided in Cardiff Crown court some years ago—Crown v. Cardiff city council—it was decided that a local authority which was a health authority could not take proceedings against itself.
      I shall illustrate the injustice of this to tenants of local authority accommodation which is leaky, full of condensation or in other ways a threat to their health—perhaps because it is full of cockroaches—by describing the state of housing in London some years ago. A large part of accommodation in London was owned, controlled and managed by the Greater London council. I am sorry to say that much of that accommodation, whether under Labour or Conservative administration, was in poor condition. My local authority, Lambeth borough council, like many in London, would regularly issue summonses under section 99 against the Greater London council as the housing authority. In those circumstances, the court could make an order against the housing authority stating that it must carry out the necessary repairs, impose a fine on it and, most important of all to the person suffering poor housing conditions, award compensation of up to £2,000.
      When the GLC estates were forced over to the London metropolitan authorities by the Government, those people in poor accommodation—which had a leaky roof or had been under-repaired so that it affected their health—had no recourse in law.
      830
      For some years it has been legally impossible to get the housing authority to issue a summons against itself. Therefore, we have to send people to the magistrates court to issue their own summons against the housing authority under section 99. They are helped in that by law centres, but as a result of Government restraints on local government expenditure, some law centres—notably three of them in Wandworth where there are plenty of housing problems—are being closed. Other law centres such as those in Bradford have been under threat or closed. People have to issue the summons against the Housing authority themselves and there is no legal aid because it is a prosecution, not a defence.
      The Bill places a duty upon a local authority to investigate a complaint about a statutory nuisance. It is true that under clause 79, an individual who is aggrieved by a statutory nuisance can issue a summons. That is the current position, and that is what I am trying to change. There should be equal justice for all tenants. It should not matter whether a person is a tenant of a local authority, a housing association or a private landlord. If water is coming through the roof, if there is what is called a cold bridge, and if the health of the parents and children is likely to suffer because of poor housing conditions, there should be no difference in the quality of representation and justice simply because of the identity of the landlord.
      The effect of the amendment would be that a local authority would have a duty not only to investigate a statutory nuisance but, if proceedings were then justified, to appoint a third party to prosecute that local authority because, as a result of the Cardiff case, it cannot prosecute itself. It is even more important that the amendment be accepted because, as a result of the changes in the Bill, the ability of a magistrates court to award compensation for failure to repair is lessened.
      It is an important amendment that puts the council tenant back into the same position as private and housing association tenants. It restores the rights held by many former GLC tenants before the transfer of the GLC estates. It is a sensible amendment that would ensure the even-handed treatment of all tenants. I hope that the Government will accept it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish briefly to support amendment (a). I do so in what I believe to be the accurate belief that I represent a greater proportion of council tenants than any other hon. Member who represents an English seat. This is an enormously significant amendment for the great proportion of my constituents who live in council properties. I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I think that we have approached the amendment from the same position.
      I was a practising lawyer before I came to the House, and the Public Health Act, especially section 99, provided an easily available and quick remedy to deal with repairs to domestic property. I was the recipient of representations from local law centres, to which many people go for advice and which use that remedy. For the regular stream of people who come to my surgery, as they do to the surgery of the hon. Member for Norwood and, no doubt, the surgeries of many other hon. Members, including Conservative Members, the only way to get the local authority to do anything is to prosecute. Unless it is taken to court, nothing happens. The windows remain broken, the ceilings leak, the pipes are unsafe and the home is a danger to health—it is a public health issue.

      831
      I have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister, and I did not serve on the Committee. I hope that he will welcome the amendment. It may need a drafting change, but fundamentally it would have two effects. First, it would give all local authority tenants the right to take action in a simple and effective way and to get a quick remedy by way of compensation. Secondly, and more importantly, it would give equity to people who, possibly coincidentally, happen to be council tenants. They may have become local authority tenants only because there was no other landlord in their area to whom they could go. Why should they be adversely affected compared with private or housing association tenants when the damage to their health may be exactly the same? I hope that the Minister will make a positive response.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I also want to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 176.
      Most members of the Committtee were pleased when the Government announced that they intended to remove Crown immunity, but particularly disappointed that, when the Bill returned from another place, it was discovered that the Government had decided to restore Crown immunity in respect of smoke emissions or noise from Ministry of Defence premises.
      It seems odd that the Government did not tell us in Committee in this House that they intended to reserve that immunity in respect of the Ministry of Defence, and that is occurred to them only when the Bill was returned by the Lords.
      The undertaking given by the Government in the other place was also very odd. There might be an argument for retaining Crown immunity in respect of military operations, although I am not happy about the safeguards for people living close to MOD establishments. Even so, I do not understand why the Ministry should enjoy immunity in respect of activities that are the subject of legislation to which others must conform.
      It seems crazy that a Ministry of Defence hospital operating an incinerator for disposing of medical waste will not need to comply with the Bill's provisions whereas a national health service hospital will—and ridiculous that, whereas a building that is the source of noise created by a late-night party, for example, will also be subject to the Bill, whereas premises occupied by the MOD will not.
      It might have been reasonable if the Government had sought an exemption in respect of military operations, but it is not acceptable to demand blanket exemption. I hope that the Minister will offfer a better explanation of why that is necessary than was given in another place. Otherwise, we shall conclude that, as in so many other areas, Ministers from the Department of the Environment get turned over by Cabinet colleagues, and that every proposal that they make ends up being severely modified as a result of the activities of other cabinet members.
      Mr. Trippier: Even though the statement by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in another place, Lord Arran, may not have satisfied the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), it certainly satisfied their Lordships. I shall endeavour to explain why it should also satisfy the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members.
      832
      As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) might have expected, I claim that amendment No. 79 covers the situation that he described. I have a great deal of sympathy with his comments in respect of those of his constituents who want recourse to law and for the legal process to be dealt with speedily, just as I do with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am sorry that those points were not raised in Committee, when we could have discussed them fully.
      In preparing for today's debate, I wanted to be convinced that adequate compensation will be available for those people who are aggrieved and take their case to a magistrates court—and I am satisfied that there will, provided that the case is well founded.
      Amendment No. 178, which we have yet to consider, will enable a court to award backdated compensation, as is the present position under the Public Health Act 1936 in respect of action taken by private individuals. The House will forgive me if I am not familiar with the Cardiff Crown court case, but I was concerned that assistance should be available to any individual who felt aggrieved that they had received unsatisfactory service from their local authority.
      The hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the fact that, on occasion, law centres can assist his constituents, as indeed they can assist all our constituents if they have such a law centre. However there are other fairly sophisticated, informed bodies which will assist a constituent in such a dilemma for no charge whatsoever. I am thinking especially of Shelter or, in London, SHAC. We cannot interfere with the discretion of the magistrates in such cases.
      The hon. Member for Norwood seems to be suggesting—it unnerves me slightly—that he does not have faith in the magistracy to determine whether the aggrieved constituent—the plaintiff—is right to bring the action in the first place.
      Mr. Fraser: The Minister is missing the point completely. The local authority will be the prosecuting authority, unless it is also the defendant. The amendment provides that the local authority cannot be both prosecutor and defendant. Therefore, a third party is appointed to prosecute the local authority. There is no criticism of the magistracy, as they are first class. There is some criticism about funding for advice centres, but the main point is that at the moment the local authority cannot be both prosecutor and defendant. I want to correct that imbalance.
      Mr. Trippier: There is no problem if the case can be brought by an organisation such as Shelter or SHAC. It is clear from the wording of the amendment—the hon. Gentleman has already said that the wording may not be perfect—that it gives an impression that an aggrieved individual could take the matter to the magistrates court. That is the whole point of clause 79. When someone else could be invited by the tenant to take the local authority to court, the remedy is open to them to do that. We have allowed that in clause 79.
      We are not merely talking about law centres, Shelter and SHAC; there are citizens' advice bureaux and other organisations, which are quite used to taking cases of this kind and to supporting aggrieved individuals.

      833
      There is no lack of sympathy on the Conservative Benches or in the Government's mind about what is being said, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of clause 79 is to deal with that particular aggravation.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Minister is beginning to understand, but there is still a problem: if Parliament charges local authorities with being the statutory body responsible for upholding environmental health, it is natural that people will go regularly to the authority to seek enforcement of their rights as regards public health. This is the one occasion, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, when the local authority is forbidden to act because it would be the defendant. We are seeking to provide a route whereby the complaint can go from there to somewhere else. The amendment provides an easy but automatic mechanism. Otherwise, we shall have to rely on non-statutory provisions, which may not always work.
      Mr. Trippier: There is not merely a disagreement between the hon. Members for Norwood and for Southwark and Bermondsey and myself—there is a yawning chasm. The precise point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is met by clause 79.
      I understand the point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is making. It is true that, given the statutory responsibility of the environmental health officer, under normal circumstances an individual would go to that officer to ask for support in the case that he was seeking to advance. Therefore, it would clearly be ludicrous for the environmental health officer, who is paid by the local authority, to take the case to court against the authority which is his paymaster. The hon. Gentleman made that point well, as did the hon. Member for Norwood.
      That is not at issue. Clause 79 allows an aggrieved individual to take a case directly to court—just as, in part IV of the Bill, which deals with litter provisions, we have written it large that any individual can take a local authority to court if he is not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness.
      Mr. Fraser: There is no symmetry. If the local authority prosecutes, it uses its own solicitors department. The prosecutor does not incur any expense. The local authority can also instruct counsel. If a constituent has to go to a citizens advice bureau, or someone else, he or she has to pay the solicitor or barrister to appear in court. There is no symmetry between a person appearing on his or her own behalf to prosecute an authority that will instruct a barrister to defend the proceedings, and a local authority using a solicitor or barrister to prosecute any other landlord.
      Mr. Trippier: I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree. There is a clear symmetry between that and what has been on the statute book for a considerable period. Any individual can take a local authority to court if he is aggrieved over a housing defect or a public nuisance of most kinds. If a constituent of the hon. Member for Norwood takes his case to the magistrates court—I am pleased to hear that he has the utmost faith in the magistracy to decide such cases—and has it upheld there, an order will be made against the local
      834
      authority that makes it clear that it has to comply quickly with the order. Moreover, costs will be awarded in favour of the plaintiff. It cannot be any clearer than that.
      The hon. Gentleman asks the Government to accept the amendment. However, it would introduce another form of bureaucracy—another independent body that would give advice on whether the plaintiff was right. By any standard, that is second-guessing the individual who is taking the case to court. The hon. Gentleman would have me if the Bill did not contain a provision for an individual to take his case to the lower court. However, it contains such a provision. It meets precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I want to keep it that way. I am sure that he too, as a lawyer, has faith in the magistrates courts to deal with the point. It is already covered.
      As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), Lord Arran made a statement in the other place in which he concluded that, in certain circumstances, the application of the clause to which he referred would impose unreasonable constraints on Ministry of Defence activities as they affect the defence of the realm. Clause 76 places a duty on every local authority to inspect its area from time to time to detect and, under subsequent clauses, to take action on specified types of nuisance. The two types of activity that it was agreed should not apply to defence activities are smoke and noise. That will interest the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in particular.
      The Ministry of Defence is currently exempt from all statutory nuisance legislation. Even as amended, therefore, part III will increase the degree of legislative control to which the Ministry is subject. It is evident that our armed forces cannot be properly trained and equipped without the generation of smoke and noise, which sometimes constitute a nuisance. For instance, soldiers will not be effective in wartime if they have not had realistic training, which includes the use of smoke screens, tank manoeuvres and the firing of weapons. Similarly, the equipment that they use needs to be tested in the open. It will generate smoke and, I admit noise. If statutory nuisance legislation were to be applied to such activities, they might become impossible, with serious consequences.
      In the light of that information, which only echoes what was said by Lord Arran in the other place, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the amendment, as their Lordships did.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister does not say that only military manouevres will be exempt. He says that all the Ministry of Defence's activities will be exempt. An example that was given in the other place was fire-fighting exercises. The argument was that the Ministry of Defence needs to practise fire fighting and that fires would have to be started for that purpose. Ordinary fire-fighting services will not be granted such an exemption, on similar grounds. They will have to comply with the law. Why will the Ministry of Defence not have to comply with the law? The exemption just outlined by the Minister seems to be reasonable. What is not reasonable is to give exemption for incinerators, smoke from military hospitals and noise from barracks.
      Mr. Trippier: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we have no intention of letting the armed services hide behind the exemption to which we

      835
      are both referring and to generate smoke or noise nuisances where they can be avoided. It would be of little value to specify in the amendment premises which give rise to smoke and noise nuisance for operational reasons. That is potentially the case for much of the defence estate, where nuisances that we would wish to avoid could occur too.
      The Ministry of Defence has instead issued a policy statement to all their formations, and to those of the United States armed forces in the United Kingdom, stating the extent to which smoke and noise nuisance is constrained. Copies of the statement have been placed in the Library in response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).
      11 pm
      That policy statement makes it clear that domestic activities—non-operational activities such as building work, hospital incinerators and industrial type processes—should not cause smoke and nuisance. The statement does not stop there: it sets very strict limits on what constitutes operationally necessary smoke and noise, where that is operationally necessary. The Government undertake to ensure that the letter and spirit of that policy statement are followed at all times.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 79

      SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY STATUTORY NUISANCES
      Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 85, line 41, at end insert
      "and may also impose on the defendant a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will he convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 182 and 187.
      Mr. Marland: It is disappointing that neither under part III of the Bill nor in the Lords amendments is there any specific reference to the containment of chlorofluorocarbon gas. CFCs are greenhouse gases and are up to 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. They do enormous damage to the ozone layer, with the subsequent damage to the earth's surface that will flow from that.
      CFCs are mainly used as a propellant or blowing agent and have been found a great deal in aerosols, although alternatives to CFCs as a blowing agent in aerosols are being produced. They are used in air conditioning units, in insulating cavity walls and in refrigerators. They are used for putting the insulating foam into the walls of refrigerators and in the coolant in the back of the refrigerator.
      An enormous amount of CFC gases is in use. Some local authorities, and I am pleased that Gloucestershire is one of them, are making an effort to milk the refrigerant from the back of old refrigerators. However, they are only scratching the surface of the problem. It is estimated that 33 million domestic refrigerators are in use in the United Kingdom, and 3 million more refrigerators are being used every year. It is estimated that it will be five years before
      836
      CFCs are designed out of refrigerator foam. Over the next five years, 48 million refrigerators will vent into the atmosphere, producing almost 32,000 tonnes of CFC gas.
      The major problem is that the overall percentage of CFCs in refrigerators comes not from the coolant but from the foam round the outside of it. The German Government have recognised the problem and have passed laws outlawing the venting into the atmosphere of CFC gas from refrigerators. German Landers, the local authority areas, are stockpiling refrigerators until they can be treated.
      It is important to point out that the joint working party of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the Institute of Wastes Management recommended recently the enactment of legislation in the United Kingdom requiring the recovery of CFCs from refrigerants in the short term and the phasing in of the requirement to recover all CFCs from insulating foam as soon as that is feasible.
      The technology to recover CFCs from both coolant and insulating foam in domestic refrigerators is now at hand. Encouragement is required to ensure that the new technology is used efficiently and effectively. This can probably come about only through legislation and by steering local authorities on what they should do in destroying refrigerators.
      Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that suitable legislation for the safe processing of domestic refrigerators and insulating foam can be produced under this part of the Bill?
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Much good work has been done, particularly by ICI at Runcorn. It serves no purpose to suggest that industry is not trying. Many of us have the impression that industry is trying hard to overcome this fundamental problem.
      If we are to be realistic about recovering CFCs from refrigerators, and there are to be regulations, let alone legislation, is not it important that the measures should relate to the design stage of the refrigerators? Recovery is very much easier if a refrigerator is designed for its eventual death. This is not an easy problem, but I should like to hear the Government's comments on any plans that they have in mind.
      Mr. Cryer: It would be helpful to know the Government's attitude in general towards this problem. It is important to introduce regulations controlling the recovery of CFCs from domestic and industrial refrigerators when their time expires. They should not be vented into the atmosphere. There is already legislation dealing with the disposal of refrigerators because of the danger of CFCs and because children become trapped in them.
      The Government permit the export of between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes a year of CFCs. There is little point in pursuing controls over the recovery of CFCs in refrigerators in the United Kingdom when the Government are exporting CFCs to countries where there is a minimal possibility that they will scrutinise use and disposal in the way we do. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the export of CFCs will be rapidly curtailed. Although I am sure that it is not a responsibility of his Department, it would be absurd for the Department of the Environment to introduce controls on the disposal of existing CFCs in refrigerators while the Department of

      837
      Trade permits the export of thousands of tonnes of CFCs to other countries. Whether the CFCs are in domestic refrigerators or in exported goods, they still affect the ozone layer. It is important to tackle both.
      I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will refer this matter to the Department of Trade, which was extremely elusive about providing me with information when I asked questions about the export of CFCs. The first Minister told me that the statistics were not collected. Fortunately, it was discovered shortly after that the statistics were collected. They were provided in a parliamentary answer in Hansard at the beginning of the final part of the Session. As this information is circulating and the Department of the Environment is now sweeping all these environmental pollutants away with its new broom, I hope that the Department will send that new broom to other Departments of State.
      Mr. Trippier: Let me begin by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who asked whether I could give him an assurance that, at some future stage and without having recourse to primary legislation, the matter that he brought to our attention could be addressed by regulation, by order or whatever. My answer to his question is, not under clause 79, which we are now considering. But—I hope that I shall be able to get this confirmed in the Department tomorrow—my clear reading of the financial and explanatory memorandum is that such secondary legislation might be introduced under clause 82. I quote:
      "Clause 82 amends the Clean Air Acts to allow regulations to be made under affirmative resolution procedure to extend the controls over smoke, grit, dust and fume emissions to any specified gaseous emissions."
      I think that that covers the matter and that, had my hon. Friend asked me the same question in respect of clause 82, I could have said yes. I shall confirm that to him by letter tomorrow. I had better make it clear that I am no lawyer, but I think that I will be right on that.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made it perfectly clear that great advances had been made in CFC substitution. That is a source of great pride to British people who believe that ICI played no small part in the development of such substitutes—more commonly known as HCFCs. No one is kidding himself—least of all me—that those substitutes are the complete answer. As I think the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, even they can be harmful, but to an infinitesimal degree compared with the chlorofluorocarbons with which we are all familiar. The perfect answer has not yet been found and, to my knowledge, we have not yet found a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration. Great progress has been made on substitute CFCs in aerosols, however, and I do not think that it will be very long before technology is so advanced that an effective substitute for the use of CFCs in refrigeration is found. In that regard, research is being conducted with a consortium that includes DuPont as well as ICI.
      My concern for what happens in the developing and third world countries, especially with regard to the use of CFCs, is shared by other hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Let me refer to the ozone layer conference held in London in June this year. It was perfectly clear to me that we could persuade the Indians and the Chinese to sign the amended Montreal
      838
      protocol only if we offered them assistance not only through the recognised overseas aid routes but through the transfer of technology. I see no future in those countries—or in any other countries for that matter—continuing to use CFCs when the developed countries have already undertaken, under the Montreal protocol, to reduce their use. This country is 10 years ahead of its international obligations in that regard.
      The third world and developing countries look to the industrialised and developed countries to put all these matters right because they genuinely believe that it is entirely our fault that the problem has arisen and that the hole in the ozone layer has been created. I think that they are right, by the way, but in a speech on this subject in Cairo in December last year, I made it clear that even if all the industrialised countries or all the OECD countries reduced their use of CFCs, we should never repair the hole in the ozone layer if the developing and third world countries continued to use them. That is a statement of fact; it is not hypothesis.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South. We should not be encouraging the use of CFCs without the substitutes in those countries. We have now managed to persuade companies like ICI to make available the technology transfer which will use substitutes instead of CFCs. The meeting to that end took place during the same week as the ozone layer conference was held in London, and I was party to that meeting with Chris Hampson, ICI's main board director.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South can take comfort from the fact that we are all singing from the same song sheet. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we had not had the undertaking, India and China would not have signed the protocol at the end of that week.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I have an undertaking that I will receive a letter about the alterations that can be made at the design stage of refrigerators and other CFC-using equipment?
      Mr. Trippier: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any specific details about that, as I am not qualified to do so. However, I will write to him about it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 183, in page 85, line 45, at end insert—
      ("(3D) An appeal against any decision of a magistrates' court on a complaint for an order under subsection (2) above shall lie to the Crown Court at the instance of any party to the proceedings.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I believe that the Government took the contrary view in the other place and supported the right of appeal to the Crown court. I was persuaded that that was a proper and right course and I am intrigued to know what revelation has caused the Government to take a different view now that the matter has come back to this place. It seems proper to allow an appeal on these important matters to the Crown court, and I should be interested to learn what has changed.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Amendment No. 183 was tabled by Lord Nathan on

      839
      Report in another place and it was accepted by the Government. At that stage, clause 79 was drafted in terms which meant that proceedings for a nuisance under subsections (1) and (2) were civil in character. Hence it was necessary to make specific provision for a right of appeal to the Crown court.
      On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Byron tabled amendment No. 178, which was designed to restore the current position under the Public Health Act 1936, under which a magistrates court is empowered to impose a fine at the same time as it makes a nuisance order. As the matter will be heard in a magistrates court, the right of appeal is implicit. Amendment No. 183, as it was originally tabled, is unnecessary and otiose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right and proper to overturn it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Although the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I do not agree necessarily with all new provisions with regard to proceedings for statutory nuisance in the magistrates court, the amendment seems persuasive, as the matter is now a criminal offence and the right of appeal follows automatically to the Crown court.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      [One with Special Entry.]

    New clause

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISION RELATING TO SECTION 86
      Lords amendment: No. 209, to insert the following new clause—
      ("—(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of the transition to the duties imposed by section 86 above on local authorities and educational bodies, by regulations, make provision—

      (a) modifying that section. or

      (b) modifying Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 (competition rules for functional work or works contracts).

      (2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different descriptions of authorities, different areas or other different circumstances or cases.
      (3) In this section—

      "educational bodies" means the governing bodies and education authorities mentioned in section 88(1)(f) above; and

      "local authorities" means the local authorities mentioned in section 88(1)(a) and (c) and (2)(a) above.")

      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss amendments (a) and (b) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendment No. 305.
      Ms. Joan Walley: Opposition Members are very concerned about the continuing problem relating to the code of practice applying to litter. It was raised early in our consideration of the Bill; it was also raised with me, at a conference that I attended on 24 September—a joint conference involving both the Association of Direct Labour Organisations and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
      840
      The problem appears to have resulted from the Local Government Act 1988, which provides for compulsory competitive tendering. That Act cuts right across this Bill. It seems clear to local authorities that now have the responsibility of introducing CCT that it will be almost impossible for them to build it on to the code of practice—which, I understand, has not yet been finally agreed, although it has already been through at least seven drafts.
      If the Government are talking about the importance of environmental protection, and about the need for it to cut across all local authority services, they should recognise the problem that they have created for themselves. The Secretary of State has powers to make changes to clause 86, which applies the code of practice to local authorities. What worries us is what will happen when a council has already tendered, under CCT, and a contract—whether in-house or outside—has already been properly agreed within the terms of the 1988 Act.
      More important, what about the transitional arrangements between the existing tender and the new code? It is fair to say that the Government have recognised the problem, and, in the other place, have gone some way towards taking it on board. Nevertheless, there could well be a difference in the Government's interpretation of the Act: contracts already won in-house could be treated differently from those won by outside contractors.
      It matters to us that local authorities should be able to enforce the code of practice on litter, when it is finally agreed, in a uniform way throughout the country, and that we should not have different standards of litter as a result of the lack of timetabling in respect of the implementation of CCT. It is likely that the litter duties, which were based on the code of practice that was introduced by the Tidy Britain Group, have been dreamt up without any serious consideration of how they cut across the rolling programme of CCT for street cleansing.
      We welcome the changed deadlines that have already been introduced, which mean that CCT will be delayed, in one case, until 1 August and in other cases, until 1 January 1992. We accept that some progress has been made, but we want an assurance from the Minister that authorities will not be required again to undertake tendering processes that they have already gone through in the current round. We want to know also that the two kinds of contract—in-house and outside—are being dealt with in the same way. How do the Government intend to resolve the enormous problems to which they have already admitted in their deliberations?
      We want certain assurances: first, that the introduction of the code will not lead to waste and dislocation caused by a further round of tendering for any authority; secondly, that authorities' problems with in-house and outside services will be considered as a whole; thirdly, that there will be no different treatment between the two types of services; fourthly, that, as a result, the Government will review their interpretation of section 7(8) of the 1988 Act; and, fifthly, that discussions with local authority associations will proceed as soon as possible. Local authority associations in particular have expressed concern about the situation in which they now find themselves.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make transitional provisions to protect the position of authorities that already assigned contracts for the provision of the relevant services under

      841
      the competitive tendering legislation before the new litter code was published. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has acknowledged that we have already moved a number of deadlines to accommodate the position of those authorities which might otherwise have had insufficient time to take account of the new litter standards.
      We recognise that contracts are likely to have to be modified to take account of the standards of litter clearance that will be required by the code. The dates that we have moved are the rounds of competition which were due to be completed by 1 January and 1 August next year. They have been moved back to 1 August 1991 and 1 January respectively. It will be possible for authorities to take full account of the code when they draw up their specifications.
      Where contracts had already been let before the code was promulgated, the new clause will give the Secretary of State power to make the necessary transitional arrangements. They will provide for any additional work which may be necessary to be taken on board. They will also protect the position of authorities until such time as that can be done. They will cover cases in which contracts have been let to the private sector and also those in which work has been assigned to an authority's own direct service organisation.
      I can promise the hon. Lady that we will consult local authority associations on the details of how to reconcile the needs of competitive tendering with the parallel need to implement the new litter standards as soon as possible. I recognise that that is an issue. I know also that compulsory competitive tendering has brought significant benefits not just to local community charge payers but to authorities. It has required them to define duties and has ensured that the work is tested in the market place to ensure value for money. We do not wish to relinquish those gains.
      11.30 pm
      I am sure that the hon. Lady will also recognise the need to implement the new litter code as widely and consistently as possible. I am sure that she would not like the standards to be pepper-potted about the country any more than is absolutely necessary, and that she will therefore join me in hoping that we can work out the details of implementing the new litter duties as soon as possible. These have not yet been finalised, but I undertake to consult the local authority associations on the proposals when they are available.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      To be further considered tomorrow.

  Inter-country Adoption
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of inter-country adoption on the Adjournment. I am especially grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is giving her time to reply to the debate. More than one Department is involved, but I am especially grateful that she is here this evening, and should like to record my appreciation of her long experience with these matters, and her awareness of the sensitivity of issues that concern both the needs of the children who require adoption and the parents who are interested in adopting.
  My hon. Friend will be aware of my personal interest in the matters, as an adoptive parent, and of my support for her during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which should do so much to help childless couples. My interest in inter-country adoption is not quite so close although Stephen, our child, comes from Wales and I suppose that one could call that inter-country adoption.
  My first real experience of the subject came when I visited Hong Kong three years ago. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will have this opportunity, but if she is in Hong Kong, I recommend her to go to the Home for Loving Faithfulness because it is the most extraordinary establishment, which takes in severely handicapped Chinese orphans and cares for them. It has been most successful in finding adoptive homes all over the world for those Chinese children. If my hon. Friend ever has the opportunity, I recommend that she sees that establishment, which is a particularly fine example of inter-country adoption finding the right homes for the right children. It would be a great mistake and naive to imagine that the right homes for those Chinese children could be found in Hong Kong because the Chinese culture does not accept adoption, let alone the adoption of severely handicapped children. The needs of those children in Hong Kong will no doubt become even greater when Hong Kong becomes part of the Chinese mainland.
  My other interest in this subject comes through one of my constituents who is a Colombian lady who, for medical reasons, found it difficult to have a second child herself. She was interested in adopting a Colombian child, but found the procedural difficulties so great that she felt that she might be better to try to have a child herself although her doctor advised against it. I quote that as an example of where the procedural difficulties of inter-country adoption should not be used as an obstruction when it leads to a lady trying to have a child when her doctor has advised against it.
  The history of inter-country adoption includes the great interest in it at the time of the crisis in Columbia in the early 1980s when orphans were tipped on to the streets at an age of seven or eight. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember the considerable amount of work done by Lady Glover, Baroness Faithful and many others in an attempt to set up an agency to help with inter-country adoptions. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering attempted to find out more of the difficulties at the time. I have looked at some of the old files on meetings with Ministers and many of the people

  843
  involved with setting up such an agency at that time. Everyone agreed that an agency was needed. I am sorry that it did not come about a few years ago. Obviously, it was close to happening. It was probably fears of baby-trafficking and so on that led to the idea being dropped. But I am sure that the need was fully recognised by all involved. I am sorry that the difficulties prevented an agency from being set up.
  At Christmas last year we all suddenly became aware of the dreadful crisis in Romania when the horrors of the Ceausescu regime were made apparent after the revolution. The situation was appalling. Mothers were forced to have five children. No contraceptives were available. No abortion was allowed. The result was the most appalling orphanages, with in excess of 100,000 orphans. Some people have estimated that there could be 200,000 children in orphanages in the most disgraceful and awful conditions. There are no trained nurses. The nurses training schools have been closed down. The children's health is exposed to terrible hazards. AIDS and hepatitis are rampant.
  The common humanitarian instinct to help led so many people to offer to adopt or foster at that time. I understand that there were 4,000 'phone calls in the first week of the new year to the Flanders and Scottish Alliance, and 50 'phone calls a day to the National Association for the Childless from couples who were offering to adopt.
  Obviously, one would want to help the Romanian authorities in every way possible. I was disappointed to hear in a debate just last week on aid from the European Community to eastern Europe that there is to be no aid to the Romanian Government from the EC because of dissatisfaction with the new Government and the poor state of the democracy in that country. The level of official aid from the United Kingdom to Romania was quoted in the debate as only £900,000 so far. That is no more than £5 or £10 for each orphan. So much more needs to be done. However, the children do not need only aid. They need love and care. As Claire Rayner said in the very good TV-AM series, the children need TLC—tender loving care. That is what I should like to impress on my hon. Friend the Minister most of all.
  British couples who have been over to Romania say that couples from other countries such as France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, the United States of America and Canada receive much more help than British couples. Those countries have waived restrictions because of the humanitarian problems, which have reached such crisis proportions in Romania.
  In Britain it seems that we have been perhaps a little over-obsessed with the difficulties of which we were aware in the past such as scares about trafficking and illegal immigration and the breakdown of adoptions. Perhaps we have allowed those fears to stand in the way of helping would-be adoptive couples who want to do all that they can to help in the crisis. We seem to have too many bureaucratic barriers. Local authorities seem to be among the worst at creating such barriers. As a result of that, I took a petition to the Prime Minister last July from 14 couples who wanted help to overcome the obstacles.
  One accepts fully the United Nations declaration that, of course, the child must come first and should be helped to stay in the country of its birth if at all possible. But where it is clear that at least for some orphans adoption is the best solution, any delays are not to the advantage of the child.
  844
  I should like to quote to my hon. Friend some of the problems that would-be parents are now experiencing. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) has passed on to me two letters that he has received in the past few days. One letter dated 14 October said that current delays on the part of local authorities were running at three months. Those delays concerned an 18-month-old girl who had been discovered in Romania abandoned without even a name. The other letter dated 23 September said that people feel
  "under pressure to break the law in order to safeguard their babies"
  The Minister will be aware of the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who has also drawn attention to certain cases with which he is concerned. A couple in his constituency have written to me to say that the Romanian lawyer with whom they dealt said that he would not deal with any other English couple because
  "you are treated as though you are criminals for wanting to give a home to these babies."
  It is clear that people are experiencing severe bureaucratic delays and that there is an urgent need for a helpline service and an inter-country adoption agency to help such couples. At the very least a helpline should be established—it could either be a free-standing agency or the service could be provided by one of the existing voluntary agencies. Parents feel that their patience has been exhausted and that they should not be left alone to battle against large monopolistic bureaucracies. Those parents' needs were recognised many years ago and, if we do not do something to regularise the procedures, we shall continue to risk the danger of children coming into the country through the back door. The authorities would then be presented with those babies as a fait accompli.
  The helpline and the inter-country adoption agency could supply information to couples and counsel them. To adopt a child from abroad is not simple and all couples considering such an adoption should be counselled in the best possible manner. Those who go ahead with such an adoption should be assisted with the paperwork and the other forms of bureaucracy that they will encounter. Local authorities should be pressed to act promptly when there is a danger of delay. Those authorities should not hesitate to use outside social workers if that would help to speed up the process.
  The agency could also help and support parents once they have gone through the process of adoption. It is riot easy to bring up one's own children and obviously parents would require further help to bring up a child adopted from abroad. I have no evidence, however, that such adoptions have led to an excessive number of breakdowns and we should not reject inter-country adoption of those grounds.
  I hope that the Government will encourage an existing agency to take on an inter-country adoption service. Ideally that should be undertaken by an organisation such as the BAAF, but there are others that could consider that task. If that does not happen, the parents are resolved to set up their own agency under the suggested name, the British Overseas Adoption Agency, which would be supported by groups such as Stork—the parent support operation already operating—the National Association for the Childless, the Inter-Country Adoption Social Workers Group, and family groups in different parts of the

  845
  country. For the sake of the children and their prospective families, we should act. It is not good enough to leave things as they are.
  The most recent and comprehensive published statement of local authority opinion on the matter appeared in the information complied by the children's legal centre at the end of 1988. Of the 59 authorities that replied to the questionnaire, 36 had no specific policy, four said that they were discussing one and some authorities, for example, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Lewisham, stated unequivocally that they would not be prepared to undertake any assessments at the request of applicants or agencies from abroad. Somerset authority stated:
  "This authority does not assist in making arrangements for inter-country adoption, but would meet its responsibilities under the 1986 Adoption Act sections 1 and 2 by giving advice to inquirers on the legal processes to be followed and try to ensure that they have properly addressed and thought through the issues involved."
  If departments are obstructive and couples are a a loss to know where else to seek information, they may be desperate enough to bring overseas children into this country without entry clearance, as has occurred.
  Unless we establish a co-ordinated service in which proper regulation can be assured, future participation and co-operation on an international level might be restricted. Britain is one of the few countries not to have a specialised overseas adoption agency and we must avoid any danger of isolation from continuing international initiatives. The Hague convention is in the process of drafting new directives on inter-country adoption and will be meeting at the international convention on private law in 1993, where receiving and sending countries will agree on criteria, and establish standards, to protect children.
  Clearly there is a will to adopt, and clearly there are many Romanian children for whom adoption, far from depriving them of a secure future in the country of their origin, would be saving them from years of institutionalised misery at best and death at worst.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: A parliamentary answer on 22 October showed that only one mentally handicapped child has been adopted from Romania. She is Emese Gabor, who was adopted by Bev and Ruth Smith of Killamarsh in Derbyshire. Bev Smith had to visit Romania four times, and there were considerable difficulties with the authorities there, including, initially, the British embassy. There was a host of dedicated activity because Bev and Ruth Smith were committed to adopting a mentally handicapped child. It was the third such child whom they had adopted, in addition to having a mentally handicapped child of their own. That experience illustrates that something special is needed if mentally handicapped children are to be adopted from Romania.
  Mr. Thurnham: That is a commendable example of how inter-country adoption can be especially helpful in finding the right home for mentally handicapped children.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister took on board the strong message from parents that something must be done. I hope that the Government will encourage the establishment of a suitable service either through the aegis of an existing voluntary organisation or by setting up a new organisation with official recognition.
  11.47 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton,. North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in once again bringing before the House a subject of great concern and interest to many hon. Members. He referred to my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) contributed to the debate and I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is in the Chamber. He has also raised this issue on behalf of a number of his constituents.
  The whole issue of inter-county adoption must be viewed not only in terms of the poignant and troublesome circumstances in Romania, but against the position in this country, where the number of babies available for adoption has declined sharply in recent years. Often there is the poignant combination of parents who cannot have children alongside pictures in the newspapers and on television of children who are neglected and deprived of even the basic necessities of life.
  Some parents have to wait an inordinate length of time before documentation is cleared. They become frustrated and exasperated and, on too many occasions, take the law into their own hands and go out to find a child. I say clearly and strongly that the decision to adopt a child is an enormously serious one. It is essential that the necessary safeguards are taken. There can be no question of having a lower standard of proof or satisfaction as to the suitability of parents for children from overseas than there would be for children at home. We have made great efforts to work with local authorities and have issued guidance to make it quite clear what the procedure should be in an attempt to ensure that needless delays can be circumvented. An example is that traditionally it has been the case that adoptive parents would have to be approved for a particular named child, so it would be impossible to do the home study until after the child had been identified. In the most recent guidance from Bill Utting of the social services inspectorate, we make it clear to local authorities that those are circumstances in which it is appropriate to make a home study report in advance.
  We appreciate that many local authorities believe that they have more pressing needs for their skills and demands on their services and wish to find homes for the children who are already their statutory responsibility. There is the development of adoption of handicapped children who, in times gone by, could not have hoped to have a normal upbringing with a family. To accommodate the understandable concerns of local authorities we have made it clear that it is quite appropriate for a charge to be made for parents seeking a home study report for an inter-country adoption.
  I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the safeguards are an essential part of protecting children. Children's needs should be paramount in these considerations. Children need families, but no parent has a right to a child. I hope that the House would agree that this must be the way in which we approach inter-country adoption.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations convention on foster placement and adoption, nationally and internationally. It provides that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of providing a family for a child who cannot be cared for in

  847
  a suitable manner in his or her own country. In all matters relating to the placement of a child outside the care of a child's own parents, the child's best interests should be the paramount consideration.
  Safeguards and standards equivalent to those which apply to national adoption are to be applied to inter-country adoption to protect the welfare of the child involved. The more recent 1989 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, to which the Government are already signatories and which we hope to ratify soon, will contain strict safeguards on inter-country adoption.
  I join my hon. Friend and others in congratulating those who have responded to the tragic situation in Romania by the provision of international aid in a number of ways. There is no embargo on humanitarian aid. The aid in Romania has come from both governmental and voluntary sources. The United Kingdom has already contributed £6·6 million of humanitarian aid, including medical supplies that are so greatly needed. The EC Commission recently set up a programme of aid specifically for children in Romania, to which we are contributing generously. Some £3·8 million has already been promised for supplies and heating in orphanages, and more is promised. There have also been the numerous voluntary efforts which we all applaud. The Romanian Orphanage Trust is a notable example. It intends to ensure that the children of Romania are able to stay in their own country.
  The theme of my hon. Friend's debate was inter-country adoption, and he said that there was no inter-country adoption agency in this country. We have a long tradition of adoption and can rightly take pride in the effectiveness and thoroughness with which it is undertaken. In some countries there is adoption only from overseas, so clearly the inter-country adoption agency is the route that has been chosen. Adoption provision is undertaken either by the country's 108 local authorities or by approved voluntary adoption agencies. Within that context, we must seek to develop better services and advice for parents—some of whom encounter a great deal of cumbersome negotiations in endeavouring to establish the facts and what requirements they must meet to undertake an inter-country adoption.
  It is neither right nor proper if those to whom those people turn for advice are those who buck the system, and whose action is not something that any right hon. or hon. Member would endorse or support. The Government would welcome, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, the involvement of one of the adoption agencies if it were prepared to take on a particular role in respect of inter-country adoption. That would provide a safe, reliable and sympathetic source of preliminary advice for parents wanting to embark on that course.
  It is important that prospective parents should arrive at the moment when they remove the rose-tinted spectacles and discard the surge of emotion that may prompt them first to consider inter-country adoption, and should consider in the cold light of day the long-term implications of adopting a child from a different country and culture who may not be healthy. They must be sure that they have the commitment identified by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, in describing his constituents. Prospective parents must also be confident of being able to offer the skills that the House recognises in my hon. Friend
  848
  the Member for Bolton, North-East. No one could speak with greater authority and from more experience of inter-country adoption than him.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My wife and I volunteered to be short-term foster parents when my wife was pregnant with our first child. We were amazed at the bureaucracy involved and the time that it took, and even more amazed at being told how careful the authorities were, because between the time that they undertook their investigations and decided that we would make suitable parents, I had lost my job and all our circumstances had changed—and the authorities know nothing of that. I am very concerned, from experience of two cases in my constituency, that the bureaucracy is not working. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stress to all social services departments not that their investigations need be anything less than thorough, but that they should be completed quickly.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend identifies precisely the dilemma. When a couple known to him or to others of us, who are laudable, responsible, public-spirited and free from criminal convictions, apply to be foster or adoptive parents and it takes an inordinate length of time, that is described as bureaucracy. But if a child is placed with far from satisfactory adoptive or foster parents, that is described as negligence on the part of the local authority in fulfulling its duties. Difficult judgments must be made, together with checks on criminal and health records, but they are essential in safeguarding a child's welfare. A child from overseas is all the more entitled to a home that we can be satisfied meets the local authority's safeguards.
  A local authority or approved adoption society must undertake that work because if, in unforeseen circumstances, anything goes wrong with a placement, that agency must take responsibility for the child. That is why it is not possible for some well-meaning, international agency with no long-term responsibility to step in. It would be unable to provide the long-term support, guidance and advice that may be required.
  It is important that we have more up-to-date information about what the precise situation in Romania is. In some cases, it seems that prospective parents are quarrelling over the same child, and entry certificates are claimed on the same child. Stories about the circumstances in orphanages make parents reluctant to leave the child there while they satisfy all the necessary steps and safeguards.
  For those reasons I have asked officials from the Department of Health, and the Home Office to visit Romania in the near future to satisfy themselves of the position there and to ensure that the Romanians understand the procedures which we need to satisfy ourselves that the child's welfare will be properly safeguarded.
  The aim of the visit will be to learn more at first hand about the situation there and about the children who are in need of adoptive families, so that we shall be better placed to advise agencies and adopters, and to discuss and explore with the Romanian authorities how co-operation between that country and the United Kingdom can be developed and improved to ensure that the safeguards and the essential legal requirements of both countries are strictly observed in inter-country adoption.

  849
  Frankly, the House is agreed that the circumstances in Romania have brought the whole question of inter-country adoption to the fore. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned Colombia. The problem goes back several years.
  At the same time we are reviewing adoption law here and will be addressing the problem of inter-country adoption in a working paper to be produced in the new year.
  The lessons that my hon. Friend has identified, the improved guidelines produced by the Department of
  850
  Health, and the experience of the visit to Romania, together with any plans for establishing an agency in the way that my hon. Friend identified—which might be able to advise, encourage or offer a word of caution to parents where appropriate—will all ensure that our response to these tragic circumstances safeguards the welfare of the children, and enables public-spirited parents, who are properly equipped, to offer a long-term home to children who would otherwise have a distinctly bleak future.
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past Twelve midnight.

TRANSPORT

  Vibroplant, Peterborough
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report on the explosives incident at Vibroplant, Peterborough, will be published; and if he will make a statement on the current position.

  Mr. Chope
  The report by the Health and Safety Executive of its investigation into the explosion on 22 March 1989 is published today. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  The HSE investigation into the incident concluded that the source of the fire and cause of the resulting explosion was a box of Cerium fusehead combs in transit to a local fireworks manufacturer. The combs were in unauthorised and unsafe packaging. On 11 April 1990, the company operating the vehicle was fined £250,000 at Peterborough Crown court.

  In line with the undertaking given at the time by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on dangerous substances sub-committee considering the major hazard aspects of the transport of dangerous substances will study the report both for its general relevance to transport questions and its specific relevance to the safe transport of explosives.

  Executive Officers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many jobs offered by his Department to executive officer recruits offer above the adult minimum starting salaries; what is the spine point that is offered in each case; and whether they are offered in(a) London and the south-east or (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The normal minimum starting salary for adult recruits (ie those who are 20 years or above) is minimum of the pay scale plus two spine points. The following figures show the starting salaries awarded to all adult direct entry EO recruits to the Department of Transport from April 1989, the date it split from the Department of the Environment, to the present.

  DTp Civil Service Commission EO recruits:

  April 1989 to September 1990

  Starting pay

  London and South-East

  1 Elsewhere

  Total

  Minimum plus 2 spine points

  110

  67

  177

  Minimum plus 3 spine points

  1

  —

  1

  Minimum plus 4 spine points

  —

  —

  —

  Minimum plus 5 spine points

  —

  —

  —

  Maximum

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  112

  67

  179

  1 Including staff in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency, the Driving Standards Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has finalised proposals for the implementation of the red route pilot scheme in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the announcement to the House on 27 March at columns 222–24 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the intention to conduct a pilot scheme for a priority route network in London we have conducted an extensive consultation exercise on it through publications, public meetings, and site visits and discussions. This culminated in exhibitions of our initial proposals from 14 August to 28 September. A brochure and a leaflet were widely circulated and copies are in the Library. As a result of comments received we have accepted certain changes to the proposals largely aimed at increasing provision for loading and unloading to satisfy essential business needs. Plans of the final proposals are being made available to the boroughs concerned and a leaflet will be published for general interest.

  We need now to make a start on the pilot scheme itself as soon as possible. We intend to bring the new signing and lining, including bus lanes, into force on the trunk road part of the route—the A1 from Highgate to the Angel—on 7 January. Preliminary works will take place during December. Further measures such as improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists will follow as soon as possible. Implementation of measures on local roads will depend on the boroughs concerned. I hope that they will be able to introduce them quickly. Enforcement will be the key to the success of the pilot scheme, and the Metropolitan police have agreed the timetable for this start on 7 January.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected date for the introduction of red routes into London.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) on the implementation of the pilot scheme. Full implementation of the network depends on legislation which will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce red routes in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to section 2 of the consultation document on the "Traffic in London" legislative proposals published on 23 July.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received concerning the proposed red route from Highgate to the City; if any of these have been in its favour; and what replies he has sent.

  Mr. Chope
  As a result of the public exhibitions of proposals 343 responses were received. Other comments were made, some in favour and some against, at public meetings and numerous on-site discussions. In response to these representations, some of the detailed proposals have been changed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his
  341
  Department of the introduction of priority routes in Paris; and if he will make such information available to those currently involved in the consultation exercise about red routes.

  Mr. Chope
  Officials visited Paris earlier this month to obtain information. Axes rouges (red routes) were introduced last month on 27 km of roads in central Paris. Although it is too early to make a full assessment, a network of 100 km is planned. The initial effect has been to increase average speeds significantly with little increase in traffic.

  London Traffic Commissioner
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the powers of London traffic commissioner; to whom this person will report; and what will be the involvement with London borough councils.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to section 2 of the consultation document on the "Traffic in London" legislative proposals published on 23 July.

  British Rail
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance is issued to British Rail regarding co-operation with other agencies in planning emergency liaison procedures.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such guidance as is necessary, depending on the circumstances. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind perhaps he would write to me.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss British Rail's compliance with its quality of service objectives in regard to(a) Network SouthEast services and (b) the Barking to Gospel Oak service.

  Mr. Freeman
  My officials will meet the Network SouthEast quality control director on 30 October. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Bulk Carriers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year since 1980 to date(a) the number of bulk carrier ships that have sunk and (b) the number of crew lost; and if he will show in his answer the number of British ships and crew involved.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Figures of vessels which sank, and of the number of crew lost, are not recorded. The numbers of ore/bulk/oil carriers recorded as total losses are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1980

  21

  1981

  16

  1982

  17

  1983

  26

  1984

  17

  1985

  22

  1986

  20

  1987

  18

  1988

  8

  1989

  12

  Only one ship was United Kingdom registered—the Derbyshire which sank in September 1980 with the loss of 44 lives.

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what qualifications, other than a seagoing master's certificate, are required for masters of seagoing vessels loading ballast from land or from other vessels within the limits of the Port of London Authority and proceeding to discharge into places also within those limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In addition to a seagoing master's certificate, required for masters of seagoing vessels loading ballast from land or from other vessels within the limits of the Port of London Authority, the masters or first mates of ships over 50 m in length would require a pilotage exemption certificate if they wished to navigate their ships through the compulsory pilotage area.

  Shipping Accidents
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many shipping accidents there have been in the Pentland firth in each of the last 10 years that have involved collisions, groundings and sinkings; and if he will specify the types of vessels involved.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those who have resigned from the employ of the London Docklands development corporation during the last three months.

  Mr. Portillo
  Staffing matters are for the LDDC board.

  Warwickshire
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to decide on the structure plan proposals for Warwickshire.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to publish his proposed modifications to the Warwickshire structure plan early next year and, having considered any objections or representations, to issue his decision on the plan by the middle of next year.

  Opencast Mines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location for England and Wales the opencast coal sites currently being worked.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally by my Department. Information about the location of British Coal Corporation opencast sites currently being worked and sites worked by operators under licences issued by the corporation can be obtained from the corporation's Opencast Executive.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the consultations will be completed on the revised code of guidance on housing and homeless persons under part III of the Housing Act 1985; and when the code will be issued.
  343
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the revised draft code of guidance to homelessness legislation will be published in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My officials have had a number of helpful meetings with the local authority associations about the revision of the code of guidance. We will be consulting the associations and others on a revised draft code shortly. We aim to complete the consultation process and publish a revised code early in the new year.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement listing those initiatives which he is currently undertaking or supporting which are intended to reduce the problem of homelessness in Cheshire; and if he will indicate in each case the resources allocated to these initiatives.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: My right hon. Friend is currently supporting the Chester lodgings and support project which seeks to increase the supply of suitable accommodation for homeless and vulnerable people in Chester. A grant of up to a maximum of £14,530 has been earmarked to be paid this financial year.

  In addition, homelessness is a factor which is taken into account in determining local authorities' annual housing investment allocations.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the three locations considered by Nirex for repositories of radioactive waste accessed from an offshore structure.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has no information about any locations considered by Nirex for a radioactive waste repository accessed from an offshore structure. The Government have accepted Nirex's proposal that the repository should be in the form of a mine under the land, and site investigations are currently under way at Sellafield and Dounreay.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the monitoring his Department carries out into how local authorities are making all their property accessible to the disabled.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Local authorities when designing certain new buildings, including offices and public buildings, have a duty under the Building Regulations 1985 to make reasonable provision for access for disabled people. Elsewhere my Department does not monitor how local authorities make their property accessible to the disabled.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department gives to local planning authorities on making private and public buildings accessible to the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Advice on the scope of planning powers is given in my Department's development control 344
  policy note No. 16, "Access for the disabled". The approved document which accompanies the Building Regulations 1985 gives practical guidance on ways to meet the requirements of part M of the regulations, which requires reasonable provision to be made to enable disabled people to gain access to relevant premises of certain new buildings.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those species of flora and of fauna which are now protected as endangered species under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, formerly the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is contained in schedules 1, 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. A copy of the 1981 Act and subsequent amending orders are available in the Library of the House.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will state the number of public sector housing starts in 1978 and so far in 1990;

  (2) if he will state the number of housing association starts in 1978 and so far in 1990.

  Mr. Key
  The latest estimates for starts by housing associations and local authorities, new towns and Government Departments, for 1980 to August 1990, appear in tables 1 and 2 of the housebuilding press release (No. 548) issued by the Department on 5 October. Corresponding figures for 1978 and 1979 appear in table 6.1 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988: Great Britain". Copies of both are in the Library.

  Algal Blooms
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each British region, all the sites at which evidence of eutrophication or the presence of algal blooms has been discovered this summer by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 October 1990]: I have asked the National Rivers Authority to send the hon. Member a list of the sites in England and Wales where blue-green algae have been identified this year.

  Housing, Congleton
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for rent have been owned by Congleton borough council in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: The numbers of council-owned dwellings reported by Congleton borough council in its annual housing investment programme returns (HIP1) are as follows:

  Stock at 1 April each year

  Number

  1981

  5,887

  1982

  5,653

  1983

  5,457

  345

  Number

  1984

  5,272

  1985

  5,245

  1986

  5,046

  1987

  4,990

  1988

  4,831

  1989

  4,619

  1990

  4,474

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning(a) the average length of time currently taken by a local authority to re-let vacant homes and (b) the average length of time taken by the Congleton borough council to re-let vacant homes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: The 1988 survey, "Empty Local Authority Dwellings in England at 1 October and Re-lets between 1 April and 30 September 1988", showed that—at that time—the overall average re-let period for all authorities was eight weeks. The corresponding figure reported by Congleton borough council was six weeks, including vacant dwellings in modernisation programmes. A copy of the national report is in the Library.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds have been made available by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available to Congleton borough council to assist with the provision of housing for rent.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: The Department makes housing investment programme (HIP) allocations to local authorities each year, which convey borrowing approval (under the new capital finance system, in the form of credit approvals). Thus housing capital expenditure is funded from borrowing, capital receipts and from revenue contributions. The Department does pay a general housing subsidy, but the costs of borrowing are only one element of this.

  Within these totals it is for each local authority to decide how its resources should be spent.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the amount spent in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available by Congleton borough council on the provision of housing; what percentage of total expenditure by the authority is represented by this figure in each of those years; and what is the national average in the latest single year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: Capital expenditure by Congleton borough council on housing and all services (including housing) is as follows:

  £ thousands per cent.

  Housing

  All services

  Housing as a percentage of all services

  1981–82

  1,542

  2,245

  69

  1982–83

  2,256

  3,132

  72

  1983–84

  2,760

  3,378

  82

  1984–85

  2,134

  2,615

  82

  1985–86

  2,067

  2,613

  79

  1986–87

  2,779

  3,342

  83

  1987–88

  2,964

  4,014

  74

  1988–89

  2,942

  3,197

  92

  1989–90

  3,931

  4,703

  84

  346
  Nationally, housing capital expenditure is provisionally estimated to be 53 per cent. of capital expenditure on all local authority services in 1989–90; the equivalent figure for non-metropolitan district councils in England is 68 per cent.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the judgment of 21 October, in the High Court on the granting of planning permission by Ealing borough council in 1987 for a mosque and town houses on the Northolt industrial site, he will bring forward proposals to amend the law relating to the restrictions of planning permission by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: I will consider the implications of this case for the planning system when I have studied the judgment.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers local authorities have to rescind planning permissions granted for the building of religious buildings and town houses on industrial estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: Under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify any permission to develop land granted on a planning application made under part III of the Act, the authority may by order revoke or modify the permission to such extent as it considers expedient.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which company is supplying the main door drive units at RAF Mawgan; and whether extensive prototype tests have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Pursuant to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on 3 July at column 505, subsequent investigation has shown that the units have been assembled from a variety of components from various sources by CIMOLAI, the steelwork sub-contractor, to designs developed from the earlier prototype tests. NEUERO'S involvement was restricted to giving limited advice on request to CIMOLAI.

  Church Grants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on the(a) number of church grants approved to date in 1990–91, (b) their value and (c) the sums remaining to be distributed in the current year;

  (2) what was the total sum available for church grants in 1990–91;

  (3) how many applications he has received for funds under the church grant scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  Responsibility for the allocation of historic building repair grant resources to ecclesiastical
  347
  buildings, and for holding data on the number of applications for such grants are matters for English Heritage. I have asked its chairman, Lord Montagu, to write to the hon. Member.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the leaking of information and photographs from Ford open prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Ford prison is an open establishment which occupies a 114 acre site and has no secure boundary. It may therefore be surveyed from many points within its grounds as well as from neighbouring properties, and despite all reasonable precautions taken by the governor and the police, certain prisoners were clearly photographed recently in this way. Furthermore, as prisoners have unlimited access to the telephone it is not possible to prevent them from communicating information.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any recommendations for improved surveillance by the use of video cameras at Her Majesty's prison Kingston (Portsmouth), have been rejected on the grounds of cost during the past year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Closed circuit TV cameras have recently been installed at the establishment and a bid for an additional camera is currently under consideration.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration is being given to providing at reduced cost television licences for pensioners where they are the sole occupiers residing in all types of housing accommodation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. We have no plans to extend the present concessions.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the Home Office's recent report on the private security industry in the Library.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are considering a range of options for improving the regulation of the private security industry. When consideration of this issue has been completed, we will decide what circulation to give to the working group's report.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a regional breakdown of the increase in(a) violent crimes and (b) all crimes between 1979 and 1989 in percentage terms and also the percentage clear-up rates.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available regional information is published in table 8.1 of "Regional Trends 25", which shows the figures for 1981 and 1988. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans a national campaign to encourage the recruitment of special constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. A national publicity campaign will be launched early in 1991. Its purpose, over three years, is to enhance public awareness of the role and value of the special constabulary and to increase the number of special constables recruited locally.

  Civil Defence Officials
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any officials specialising in civil defence protection will be attending the fifth international conference of nuclear-free zone local authorities, to be held in Glasgow on 8 to 12 November.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that there are no plans for any officials from our emergency planning division to attend.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been convicted of involvement in dog fighting during the last five years; how many of these have been given custodial sentences and of the number convicted how many have been sentenced in respect of repeated offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information collected centrally does not distinguish offences relating to dog fights from other offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  "Holocaust News No. 2"
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to what investigations are being conducted in respect of the publication and distribution of the publication entitled "Holocaust News No. 2".

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that inquiries are in progress.

  Jamie Lloyd Stewart
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the Police Complaints Authority report on the circumstances surrounding the death of Jamie Lloyd Stewart in Holloway police station in July 1989; whether he proposes to take any further action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Police Complaints Authority is independent from both the police and the Government. It is not required to report the outcome of investigations which it supervises to the Home Secretary. However, it is understood that the investigating officer's report on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Stewart's death has been considered by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority. They have concluded that there are no grounds for taking criminal or disciplinary action against any police officers.

  Prisoners (Deaths)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths that have occurred in 1990 of persons detained in prison department establishments, stating in each case the age and sex of the inmate, and cause of death, the inquest verdict, whether the inmate was sentenced or on remand, the establishment where the inmate was detained, and whether the death occurred there or in an outside hospital, and where the

  Deaths of inmates in Her Majesty s Prison Service custody in 1990 (to 24 October 1990)

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status

  Cause of death

  Inquest verdict

  Location at time of death1

  6 January

  Durham

  20

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  6 January

  Bristol

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  10 January

  Lincoln

  46

  M

  R

  Suffocation

  Open

  PH

  14 January

  Winchester

  69

  M

  R

  Angina

  Natural

  PH

  22 January

  Liverpool

  47

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  PH

  25 January

  Manchester

  37

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  10 February

  Reading

  35

  M

  S

  Brain Haemorrhage

  Natural

  OH

  14 February

  Winchester

  19

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  OL

  21 February

  Camp Hill

  24

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  22 February

  Bedford

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  28 February

  Hindley

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OH

  2 March

  Brixton

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  PH

  2 March

  Manchester

  37

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  3 March

  Pentonville

  34

  M

  R

  Asphyxiation

  Misadventure

  5—

  14 March

  Wakefield

  56

  M

  S

  Heart Attack

  Natural

  5—

  16 March

  Durham

  27

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  23 March

  Bristol

  31

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG

  29 March

  Coldingley

  24

  M

  S

  Unknown

  Not yet held

  2—

  3 April

  Swansea

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG(OP)

  7 April

  Dartmoor

  27

  M

  S

  Fire

  Suicide

  OL

  8 April

  Highpoint

  59

  M

  S

  Asphyxia

  Suicide

  OL

  8 April

  Stocken

  35

  M

  S

  Heart Attack

  Not yet held

  5—

  11 April

  Wandsworth

  31

  M

  S

  Undetermined

  Open

  OL

  15 April

  Wakefield

  49

  M

  S

  Heart Failure

  Natural

  5—

  19 April

  Channings Wood

  61

  M

  S

  Carcinomatosis

  Natural

  OH

  23 April

  Wayland

  50

  M

  S

  Heart Failure

  Natural

  5—

  26 April

  Wandsworth

  27

  M

  R

  Meningitis

  Natural

  PH

  9 May

  Wellingborough

  54

  M

  S

  Heart Failure

  Not yet held

  5—

  11 May

  Wakefield

  58

  M

  S

  Carcinoma Bronchus

  Natural

  OH

  18 May

  Exeter

  31

  M

  R

  Coronary Sclerosis

  Natural

  5—

  19 May

  Wormwood Scrubs

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  PH

  19 May

  Ashwell

  61

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Not yet held

  PH

  20 May

  Acklington

  26

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  28 May

  Cardiff

  70

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Not yet held

  OH

  4 June

  Durham

  35

  F

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  20 June

  Liverpool

  54

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Natural

  OH

  22 June

  The Verne

  40

  M

  S

  Heart Attack

  Natural

  5—

  25 June

  Hindley

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  SEG(GOAD)

  25 June

  Hindley

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  SEG(GOAD)

  26 June

  Bedford

  27

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH

  7 July

  Wakefield

  52

  M

  S

  Cerebral oedema

  Open

  OH

  13 July

  Swansea

  15

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OH

  18 July

  Long Lartin

  27

  M

  S

  Stab Wound

  Not yet held

  PH

  20 July

  Wandsworth

  29

  M

  S

  Pneumonia

  Not yet held

  OH

  21 July

  Parkhurst

  55

  M

  S

  Lung cancer

  Natural

  OH

  25 July

  Lewes

  32

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG(OP)

  29 July

  Standford Hill

  25

  M

  S

  Heart Attack

  Not yet held

  5—

  30 July

  Parkhurst

  43

  M

  S

  Drug overdose

  Accidental death

  5—

  1 August

  Parkhurst

  42

  M

  S

  Heart Attack

  Natural

  PH

  5 August

  Winchester

  41

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  12 August

  Wakefield

  31

  M

  S

  Unknown

  Natural

  OH

  12 August

  Leeds

  17

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  15 August

  Bristol

  23

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  SEG(OP)

  1 September

  Wandsworth

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  5 September

  Birmingham

  35

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  7 September

  Brixton

  38

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OH

  14 September

  North Sea Camp

  37

  M

  S

  Heart Attack

  Natural

  3—

  15 September

  Oxford

  23

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  16 September

  Brixton

  39

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  PH

  21 September

  Lewes

  30

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  SEG(OP)

  24 September

  Channings Wood

  50

  M

  S

  Cerebral oedema

  Not yet held

  4—

  28 September

  Liverpool

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  28 September

  Wormwood Scrubs

  36

  M

  S

  Diabetes

  Not yet held

  5—

  350
  death occurred within the prison, if he will specify if the inmate was segregated either in the hospital wing or in the punishment block.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is given in the table. Deaths occurred within the establishment unless otherwise indicated. Information about the location of the inmate at the time of death is not readily available in every case and I shall write to the hon. Member. None of the inmates located in the prison hospital at the time of death was segregated under rule 43 of the prison rules.
  351

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status

  Cause of death

  Inquest verdict

  Location at time of death1

  29 September

  Hull

  20

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  PH

  4 October

  Grendon

  39

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  PH

  12 October

  Brixton

  29

  M

  R

  Cerebral oedema

  Not yet held

  OH

  13 October

  Liverpool

  27

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OH

  13 October

  Wakefield

  36

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL

  19 October

  The Verne

  38

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  SEG

  1 Key to location:

  OL—Ordinary location within the establishment.

  PH—Located in the prison hospital.

  SEG(OP)—Located in the segregation unit for the inmate's own protection (rule 43)

  SEG(GOAD)—Located in the segregation unit for reasons of good order and discipline (rule 43)

  OH—Outside hospital.

  2 Inmate died while on home leave.

  3 Inmate died after absconding.

  4 Inmate died while trying to escape.

  5 Information about location is not available.

  Betting and Gaming
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Lloyds bank report on the future of the Tote; and whether he will publish that report.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the recommendations of the Lloyds bank report on the Tote; and if he will publish the report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report by Lloyds merchant bank will not be published because it was made in confidence and contains commercially and managerially sensitive information. I announced on 3 October that the Government have accepted the case for some restructuring of the Tote Board to include executive members, as recommended by Lloyds merchant bank in its report. This recommendation was independent of the issue of privatisation, on which an announcement of the Government's conclusions will be made in due course.

  Sports Grounds
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the working party set up to revise the guide to safety at sports grounds in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor's final report into the Hillsborough disaster; and when the revised guide will be published.

  Mr. John Patten
  Revision of the guide to safety at sports grounds in order to reflect the relevant recommendations by the Hillsborough inquiry has progressed well. A draft of the guide was sent out for wide consultation last August. The draft has been revised in the light of comments received and has been sent to members of the working group which meets again this week. We hope to publish the revised guide very soon.

  Magistrates
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many magistrates are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  As at 1 January 1990, there were 16,090 men and 12,577 women sitting as lay magistrates in England and Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  International Visits
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list each international visit which she has undertaken since 26 July indicating in each case, the purpose, the matters discussed, and the estimated cost of each visit.

  The Prime Minister
  I have paid official visits to the following countries since 26 July 1990:

  2–7 August—United States of America

  To address the Aspen Institute and for meetings with President Bush;

  28–30 August—Finland

  For bilateral discussions and to attend the European Democratic Union in Helsinki;

  16–18 September—Czechoslovakia

  18–20 September—Hungary

  To support political and economic reform in those countries and for bilateral discussions;

  20–21 September—Switzerland

  For bilateral discussions;

  29 September to 1 October—United States of America

  To attend the World Summit for Children in New York.

  Estimated costs of the visits are not yet available.

  Meetings
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish a list of meetings which she has hosted since 26 July with(a) foreign heads of state, (b) other foreign politicians and (c) heads of international intergovernmental agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 26 July I have had interesting and valuable talks with a number of heads of state, foreign politicians and heads of intergovernmental agencies. Contacts at all levels are maintained on a day-to-day basis.

  Gulf Crisis
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the discussions which she has had with(a) the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and (b) the Secretary General of the Western European Union concerning the deployment of United Kingdom forces in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  I saw Dr. Woerner briefly in Washington on 6 August and was able to tell him at that
  353
  time of our decision to send Royal Navy ships to the Gulf. I have had no subsequent discussion with him, nor any with Dr. van Eekelen concerning the deployment of United Kingdom forces in the Gulf. United Kingdom Ministers and officials of course continue to be in close touch with both NATO and the WEU about a range of matters, including the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what response she made to the United Kingdom National Peace Council and the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Pax Christi following their submission on the Gulf situation, presented on 16 August.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no trace of having received the submission referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Rent Arrears
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of possession orders for rent arrears granted in each English region, for the years(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d)

  The Attorney-General
  The number of possession orders for rent arrears granted in county courts in England for the years 1986 to 1989 are as follows. The number of such orders made in the six circuits within England are also given:

  Possession orders for rent arrears granted in England 1986–1989

  Circuit

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Midland and Oxford

  5,268

  9,549

  13,293

  25,607

  North Eastern

  3,632

  5,364

  8,495

  16,994

  Northern

  3,978

  6,135

  9,080

  12,403

  South Eastern

  15,127

  14,630

  20,881

  34,631

  Wales and Chester

  595

  836

  1,182

  1,836

  Western

  3,250

  4,344

  5,488

  7,289

  England total

  31,850

  40,858

  58,419

  98,760

  The figures for Wales and Chester circuit exclude possession orders for rent arrears granted in Wales. It should be noted that the figures are for possession orders not evictions since not all orders granted are executed.

  Judges
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many High Court judges are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  There are 81 men and two women High Court judges.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many county court judges are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  Of the circuit judges, who sit in both the county court and Crown court, 404 are men, and 18 are women. Of the county court registrars, 211 are men, and eight are women.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many recorders and circuit judges are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:354

  Men

  Women

  Circuit judges

  404

  18

  Recorders

  724

  18

  Assistant recorders

  359

  21

  Anti-Jewish Literature
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list all cases of prosecutions brought by the Crown prosecution service since 1986 of anti-Jewish literature which has previously been brought to his attention by hon. Members or by organisations representing the Jewish community; and what was the outcome of those prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  Fifteen prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred have been brought under section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936, or under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, in 1986 and subsequent years. Of these, 11 prosecutions included allegations that anti-Jewish material had been published or distributed. Two such cases were drawn to my attention by hon. Members but none by organisations representing the Jewish community. Proceedings have been begun, but not concluded, in a further case which was brought to my attention by an hon. Member; this case, too, involves an allegation that anti-Jewish material has been distributed. The details requested of prosecutions that have been concluded are as follows:

  Name of Defendant

  Result

  J. Kinnon (X 2)

  Convicted

  J. Kinnon

  Bound over

  R. Trehane1

  Convicted

  D. Cullingford1

  Convicted

  R. Bearsford-Walker1

  Convicted

  L. Bearsford-Walker1

  Convicted

  K. Rowe1

  Convicted

  S. Knight1

  Convicted

  A. Shotton1

  Acquitted

  A. Waite1

  Acquitted

  D. Owens1

  Convicted

  J. Tyndall1

  Convicted

  J. Morse1

  Convicted

  M. Atkinson

  Convicted

  1 Denotes a prosecution involving an allegation that anti-Jewish material was published or distributed.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiating proceedings in respect of the publication entitled "Jewish Tributes to Our Child Martyrs", distributed by the Gentile Self-Defence League.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions can consider instituting criminal proceedings only once the police have placed before him evidence against an identifiable individual. The Metropolitan police, at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, are conducting inquiries into the publication of this leaflet but to date have been unable to idenify or trace the persons responsible.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what discussions he has had with the Serious Fraud Office regarding the activities of Michael Ashcroft, chairman of ADT Ltd;
  355
  (2) whether permission has been sought by the Serious Fraud Office (a) to interview Michael Ashcroft, chairman of ADT Ltd. in Florida and (b) to seek his return for interview in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the likely completion date of the Serious Fraud Office inquiries into the activities of Michael Ashcroft, chairman of ADT Ltd.

  The Attorney-General
  For practical reasons of policy the Serious Fraud Office neither confirms nor corrects assertions or suggestions that it is conducting inquiries into the affairs of any individual or company. No inference as to the truth or falsity of the hon. Member's suggestion arises from adherence to that policy in this instance.

  I have frequent discussions with the director of the SFO but for practical reasons of policy their contents are not divulged.

WALES

  Roads
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total funding by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been built since that year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1979 total net spending by central Government on motorway and trunk roads in Wales has exceeded £1·2 billion. In addition over £260 million transport grant has been provided to Welsh local authorities for improvement of their roads.

  Twenty-two miles of motorway and 134 miles of trunk road have been completed. Seven schemes totalling 16 miles are currently under construction.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales to discuss the problems facing many sheep farmers in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales on 22 October to discuss the state of the industry as part of the autumn review of HLCA rates.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Commission of the European Community on behalf of Welsh sheep farmers; and whether he has any plans to have direct talks with the Agriculture Commissioner on this subject in the near future.

  Mr. David Hunt: I have no immediate plans to meet Mr. MacSharry. In line with long-established practice, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes the lead in European Community discussions and negotiations. I know that my right hon. Friend has the interests of Welsh sheep producers clearly in mind in that context, and I am myself in regular contact with him.

  Towyn Sea Wall
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has yet received a copy of the Watson Hawksley report on the effectiveness of the repairs to the Towyn sea wall; and if he will make a statement.
  356
  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a copy of extracts from the report which include conclusions and recommendations for the reconstruction of the sea defences at Towyn.

  North Wales Economy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives, since 1980, his Department has taken to develop fully the potential of the north Wales economy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Our Department has carried out a very wide range of activities to develop the potential of the north Wales economy. Details of the current initiatives and policies were set out fully in the document. "A55—The Road of Opportunity", in December 1989. The potential for developing the north Wales economy has been greatly increased by the huge improvements to road links in north Wales over the last 10 years, especially the £620 million investment in dualling the A55.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men were in employment, and how many women were in full-time employment in June 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available in(a) Wales and (b) Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In June 1979 there were 618,000 male and 250,000 female employees in full-time employment in Wales. By June 1990, the latest date available, these figures were 527,000 and 273,000 respectively. County data are not available for the period requested but in June 1991) in Wales the civilian work force in employment stood at a record 1,236,000.

  Housing
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met district council leaders in Wales to discuss housing matters, especially new house building.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Council of Welsh Districts in September, where a range of issues were discussed including housing. The previous month I met representatives of districts at the Welsh Housing Consultative Committee where matters under discussion included housebuilding.

  School Buildings
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if schools in Wales which elect to opt out and assume grant-maintained status will receive extra funding provision to cover the costs of repairing dilapidated buildings.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Schools in Wales which are approved for grant-maintained status will qualify for the full range of grants available under the Grant Maintained Schools (Finance) Regulations 1990. These include capital grants which can be used for the repair of premises.

  Railway Halts, Gwent
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with British Rail concerning proposed new railway halts in Gwent.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. This is a matter for British Rail and Gwent county council.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on inward investment in Wales during the last three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the three years to 31 March 1990, Wales secured a total of 319 inward investment projects—a rate of about two a week. The companies involved estimated the capital investment at some £2 billion. Since March a further 61 projects have been secured with an estimated capital investment of £306 million.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current state of Welsh agriculture.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have, over recent months, discussed the current state of the agriculture industry in Wales with the farming unions and other interested bodies and individuals and I am fully seized of the current problems, particularly in the livestock sector. The Government have taken a number of positive steps to help meet present concerns. Intervention support for beef is currently costing over £6 million per week in the United Kingdom. The rate of suckler cow premium has been raised in the LFA to the maximum level permitted under EC rules and the two advance payments of sheep annual premium recently announced will bring an estimated cash flow benefit of £25 million to producers in Wales.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of the agriculture industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am well aware of the problems currently being experienced by the agriculture industry in Wales, particularly in the livestock sector. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have, in recent months, had discussions with the farming unions and other interested bodies and individuals.

  The Government have taken a number of positive steps to help. Intervention support for beef is currently costing over £6 million per week in the United Kingdom. The rate of suckler cow premium has been raised in the LFA to the maximum level permitted under EC rules and the two advance payments of sheep annual premium recently announced will bring an estimated cash flow benefit of £25 million to producers in Wales.

  Community Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the programme he intends to follow in providing additional finances to local authorities in Wales(a) in the present financial year, (b) in the 1991–92 financial year and (c) in subsequent financial years in order to ensure adequate availability of appropriate housing to match the requirements of his programme for the implementation of care in the community.

  Mr. Grist
  Allocations and guidance for the current year have already been made available. Decisions on 358
  expenditure priorities for 1991–92 and subsequent years will be finalised during the next few weeks and will be announced as soon as possible.

  Roads, North Wales
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a report on progress on modernising the road network in north Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Excellent progress has been made to date on upgrading the A55 between Chester and Bangor to dual carriageway standard; 51 miles are complete, 7·6 miles are under construction, and only one scheme, the Aber improvement, remains in the forward programme. With the completion of the Chirk bypass early next year, the upgrading of the 16 miles of the A483 in Clwyd will be completed.

  Health Service Property Maintenance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date the current maintenance backlog on national health service properties will be cleared on current and planned capital spending for the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 31 October 1989 at columns 108–9.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of backlog maintenance for national health service properties in Wales, and by health authority, for the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  District health authorities in Wales are required to review the cost of backlog maintenance annually and for 1989–90, they estimated that it would cost £163·4 million to bring the whole of the NHS estate in Wales to a standard where it is exhibiting only minor deterioration. This sum may be broken down by district health authority as follows:

  DHA

  £ Million

  Clwyd

  21·5

  East Dyfed

  15·0

  Gwent

  14·1

  Gwynedd

  10·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  36·9

  Pembrokeshire

  0·6

  Powys

  3·3

  South Glamorgan

  51·0

  West Glamorgan

  10·8

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Least-developed Countries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution was made by Her Majesty's Government to the second United Nations conference on the least-developed countries held in Paris on 3 to 14 September; what communications were developed with non-governmental organisations in attendance; whether a copy of the booklet, "The LDCs in the 1990s: Development or Oblivion", on the nongovernmental organisations' views on the new programme
  359
  of action was provided to the United Kingdom delegation; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the least-developed countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government welcome the outcome of the second United Nations conference on the least developed held in Paris from 3·14 September and will support those least-developed countries which implement the policies outlined in the programme of action.

  The British delegation to the conference was led by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The delegation played an active and positive role in the negotiations for the programme of action for the 1990s adopted by the conference. Two new British initiatives relating to aid tying and local costs rules, which will be of direct benefit to the least-developed countries, were announced at the conference. The delegation kept in close contact with British nongovernmental organisations, both before and during the conference. The booklet "The LDCs in the 1990s: Development or Oblivion" was also taken into account in formulating the United Kingdom position on the various issues.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indication he has received from the European Commission as to the county chosen as the site for the European bank for reconstruction and development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Prospective member countries of the European bank for reconstruction and development decided last May that London should be the site of the bank's headquarters.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in choosing a potential site for the European bank for reconstruction and development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The bank has temporary headquarters in the City of London. Negotiations on a permanent location in London are in progress.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many jobs he forecasts will be attached to the new European bank for reconstruction and development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The president-designate of the bank, M. Jacques Attali, has stated that by the end of its first year of operations the bank expects to employ roughly 200 to 250 people.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss sites for the European bank for reconstruction and development with the Kirklees metropolitan borough council.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None—the bank's headquarters will be in London.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review recruitment, training and promotion procedures within the civil service in Wales to ensure that all those wishing to pursue a career within the civil service can do so within Wales, without prejudicing their career prospects.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend keeps all aspects of the staffing of the civil service under review.

  Historic Houses
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many maintenance funds there are for historic properties; and how many of these are for £100,000 or less.

  Mr. Maude
  A total number of 70 heritage maintenance funds have been established. It is not possible to provide a figure for the value of property held by heritage maintenance funds.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of value added tax received from listed building repairs each year over the last five years.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is not available.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of adjusting the maximum ceiling for mortgage interest tax relief to(a) £35,000, (b) £40,000, (c) £45,000 and (d) £50,000 on the assumption that (i) relief continues to be available at the higher marginal tax rate where applicable and (ii) that relief is restricted to the standard 25 per cent. rate of income tax.

  Mr. Maude
  Provisional estimates of the costs of increasing the ceiling are given in the table. The estimates exclude behavioural effects which would be substantial for the higher ceilings.

  Direct revenue costs at 1990–91 income levels of raising the ceiling for mortgage interest relief

  Ceiling

  Relief at marginal tax rate

  Relief at basic rate of 25 per cent.

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  35,000

  440

  -90

  40,000

  790

  230

  45,000

  1,050

  470

  50,000

  1,250

  650

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing investment made in each year since 1979 by(a) foreign direct investors and (b) indigenous manufacturers in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales; and what percentage annual changes these figures represent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The following table provides the available information. Current price figures have been
  361
  supplied because there are no regional price deflators. Data for 1980 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Net capital expenditure in manufacturing industry1 at current prices

  Year

  £ million

  1979

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  (a) Foreign-owned enterprises2

  United Kingdom

  1,490·5

  1,402·3

  1,363·4

  1,397·4

  1,547·6

  1,844·0

  1,714·6

  1,989·1

  2,528·4

  (1—)

  (-3)

  (2)

  (11)

  (19)

  (-7)

  (16)

  (27)

  Scotland

  112·6

  231·4

  213·6

  143·3

  161·5

  272·1

  226·1

  183·9

  342·4

  (1—)

  (-8)

  (-33)

  (13)

  (68)

  (-17)

  (-19)

  (86)

  Wales

  186·1

  120·9

  126·6

  97·6

  139·4

  192·2

  139·2

  213·5

  286·8

  (1—)

  (5)

  (-23)

  (43)

  (38)

  (-38)

  (53)

  (34)

  (b) United Kingdom-owned enterprises

  United Kingdom

  5,455·9

  4,090·8

  4,150·2

  4,663·5

  6,041·7

  6,898·2

  6,990·6

  7,764·9

  9,641

  (1—)

  (1)

  (12)

  (30)

  (14)

  (1)

  (11)

  (24)

  Scotland

  484·0

  385·9

  328·4

  347·3

  461·4

  594·2

  551·2

  551·6

  683·6

  (1—)

  (-15)

  (6)

  (33)

  (29)

  (-7)

  (0)

  (24)

  Wales

  309·0

  250·0

  211·3

  255·6

  331·6

  370·8

  384·4

  419·4

  560·8

  (1—)

  (-15)

  (21)

  (30)

  (12)

  (4)

  (9)

  (34)

  Notes:

  1. Orders III-XIX of SIC(68) for 1979, divisions 2–4 of SIC(80) for later years.

  2. Foreign-owned enterprises are defined as those controlled or owned by companies incorporated overseas.

  3. From 1988, in line with accounting practice, assets leased on a finance leasing basis are included as assets by the lessee rather than by the lessor. This is estimated to have increased total United Kingdom net capital expenditure in 1988 by up to 8 per cent.

  1 not available

  The figures in brackets in the above table represent percentage changes from the previous year.

  Source: Annual Census of Production

  Incomes
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average wage gap in male average weekly earnings between Scotland and the south-east in(a) 1979 and (b) 1989 in current prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Data by region for average gross weekly pay in April of each year for adult males in full-time employment are available in table 12 part A of the annual new earnings survey reports. Information on the RPI to convert the figures to 1990 prices is published in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends.

  Manufacturing Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish indices for(a) industrial production and (b) manufacturing output for (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) the United Kingdom and (iv) the south-east from 1979 to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  (i) For Scotland, annual indices for industrial production and for manufacturing output from 1979 to 1989 were last published in the "Scottish Economic Bulletin" No. 41, June 1990. More recent quarterly figures are published in the Scottish index of production and construction quarterly press notice.

  (ii) For Wales, annual indices for industrial production and for manufacturing output from 1979 to 1987 are given in the table. More recent annual and quarterly figures are published in the Welsh index of production and construction quarterly press notice.

  1985 = 100

  Industrial production

  Manufacturing output

  1979

  112·1

  104·7

  1980

  99·5

  92·2

  1981

  97·7

  93·7

  362

  Industrial production

  Manufacturing output

  1982

  98·4

  92·6

  1983

  99·6

  95·8

  1984

  94·4

  100·4

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  102·3

  104·4

  1987

  111·0

  115·7

  (iii) For the United Kingdom, indices can be found on the CSO database, which is accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  (iv) Regional indices of production for England are not compiled.

  Benefit in Kind
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to increase the threshold for benefit in kind above the current limit of £8,500 a year; how this limit has changed in real value over the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 25 October 1990]: There are no plans to increase the threshold at which special rules apply to the taxation of benefits in kind. In principle all employees should pay income tax on the whole of their earnings whether received in cash or in kind. If this threshold had been indexed over the last 10 years in line with inflation according to the statutory formula for increasing personal allowances and thresholds, the threshold in 1990–91 would be £16,636.

  Petroleum Products
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value added tax paid on petroleum products, monthly, from August 1989 to September 1990.
  363
  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: Monthly estimates of value added tax paid on petroleum products are not available. However, estimates of value added tax on these products accruing on private consumption can be calculated quarterly and are:

  £ million

  1989

  Quarter 3

  300

  Quarter 4

  290

  1990

  Quarter 1

  290

  Quarter 2

  310

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 October 1990]: As the information requested is lengthy, I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

ENERGY

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last released financial aid for research into cleaner coal-fired power stations; and when he will be releasing further aid for research into this subject.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 16 July my Department announced details of a £2·5 million research package for the development of clean coal technologies. The package covered three projects—the design of high temperature high pressure filters for advanced clean coal technologies (for example, pressurised fluidised bed combustion combined cycle and integrated gasification combined cycle systems); research into reducing nitrogen oxide emissions; and modifying combustion processes to reduce harmful emissions contributing to acid rain. My Department's contribution to these projects will be £1·2 million. A copy of the press notice for this announcement is in the Libraries of the House.

  A number of further possible clean coal technology projects are being worked up in collaboration with United Kingdom industry, the European Commission and the International Energy Agency.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the total cost of electricity privatisation and the cost of all promotional and of all advisory activity concerned with this privatisation(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is too early to make any meaningful estimate of the likely gross costs of privatising the electricity supply industry but the costs will be small in comparison to the proceeds.
  364
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps have been taken to assess how ex gratia payments in settlement of breach of copyright claims may be avoided in future, in the light of the payment made to Universal Studios relating to the electricity privatisation advertising campaign.

  Mr. Baldry
  The responsibility for copyright issues lies with the advertising agency. Her Majesty's Government agreed to pay £6,000 as a licence fee in respect of the use of the characters in the flotation advertising campaign, as is normal in such circumstances.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what advice he obtained from copyright lawyers concerning the payment to Universal Studios for unauthorised use of the copyright design of Herman Munster in the electricity privatisation commercials;

  (2) how many outside bodies or companies he consulted before the decision was made to settle out of court the breach of copyright claim by Universal Studios regarding Frank N. Stein and Herman Munster.

  Mr. Baldry
  Any responsibility for this matter lay with the advertising agency. Her Majesty's Government consulted with their advisers to clarify their position on this matter.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the first approach was made by Universal Studios regarding the alleged breach of contract arising from the similarity between the character Frank N. Stein in the electricity privatisation advertising campaign and the character Herman Munster of "The Munsters"; and on what date he made his decision to settle the claim out of court.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter between the advertising agency WCRS, and MCA Merchandising Corporation of America, acting on behalf of Universal City Studios Inc.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost of(a) the settlement of the alleged breach of copyright claim by Universal Studios over the Frank N. Stein figure used in the electricity privatisation commercials and (b) the legal and other advice used in responding to Universal Studios' claim.

  Mr. Baldry
  (a) is a matter between the advertising agency and MCA Merchandising Corporation of America, on behalf of Universal City Studios Inc. With regard to (b), responsibility on this matter lies with the advertising agency. Her Majesty's Government consulted with their marketing and legal advisers to clarify their position on this matter. The cost of this advice is commercially confidential, but was a minimal amount.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a deduction from the fees agreed to be paid to the WCRS advertising agency equivalent to the cost of the out-of-court settlement with Universal Studios for alleged breach of copyright.

  Mr. Baldry
  Her Majesty's Government have made no payment in respect of any alleged breach of copyright by WCRS.

  National Power (Coal Supplies)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what advice he has received from the European Commission regarding the claim by the Small Mines
  365
  Association of south Wales relating to the differential in prices paid by National Power for coal supplies to Aberthaw and Uskmouth power stations;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the claim by the Small Mines Association of south Wales for redress over discriminatory pricing for coal deliveries to National Power stations; what action he now proposes; and at what estimated cost;

  (3) when he expects to complete his discussions with the South Wales Small Mines Association and National Power regarding the dispute over discriminatory pricing in coal deliveries to Uskmouth and Aberthaw power stations;

  (4) what actions he proposes to take in response to the claim for redress for discriminatory coal pricing made by the South Wales Small Mines Association;

  (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from John Temple Laing of the European Commission to the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Communities dated 28 August, responding to the claim for redress for unfair coal pricing submitted by the South Wales Small Mines Association.

  Mr. Baldry
  The South Wales Small Mines Association has made a complaint to the European Commission about the terms on which its members have been able to sell their output. My Department has been actively encouraging the parties to the dispute to achieve a negotiated settlement. The association is currently considering the proposals most recently offered. The European Commission has supported our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. It has been the policy of successive Governments to treat correspondence with the Commission as confidential.

  Reprocessing Plant, Sellafield
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Baldry
  I receive correspondence covering a wide range of energy topics including matters relating to British Nuclear Fuels' operations at Sellafield.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Leicester Offices (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the cost of the refurbishments at his Department's offices in Leicester and the way the expenditure is to be incurred.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The only major refurbishment in Leicester is planned at Yeoman street office. We have a general programme for refurbishing offices over a period of years, which has now been implemented in many local offices and which has substantially improved the facilities and service for the public and enhanced the working areas for staff. The Yeoman street office was due for improvements under this programme and the opportunity is being taken to pilot there a new corporate image for our offices. Work is due to start in November, at an estimated cost of £625,000 in total.

  Incomes
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown by standard United Kingdom region of the percentage of households in each of the following weekly income groups:(a) under £60, (b) under £80 and (c) under £100 on the most recently available figures.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to table 27 on page 76 of the family expenditure survey 1987–88, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Benefit Payments, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables, using the assumptions in his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), on 22 June 1988,Official Report, columns 571–76, but using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in Leeds, together with a column showing the extent of the differences resulting from the April 1988 social security changes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  These tables are no longer published, for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 23 February at columns 937–38.

  Residential Care
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes to make in the regulations governing entitlement to housing benefit for people in residential care and nursing homes.

  Mr. Scott
  The income support scheme contains special provisions related to the fees and other expenses paid by people in residential care and nursing homes. The income support limits established under these provisions, unlike other income support rates, take account of accommodation costs as well as other day-to-day living expenses. They are also set to take account of care costs. These arrangements will continue until the introduction of a new framework for funding community care, now planned for 1993.

  Current regulations nevertheless also allow access to housing benefit in such cases. This was intended to assist those in residential care and nursing homes who are unable to claim the special rates of income support—principally disabled people who are in full-time work, or people living in a home run by a close relative. In recent months, however, a number of claims have come forward which go well beyond this limited purpose, and effectively establish housing benefit as an alternative to income support.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his uprating statement on 24 October at columns 348–66, this is neither sensible nor appropriate, and in the light of the substantial increases in the income support limits which we then announced, we therefore proposed to consult on amendments to re-establish the policy intention more clearly.

  We will shortly be sending to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations, and I am today placing in the Library, draft regulations to this end. They provide that those living in registered residential care and nursing homes should not generally have access to housing benefit, while preserving that

  367
  access for those who are excluded from the special rates of income support because they are in full-time work or living in a home run by a close relative. Underlying entitlement to housing benefit will, however, be preserved for all those at present living in a registered residential care or nursing home who have successfully claimed housing benefit, and for those who have, on or before today, submitted a claim which is subsequently determined in their favour. In these cases, housing benefit will continue in payment and will be increased as and when appropriate under the current rules, thus fully protecting their position.

  Subject to the consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations, we intend to bring forward regulations later this year to give effect to these changes from January 1991.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Edward Nutall, reference M2/912642, applied for a war pension; and what are the reasons for the delay in dealing with his claim.

  Proportion of 17 and 18-year-olds in education training1 19862

  Percentage of age group

  17

  18

  FT

  PT

  All

  FT

  PT

  All3

  United Kingdom4

  (1986)

  34

  27

  61

  19

  24

  42

  (1988)

  35

  40

  75

  20

  22

  42

  England4

  (1988)

  36

  40

  76

  37

  38

  76

  Australia

  50

  17

  67

  25

  23

  47

  Belgium

  77

  5

  82

  64

  5

  69

  Canada5

  77

  —

  77

  53

  —

  53

  Denmark

  68

  6

  75

  57

  10

  67

  France

  68

  10

  78

  52

  4

  56

  Germany, West2 6

  43

  49

  92

  33

  47

  80

  Italy2

  47

  23

  70

  41

  15

  56

  Japan7 8

  89

  3

  91

  50

  2

  51

  Netherlands6

  77

  10

  88

  61

  11

  72

  Spain9

  52

  —

  52

  44

  —

  44

  Sweden10

  85

  1

  86

  52

  4

  55

  United States of America7

  87

  1

  88

  55

  3

  59

  Notes:

  1 Includes apprenticeships, YTS and similar schemes.

  2 1987 for Germany; 1982 for Italy.

  3 Includes higher education for some 18-year-olds.

  4 Includes estimates for public sector evening study and for private sector further and higher education, including training courses with employers.

  5 Excludes certain part-time students, 10 per cent. at 16–18.

  66 Includes compulsory part-time education for 16 and 17-year-olds in Germany and Netherlands.

  7 Includes private sector higher education.

  8 1988. Estimated for special training and miscellaneous schools, providing vocational training.

  9 Includes estimates for 18-year-olds in universities.

  10 1985. Includes estimates for part-time.

  Sources: DES Statistical Bulletins.

  1/90 International Statistical Comparisons of the Education and Training of 16 to 18 Year Olds.

  9/90 Education and Economic Activity of Young People Aged 16 to 18 Years in England from 1975 to 1989.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make it his policy to give every teacher and head teacher with at least 25 years' direct experience the opportunity of a short period teaching student teachers in establishments of teacher training; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to consider the introduction of an automatic period teaching student teachers in an establishment of teacher training, for every teacher having completed at least five years' full-time classroom experience; and if he will make a statement.
  368
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Mr. Nutall applied for a war pension on 11 August 1989. A consultant's report is required before a decision can be made and everything possible is being done to secure an early appointment. If a war pension is awarded it will, of course, commence from the date of claim.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Higher Education
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many persons aged 17 and 19 years, respectively, per thousand are in full-time education in England, Scotland and Britain's major economic competitors.

  Mr. Eggar
  The readily available information is shown in the table. Data are unavailable for 19-year-olds on this basis. The figures for Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses already require institutions to ensure that experienced serving teachers are involved in the planning and evaluation of courses, the selection of students, supervision and assessment of students' practical work and contributions as appropriate to lectures, seminars and other course activities.

  It is the responsibility of schools, local authorities, and teacher training institutions to negotiate arrangements which will be of maximum benefit both to students and serving teachers.
  369
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the uptake of vacancies of teacher training establishments for the current term; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Fallon
  The total annual intake to initial teacher training in England and Wales since 1983 is as follows:

  Intake

  1983

  16,218

  1984

  16,707

  1985

  16,725

  1986

  16,889

  1987

  19,180

  1988

  20,183

  1989

  21,757

  Comparable data for the years before 1983 are not available.

  Data on recruitment to teacher training institutions in the current academic year are in the process of being collected and will be available later on in the term.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to allow all schools' boards of governors to negotiate individual salaries with individual teachers up to a maximum of 50 per cent. above the present rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The governors of schools with delegated budgets already exercise control over the award of incentive allowances, and other pay discretions. The interim advisory committee's recommendations for 1990–91, which are being implemented in full by January 1991, will mean greater flexibility to target resources, tackle local recruitment and retention problems, improve career prospects and reward responsibility and good performance. The remit which my right hon. Friend gave to the committee on 14 September asks the committee to consider what further modifications should be made to the system of selective payments in 1991–92.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost to the Exchequer of increasing teachers' salaries by 50 per cent. over the next two years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of such an increase would depend on several factors, including the number of teachers employed and the proportion on each point of the pay scale. But estimated spending by LEAs in England on teachers in 1990–91 is some £8 billion. So as a broad order of magnitude, a 50 per cent. increase might cost some £4 billion. The Exchequer contribution to this through revenue support grant cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evaluation his Department has made of the proposals made by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers for a pay review body for teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  NASUWT's proposals for a pay review body for teachers were not widely supported during my 370
  right hon. Friend's consultations earlier this year on new pay machinery for teachers. Most of those consulted favoured the restoration of negotiating rights for teachers. That is what we have now proposed.

  Education Spending
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing spending on primary and secondary education in total and per child in 1980–81 and in the last year for which figures are available, inflation adjusted.

  Mr. Fallon
  The available data are as follows:

  1980–81

  1988–89

  £

  £

  Nursery and primary

  Total school-based spending:

  cash terms:

  2,300 million

  4,200 million

  1988–89 prices:

  3,650 million

  4,200 million

  School-based spending per pupil:

  cash terms:

  545

  1,100

  1988–89 prices:

  870

  1,100

  Secondary

  Total school-based spending:

  cash terms:

  2,950 million

  5,050 million

  1988–89 prices:

  4,700 million

  5,050 million

  School-based spending per pupil:

  cash terms:

  765

  1,690

  1988–89 prices:

  1,215

  1,690

  Total

  Total school-based spending:

  cash terms:

  5,250 million

  9,250 million

  1988–89 prices:

  8,300 million

  9,250 million

  School-based spending per pupil:

  cash terms:

  650

  1,360

  1988–89 prices:

  1,035

  1,360

  Notes to table:

  1. The figures relate to net recurrent spending in nursery, primary and secondary schools. They do not include central services provided by local education authorities such as administration, inspection and transport, or capital spending. Nor do they cover special schools.

  2. The figures are drawn from LEA returns of expenditure to the Department of the Environment and returns of pupil numbers to the Department of Education and Science.

  3. The 1980–81 cash figures are converted to 1988–89 prices using current gross domestic product (market prices) deflators.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the percentages of gross domestic product spent on primary and secondary education in each European Community member state in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The data are available for public expenditure only and are shown in the table.

  Public expenditure on education

  Country

  Year of data1

  Current expenditure

  As a percentage of GNP

  Proportion of which is expenditure 2 on

  1st level3 percentage

  2nd level3 percentage

  Belgium4

  1987

  5·1

  52·50

  46·3

  Denmark

  1987

  7·6

  5643·8

  619·2

  France7

  1986

  5·3

  19·2

  40·8

  Germany, West

  1986

  4·0

  13·8

  49·0

  Greece

  1985

  2·8

  31·6

  41·3

  Ireland

  1986

  6·5

  28·6

  39·1

  371

  Country

  Year of data1

  Current expenditure

  As a percentage of GNP

  Proportion of which is expenditure 2 on

  1st level3 percentage

  2nd level3 percentage

  Italy4

  1983

  4·5

  21·3

  37·3

  Luxembourg4

  1987

  2·6

  38·9

  44·3

  Netherlands

  1985

  5·9

  522·6

  35·9

  Portugal4

  1987

  4·0

  48·5

  28·3

  Spain

  1986

  2·9

  658·9

  619·3

  United Kingdom

  1987

  4·6

  24·9

  45·1

  1 Financial year of country commencing in year shown.

  2 Some expenditure is unallocated by level. This varies from country to country.

  3 1st level broadly equates with primary schools: 2nd level includes secondary schools and further education. However, the age ranges of primary and secondary education vary between countries due to differing educational structures.

  4 Expenditure of Ministry of Education only.

  5 Includes pre-primary expenditure.

  6 Estimated.

  7 France metropolitan

  Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook, 1989.

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to respond to the Select Committee on Education Science, and Arts, report on the supply of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend published on 17 July the Government's response (Cm. 1148) to the Select Committee's report. A copy is in the Library.

  Iraq (Academic Assistance)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has in regard to United Kingdom university and academic assistance afforded to the Iraq Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialisation since 1979.

  Members

  Date of original appointment

  Dale term of office ends

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Mr. A. Grant (Chairman)

  September 1990

  August 1995

  Dr. B. G. Jamieson

  October 1990

  (Acting Secretary until 31 December 1990)

  Dr. P. J. Bunyan

  January 1990

  1—

  Professor E. C. D. Cocking FRS

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor J. M. M. Cunningham

  June 1987

  May 1993

  Sir Sam Edwards FRS

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Dr. D. A. Evans

  October 1989

  July 1992

  Mr. D. F. R. George

  October 1989

  July 1992

  Mr. D. F. Goodwin MBE

  November 1988

  July 1991

  Mr. L. P. Hamilton CB

  May 1984

  1—

  Mr. B. J. G. Hilton

  June 1989

  1—

  Professor W. D. H. Jarret FRS

  November 1988

  July 1991

  Dr. M. E. Knowles

  August 1989

  1—

  Professor J. R. Krebs FRS

  November 1988

  July 1991

  Professor C. J. Leaver FRS

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor T. A. Mansfield FRS

  October 1989

  July 1992

  Professor J. R. Norris

  November 1988

  July 1991

  Mr J. L. C. Provan

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Mr. G. T. Pryce

  June 1986

  July 1994

  Professor W. V. Shaw

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Dr. D. W. F. Shannon

  September 1986

  1—

  Professor R. Whittenbury

  June 1984

  July 1991

  372
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information is not collected centrally, about university and other links within the United Kingdom and internationally. This is a matter for each institution within its own academic policy.

  Glynn Research Institute
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet Dr. Peter Mitchell of the Glynn Research Institute in Cornwall to discuss the funding of new scientific projects at the institute.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the members of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the date of their original appointment and the date on which their current term of office will end;

  (2) if he will list the members of the Medical Research Council, the date of their original appointment and the date on which their current term of office will end;

  (3) if he will list the members of the Science and Engineering Research Council, the date of their original appointment and the date on which their current term of office will end;

  (4) if he will list the members of the Economic and Social Research Council, the date of their original appointment and the date on which their current term of office will end;

  (5) if he will list the members of the Natural Environment Research Council, the date of their original appointment and the date on which their current term of office will end.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information for each council is as follows:
  373

  Members

  Date of original appointment

  Date term of office ends

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Professor H. Newby (Chairman)

  October 1988

  September 1992

  Dr. D. Anderson

  September 1989

  July 1993

  Professor M. Anderson

  August 1990

  July 1993

  Professor J. M. Ashworth

  September 1989

  July 1993

  Professor G. S. Bain

  October 1986

  July 1991

  Professor J. Beaumont

  September 1989

  July 1993

  Mr. M. Bichard

  September 1989

  July 1992

  Mrs. E. J. Filkin

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Mrs. J. Firth

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Mr. J. Fox

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor A. Hay

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor L. C. Hunter CBE

  September 1989

  July 1992

  Mr. H. Liesner

  December 1989

  July 1992

  Mr. J. Monks

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Professor S. J. Nickell

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Mr. G. T. Pepper

  December 1989

  July 1993

  Mrs. P. Perry

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Professor D. K. Stout

  March 1989

  July 1992

  Mrs. M. Tuck

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor P. Warr

  September 1989

  July 1992

  Medical Research Council

  Sir David Plastow (Chairman)

  October 1990

  September 1994

  Dr. D. A. Rees FRS

  October 1987

  July 1991

  Sir Donald Acheson

  October 1983

  1—

  Professor F. W. O'Grady CBE

  September 1986

  1—

  Dr. K. C. Calman

  January 1989

  1—

  Dr. J. T. Carter

  July 1983

  July 1991

  Professor I. V. Allen

  August 1989

  July 1991

  Professor D. T. Baird

  August 1989

  July 1993

  Professor C. L. Berry

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor M. Bobrow

  November 1988

  July 1992

  Dr. P. Doyle

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Sir Aaron Klug FRS

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor C. D. Marsden

  February 1988

  July 1991

  Professor T. J. McElwain

  August 1990

  July 1994

  Professor G. K. Radda FRS

  November 1988

  July 1992

  Professor Sir Robert Shields

  August 1987

  July 1992

  Dr. J. W. G. Smith

  November 1988

  July 1992

  Mrs. R. Short

  December 1987

  July 1991

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Professor J. L. Knill (Chairman)

  October 1988

  September 1993

  Professor R. M. Anderson FRS

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Lord Chorley

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Dr. R. F. Coleman

  June 1987

  1—

  Professor C. D. Curtis

  August 1990

  July 1993

  Dr. W. D. Evans

  December 1989

  1—

  Dr. D. Fisk

  September 1987

  1—

  Dr. I. D. Graham-Bryce

  August 1989

  July 1992

  Professor J. S. Gray

  August 1986

  July 1992

  Professor B. J. Hoskins FRS

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Dr. M. E. Knowles

  August 1989

  1—

  Mr. D. E. Lennard

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Professor P. S. Liss

  August 1990

  July 1993

  Professor A. R. MacLeary

  August 1988

  July 1991

  Professor J. Ramsay FRS

  August 1989

  July 1992

  Professor D. A. Ritchie

  August 1990

  July 1993

  Mr. D. G. M. Roberts CBE

  August 1987

  July 1993

  Dr. O. Rogne

  August 1990

  July 1993

  Professor A. Warner FRS

  September 1987

  July 1992

  Professor D. Wood

  August 1987

  July 1993

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Sir Mark Richmond FRS (Chairman)

  October 1990

  September 1995

  Professor T. L. Blundell FRS

  August 1989

  July 1993

  Professor P. Burke FRS

  August 1988

  July 1992

  Dr. R. F. Coleman

  June 1987

  July 1994

  Dr. D. A. Davis

  August 1989

  July 1993

  Professor A. Donnachie

  August 1989

  July 1993

  Dr. G. H. Fairtlough

  August 1989

  July 1994

  Professor R. E. Hester

  July 1990

  July 1994

  Dr. G. R. Higginson

  August 1989

  July 1993

  Dr. N. W. Horne

  July 1990

  July 1994

  Professor C. J. Humphreys

  August 1989

  July 1992

  Dr. A. Ledwith

  February 1990

  July 1993

  Mr. D. P. Nash

  August 1988

  July 1992

  374 375

  Members

  Date of original appointment

  Date term of office ends

  Dr. J. S. Mason

  July 1990

  July 1994

  Professor E. R. Oxburgh

  September 1988

  August 1992

  Professor J. T. Stuart FRS

  August 1989

  July 1993

  Dr. J. O. Thomas

  July 1990

  July 1994

  Professor D. J. Wallace FRS

  July 1990

  July 1994

  Professor A. W. Wolfendale FRS

  August 1988

  July 1992

  1 Not more than four members of MRC, NERC and SERC are appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the nomination of such Ministers of the Government as the Secretary of State shall determine. Up to four members of the AFRC are appointed by the Minsiter of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and up to two members by the Secretary of State for Scotland. With the exception of SERC, their length of office is not specified.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the members of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, the date of their original appointment and the date on which their current term of office will end.

  Members

  Date of appointment

  Date term of office ends

  Professor Sir David Phillips (Chairman)

  January 19831

  March 1993

  Professor Sir Eric Ash

  January 19891

  March 1992

  Mr. J. S. Flemming

  March 19861

  March 1991

  Professor R. L. Gardner

  April 1990

  March 1992

  Professor M. Hart

  April 1990

  March 1993

  Sir Charles Reece

  January 19891

  March 1991

  Professor I. A. Shanks

  April 1990

  March 1993

  1 Date of appointment to the "old" ABRC prior to reconstitution.

  The following are ex-officio members:

  Heads of Research Councils

  Professor J. L. Knill Chairman, Natural Environment Research Council

  Sir Mark Richmond Chairman, Science and Engineering Research Council (from October 1990)

  Professor H. J. Newby Chairman, Economic and Social Research Council

  Dr. D. A. Rees Secretary, Medical Research Council

  Dr. B. Jamieson Acting Secretary, Agricultural and Food Research Council (from October 1990)

  Assessors

  Professor W. D. P. Stewart Chief Scientific Adviser, Cabinet Office (from October 1990)

  Mr. J. M. M. Vereker Deputy Secretary, Department of Education and Science

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the prescribed minimum and maximum number of members of (i) the Medical Research Council, (ii) the Science and Engineering Research Council, (iii) the Economic and Social Research Council, (iv) the Natural Environment Research Council, (v) the Agricultural and Food Research Council and (vi) the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The maximum and minimum numbers of members of the research councils are prescribed in their charters, as follows:

  Minimum number of members

  Maximum number of members

  AFRC

  20

  23

  ESRC

  14

  20

  MRC

  16

  20

  NERC

  14

  20

  SERC

  15

  19

  There is no prescribed minimum or maximum for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which is an advisory body. As currently constituted, the board has 14
  376
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Advisory Board for the Research Councils was reconstituted on 1 April 1990. Its current membership is as follows:

  members (an independent chairman, six independent members, the heads of the five research councils and two assessors).

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many state sector primary schools in England and Wales had a male head teacher and how many had a female head teacher in the school year 1988–89;

  (2) how many state sector secondary schools in England and Wales had a male head teacher and how many had a female head teacher in the school year 1988–89, divided between schools with students of 11 to 16 years and those 11 to 18 years.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested for maintained primary and secondary schools in England for January 1989 is as follows:

  Schools with a male head teacher

  Schools with a female head teacher

  Primary1

  10,162

  9,067

  Secondary

  11–162

  1,218

  213

  11–183

  1,679

  388

  1 Includes middle schools deemed primary.

  2 Includes secondary modern schools, but excludes middle schools deemed secondary.

  3 Includes grammar, technical schools and sixth form colleges.

  Similar information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the school years 1988 to 1989 and 1989 to 1990, how many(a) male and (b) female head teachers of primary and secondary schools in England and

  377
  Wales left the profession for each of the following reasons: (i) normal retirement, (ii) early retirement and (iii) death in service.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information is not yet available for the dates specified.

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being taken by his Department to follow up the policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has undertaken a consultation exercise of local education authorities following the policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children. We are also proposing a joint seminar with SENSE early in 1991 to disseminate the results of the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what services are available to deaf-blind students in higher education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As autonomous bodies higher education institutions are responsible for determining what provision to make to meet the needs of students with disabilities. This is not monitored centrally. Students can obtain services individually in the light of their needs with the assistance of the disabled students allowances.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had from local education authorities to his policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To date, the Department has received 52 responses from local education authorities to the consultation exercise on the policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the report of the feasibility study into the extension of local management of schools to special schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The report has been published today. It concludes that the extension of LMS to special schools is both feasible and desirable. The report found that LMS would bring benefits to special schools and their pupils. Copies of the report are being sent to local education authorities and to special schools in both England and Wales. My right hon. Friend will shortly be consulting LEAs and schools on the report's findings. In the light of their views, the Government will consider making the necessary enabling regulations to permit LEAs to extend LMS to their special schools.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Language Learning
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that young people have an effective grounding in modern foreign language.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what importance he places on language learning.
  378
  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to the reply, 23 October 1990, c. 159–60.]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are publishing tomorrow our proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum. Our proposals are based on the recommendations of the working group for modern foreign languages, and will be published with the group's final report. Copies of the published document will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total capital expenditure on schools in Scotland in each year since 1978 in real terms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is given in the following table which has been compiled from local authority financial returns. The reduction in expenditure in real terms during the period reflects a substantial and progressive decline in pupil numbers which in turn reduced the requirement for new school building.

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on schools

  Year

  £ million at 1988–89 prices

  1978–79

  114·260

  1979–80

  89·576

  1980–81

  83·169

  1981–82

  87·486

  1982–83

  70·754

  1983–84

  58·204

  1984–85

  56·680

  1985–86

  59·838

  1986–87

  52·489

  1987–88

  51·697

  1988–89

  59·392

  1989–901

  60·519

  1 Provisional.

  The figures include expenditure on nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Outturn figures have been converted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  British Rail
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan,Official Report, 19 October, column 945 (a) when he last discussed with Sir Bob Reid the improvement of the British Rail services between Glasgow and London and (b)what timetable was discussed for such improvements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  British Rail's plans for the upgrading of the west coast main line between Glasgow and London are likely to be one of the subjects discussed when my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail. The timing of individual projects is however a matter for British Rail to determine in the light of other competing investment priorities and the resources at its disposal.

  Moray Adventurer
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations are being undertaken by his Department into events on 4 October involving the Buckie-registered vessel Moray Adventurer approximately 15 miles south-east of Peterhead.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The matter has not been reported formally to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Officers of DAFS sea fisheries inspectorate are seeking to establish with the skipper of the fishing vessel concerned the facts surrounding the incident.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his reply on radioactive waste to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 22 October, column 73, he will list any other sites in Scotland under investigation for a deep repository.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  UK Nirex Ltd. is not investigating any sites in Scotland apart from Dounreay.

  Mr. James Wilby
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what period Mr. James Wilby was employed by the Scottish Office; what was the period of his contract; and why it was terminated.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no record of a Mr. James Wilby having been employed by the Scottish Office. If the hon. Member is referring to Mr. John Wilby, the former director of the Scottish ambulance service, his employment was with the Common Services Agency from 1 November 1985 until 31 July 1990 when he resigned to take up the appointment of managing director to the London ambulance service.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether, as a condition of granting the supervisory status to accountancy bodies, he will require that the minutes of their policy-making committees be available to any member of the public;

  (2) whether, as a condition of the supervisory status, he will require the councils of the accountancy bodies to meet in the open;

  (3) whether, as a condition of granting the supervisory status to accountancy bodies, he will require that the minutes of the council meetings be available to all members of that body.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has no power to impose such conditions. His function is to determine whether applications for recognition meet the criteria laid down in the Companies Act 1989. In any case, the publicity to be given to meetings of this kind is a matter for the bodies themselves.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to introduce legislation to require any accountancy firm auditing a public limited company to file information with a designated authority.
  380
  Mr. Redwood
  We have no such plans. However, I expect that the applications for recognition from supervisory bodies for auditors under the Companies Act 1989 will include requirements as to the filing of information with them by audit firms.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, as a condition of granting the supervisory status to accountancy bodies, he will require that the minutes of their policy-making committees be available to all members.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has no power to impose such a condition. His function is to determine whether applications for recognition meet the criteria laid down in the companies Act 1989. In any case, the question of whether minutes of its policy-making committees should be made available to all its members is one for the body itself to decide.

  Student Complaints
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Acts to require the qualifying bodies to create an independent ombudsman to hear student complaints.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. But it is open to a body itself to set up an independent ombudsman to hear student complaints.

  Audit Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will exercise his powers under part II of the Companies Act 1989 to create an independent statutory body to regulate auditing.

  Mr. Redwood
  As the Government made clear during the passage of the Companies Bill, we have no present intention to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will create a body equivalent to OFGAS and OFTEL to regulate auditing.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Under section 46 of the Companies Act 1989 the Secretary of State may establish a body corporate to exercise his functions under part II of that Act. However, we have no present intention of exercising this power.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, before granting supervisory status to any organisation, he will ask it to explain its record on nominating women to major policy-making organisations.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. While the Government would favour the nomination of more women to major organisations, the record of a supervisory body in this respect is of no relevance to a decision by the Secretary of State on whether to recognise the body under the procedures in part II of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take powers to provide that each supervisory body has lay observers on its council.
  381
  Mr. Redwood
  We have no such plans.

  Company Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to introduce legislation to define the meaning of auditor independence.

  Mr. Redwood
  Section 27 of the Companies Act 1989 (which we expect to bring into force early next year) sets out connections between a person and a company which render the person ineligible for appointment as auditor to the company on the grounds of a lack of independence. The Secretary of State will consider whether to exercise the power in section 27(2) to specify by regulations further disqualifying connections once it is clear what professional rules and guidance there will be governing the independence of auditors. Under the 1989 Act the Secretary of State cannot recognise a supervisory body for auditors unless it appears to him to have adequate rules and practices in respect of professional integrity and independence.

  Company Acquisitions (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions have been undertaken involving the use of section 151 of the Companies Act 1985; how many of such charges were subsequently dropped; and how many were ultimately successful.

  Mr. Redwood
  To the Department's knowledge 19 charges have been brought under section 151 of the Companies Act 1985. In respect of six of these the judge ordered the jury not to bring verdicts and they were left on the file. The other charges have not yet come to trial.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to review section 151 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received representations concerning section 151 and am considering them.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to place before Parliament his proposals for implementing the EC directive on insider dealing.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government said in their reply to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on company investigations that they would bring forward legislation to implement the EC directive on insider dealing as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Polly Peck Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about recent developments at Polly Peck Ltd. and Del Monte.

  Mr. Redwood
  No representations about Polly Peck plc have been received since I wrote to the company on 25 September 1990.

  However, in view of recent developments my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will look at
  382
  all the information available to him arising from the move into administration of Polly Peck and the events leading up to it. In particular he has told the administrators that he will want to hear from them at the earliest opportunity whether they think there are any matters that need investigating which require the use of the Secretary of State's powers under the Companies Acts, bearing in mind the investigation being undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office.

  No separate representations have been received about Del Monte.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure that the Financial Reporting Council conducts its proceedings in public.

  Mr. Redwood
  The procedural arrangements of the Financial Reporting Council are a matter for the council to decide. I am sure that the council is fully conscious of the need to maximise public understanding and awareness of its work.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former civil servants from his Department joined General Electric Company, Plessey, Northern Engineering Industries, BICC, or Trafalgar after leaving the civil service since May 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 October 1990]: The Department of Trade and Industry has existed in its present form only since 1983. Separate Departments of Trade and Industry existed between 1979 and 1983. Totals for DTI, and these predecessor Departments since 1979 are as follows:

  Total

  To General Electric

  5

  To Plessey

  0

  To Northern Engineering Industries

  2

  To BICC

  0

  To Trafalgar House

  0

  Such figures would not, of course, include any staff who, once having left the Department and having passed the two-year notification period, then joined one of these companies.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 October 1990]: Any member of the public can make complaints or representations to the Department about matters falling within its responsibilities. There are no formal procedures for doing so.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the estimate of spending by overseas visitors for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is published in table 8.2 of the October 1990 issue of Employment Gazette.

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were dealt with by the small firms service in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1989–90 the small firms service in England dealt with 317,529 inquiries.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by region, how many inspectors there are in the nuclear installations inspectorate; what is the required manning establishment; how many are in post; and if he will make a statement as to what their terms of reference are.

  Mr. Forth
  The principal aim of HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate (NII) is to ensure a safe operating regime for civil nuclear installations through programmes of inspection of licensed sites, assessing safety cases provided by licensees, and seeing that appropriate safety standards are developed and maintained by licensees.

  The NII is not regionally structured, 'but based in HSE's Bootle and London headquarters. On 1 October 1990, 160 inspectors were in post in the inspectorate, an increase of some 60 per cent. since 1987. Current plans are to recruit to a level of 172 inspectors.

  Legionella
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he had with the Health and Safety Executive regarding the occurrence of legionella in power station cooling towers.

  Mr. Forth
  None. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) intends to take statutory action to strengthen existing legislation and guidance applying to the control of legionellosis. The HSC issued a consultative document in November 1989 setting out its proposals. In the light of comments received revised proposals for action have been drawn up and will be considered shortly by the HSC. Existing requirements under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 apply to all wet cooling towers, including those at power stations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the question of human rights in Sri Lanka has been discussed in the context of aid negotiations with that country's Government.
  384
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have on a number of occasions raised the question of human rights in the context of aid negotiations with the Sri Lanka Government, notably at meetings of the World bank-led aid group.

  At the latest meeting of the aid group held in Paris on 25 October, the United Kingdom delegation, in common with other donors, made it clear that human rights performance was one of the factors to be taken into account in future decisions on aid.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with European Community Foreign Ministers on the subject of human rights in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  EC member states have considered this question on several occasions in recent months. Our most recent consideration resulted in a demarche by EC heads of mission in Colombo on 19 October and a statement by the EC presidency at the aid consortium meeting in Paris on 25 October, in which the Community and its member states urged the Sri Lankan Government to observe their international obligations in the field of human rights.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the Government of Sri Lanka on the subject of human rights and alleged violations thereof by officials of that Government and the Indian peacekeeping force in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have had no discussions with the Sri Lankan Government about violations of human rights by the Indian peacekeeping force, which withdrew from Sri Lanka in March.

  Our high commissioner in Colombo has raised our concerns about human rights abuses by Sri Lankan Government agencies with the President directly, and with his Ministers on many occasions.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will attend the Sri Lankan aid consortium meeting in Paris; and if United Kingdom representatives will express formal concern at breaches of human rights by Sri Lankan Government security forces.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We were represented at the aid consortium meeting in Paris on 25 October by officials from the ODA. We have regularly voiced our concerns about human rights abuses by the Sri Lankan Government and on this occasion the British delegation, in common with other donors, made it clear that human rights performance was one of the factors to be taken into account in future decisions on aid.

  Yosif Dimant
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet Government about their failure to grant an exit visa to Yosif Dimant, of Chernovtsy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will add Mr. Dimant's case to the list of those which we raise regularly with the Soviet authorities. We shall continue to press the Soviet authorities until all such cases are satisfactorily resolved.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those members of the United Nations with which the United Kingdom does not have diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following are those members of the United Nations with which the United Kingdom does not have diplomatic relations:

  Albania

  Bhutan

  Cambodia

  Libya

  Syria

  Nepal
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representation to the Government of the Kingdom of Nepal concerning the introduction of a secular state and freedom of religion with regard to its forthcoming new constitution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes. Her Majesty's ambassador in Kathmandu has expressed our concerns on these points on several occasions including to the Prime Minister of Nepal on 20 September.

  COCOM Proscribed Destinations
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with his COCOM colleagues the extension of proscribed destinations and items to include Iraq and Libya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The COCOM controls were designed to counter the strategic security threat from communist countries. Their purpose is to control the export of goods and technology that would otherwise enhance the threat that still exists. The list of proscribed destinations agreed amongst COCOM partners is based on that strategic threat. The controls reflect the indigenous capabilities of those countries.

  Exports are controlled to other destinations for other reasons. Iraq and Libya are prohibited destinations listed in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended, for the export of certain goods and technology.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether acceptance as a full member of the Council of Europe qualifies a state for removal from the COCOM list of proscribed destinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The list of destinations proscribed by COCOM comprise those countries that pose a threat to western strategic security interests, or countries whose military and intelligence links with the former are inimical to those interests.

  COCOM members are considering a special procedure to facilitate the licensing of certain exports to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This will be dependent on their adopting adequate export control systems together with a commitment to ensure that imported strategic goods and technologies are devoted exclusively to civilian purposes.

  Middle East
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council since 2 August on middle east affairs; which of these were initiated by the United Kingdom; and how the United Kingdom ambassador voted on each resolution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Security Council has passed 11 resolutions on the middle east since 2 August. The United Kingdom voted for them all, and was closely involved with each initiative, either as a permanent member of the Security Council or as president of the Security Council for the month of October.

  Resolution No.

  Subject

  SCR 660 (adopted 2 August)

  Condemned invasion and called for immediate and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal.

  SCR 661 (6 August)

  Imposed sanctions.

  SCR 662 (9 August)

  Decided annexation of Kuwait by Iraq null and void.

  SCR 664 (18 August)

  Reaffirmed rights of third state nationals, including the right to leave.

  SCR 665 (25 August)

  Authorised measures to halt shipping in order to inspect and verify cargoes.

  SCR 666 (13 September)

  Established system to permit food imports to Iraq and Kuwait in humanitarian circumstances.

  SCR 667 (16 September)

  Condemned Iraqi attacks against diplomatic premises and personnel.

  SCR 669 (24 September)

  Called on Sanctions Committee to consider requests for economic assistance under Article 50 of UN Charter.

  SCR 670 (25 September)

  Measures to tighten air embargo and detain or deny entry to Iraqi-registered ships.

  SCR 672 (12 October)

  Condemning acts of violence by Israeli Security Forces at the Temple Mount on 8 October, calling on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requesting the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the mission he had decided to send to the region.

  SCR 673 (24 October)

  Calling on Israel to accept the Secretary-General's Mission.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards recognising the right of the Palestinian people to opt for a Palestinian state; and as to what extent this should depend on the agreement of the Israeli Government provided that in such negotiations Israel has been offered borders which Her Majesty's Government consider satisfy that country's reasonable demands for security.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have always supported the Palestinians' legitimate right to self-determination. We also support Israel's right to exist within secure borders. A settlement of the Palestinian problem should be on this basis. Whether it will include a Palestinian state is a matter for resolution between the parties.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all United Nations resolutions passed since 1970 on deaths of civilians in Northern Ireland; and how the United Kingdom voted on each resolution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No resolutions of this nature have been passed in the United Nations.

  Fuel Air Explosives
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the next meeting of the European Community Foreign Affairs Council, he will raise with his Spanish counterpart the sale of fuel air explosives from the Spanish company M. S. Systems of Madrid, via a third party in Chile, to Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in constant touch with European and other Governments to exchange information about the practical implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 661.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his recent visit to Egypt and the middle east, he discussed the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Gulf region.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised the matter of human rights and political prisoners with Ministers or officials of the Turkish Government.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Turkey's human rights performance is regularly discussed between members of Her Majesty's embassy in Ankara and officials in the Turkish Foreign Ministry. At ministerial level, the subject was most recently raised by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during a visit to Ankara on 20 June.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom officials will represent Her Majesty's Government at the amendment conference to the 1963 partial nuclear test ban treaty, to be held in New York in January next year; and if his Department has had any consultation with interested non-governmental organisations over prospects for this conference.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom official representation at the partial test ban treaty amendment conference has not yet been decided. We anticipate that it will be drawn from officials serving at our missions to the United Nations conference on disarmament at Geneva and to the United Nations in New York. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed prospects for the conference at the most recent of meetings with non-governmental organisations on 23 October.
  388
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each outstanding technical verification problem requiring resolution prior to the achievement of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; and what resources in terms of committed scientific expertise and financial support have been expended by Her Majesty's Government since 1980 on the problems of verification.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A full explanation of the technical problems with verification can be found in CD/610, a paper submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the United Nations conference on disarmament at Geneva in July 1985. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. We maintain a specialist seismic research unit known as Blacknest, committed to studying verification. It employs approximately 30 staff.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the 1989 United Nations convention on mercenaries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries was agreed in December 1989 by the General Assembly. We are examining it carefully against the background of current United Kingdom legislation. We hope to come to a decision soon.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations in writing or orally he, Ministers or officials of his Department have received since 15 September concerning the status of the United Kingdom Trident programme in the context of nuclear disarmament commitments under article VI of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have not received any representations on the status of our Trident programme under article VI of the NPT.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards(a) the threshold test ban treaty and (b) the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty; and how the United Kingdom capacity to continue nuclear testing in Nevada will be affected by these treaties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the ratification of the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty. Neither treaty will have any effect on the United Kingdom testing programme. This programme meets the testing limits agreed by the US and the Soviet Union.

  Guyana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there are free and fair elections in Guyana.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During several ministerial meetings with Ministers of the Government of Guyana during the
  389
  past year we have consistently emphasised that the forthcoming elections in Guyana should be seen to be free and fair. The last such occasion was in London on 16 October when I met the Guyanese Minister of Finance, Mr. Carl Greenidge.

  We have welcomed President Hoyte's invitation to the Commonwealth Secretary General to send a Commonwealth election observer mission to monitor the elections and have informed the Secretary General that we will make a significant contribution towards the costs of an observer mission.

  Syria
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the Syrian Government in the past year; whether he has any plans to visit Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no contacts with the Syrian Government and has no plans to visit Syria.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether any representatives of the Government of Syria have requested any meetings with Her Majesty's Government in the past year; what written communication there has been between the Syrian Government and Her Majesty's Government in that period; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what contacts officials acting on behalf of Her Majesty's Government have had with Syrian Government officials in the past year; whether there are any plans for British officials to visit Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have remained in contact with the Syrians since the break in relations in 1986. There have been no written communications during the past year, other than routine contact through the Syrian interests section in London and the British interests section in Damascus.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 22 October, column 55, he will set out when and through what channels the representations to the Chinese Government to which he refers, were made; and when and through what channels the response was received.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Representations were made by the British embassy in Peking to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 25 August, and were followed up bilaterally in New York. A formal Chinese response was delivered to the embassy in Peking by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 27 August.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will urgently consider providing the telephone and postal concessionary facilities for the hostages in Iraq and their families in the United Kingdom that are provided by some other western European states; and if he will make a statement.
  390
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are already helping. We have approached British Telecom. From 1 November it will reduce by half the cost of calls to Iraq and give every assistance to families with large bills to pay. We are setting up a PO box arrangement in London for relatives to use. We shall continue to look for ways to reduce the burden on families.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made to assist the families of United Kingdom citizens detained in Iraq to communicate with those who are detained.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: We are doing everything possible to help families stay in touch. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I have given his other question today. We have also approached British Telecom and it has halved the cost of a five-minute call to Baghdad.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will permit the families of United Kingdom citizens detained in Iraq to communicate with those who are detained by means of the diplomatic bag.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: We are actively looking at all possible ways to help relatives. As I announced on 24 October, we are setting up a PO box in London to which letters can be sent. Our embassy in Baghdad will accept mail for postage in London.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for letters, books, clothes and other articles to be sent from the United Kingdom by relatives and friends of British citizens held in Iraq by British diplomatic bags; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: We are actively exploring all possible ways to help relatives. As I announced on 24 October, we are setting up a PO box in London to which letters can be sent.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent elections in Pakistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to the information so far available to us the elections in Pakistan took place peacefully. We shall study the reports from international observers when they are available. We look forward to working with the Government who emerge.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British officials made any representations to the Pakistan authorities about the conduct of the Pakistan elections; how many complaints about the conduct of the Pakistan elections have been received by him or British officials; and whether British officials have been in contact with the international delegation monitoring the Pakistan elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government of Pakistan were aware of the importance which we attach to free and fair
  391
  elections. It would not be for us to receive complaints about the conduct of the elections and none has been made to us. British officials have been in contact with international observer groups monitoring the elections.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for reports by British officials on the conduct of the Pakistan elections to be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. Reporting from our high commission is classified and will be treated in the usual manner.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra resources have been available to the British Council in respect of English language teaching in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: British Council expenditure on the promotion and development of the teaching of English in central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union rose to some £2·5 million last year and is scheduled to rise to £5 million this year, the money coming in part from increases in the council's direct grant and in part from the know-how fund.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra resources have been made available to the British Broadcasting Corporation foreign language services in light of the developments in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 26 October 1990]: We recognise the value of World Service broadcasts to eastern Europe and are in regular touch with the BBC about the resources needed. Funding for the BBC World Service is set for periods of three years. In 1990–91, the final year of the present triennium, funding is 40 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979–80 and 13 per cent. higher than in 1987–88. Funding for the next such period, beginning in April 1991 falls within the 1990 public expenditure survey and will be announced following the autumn statement.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Employment Terms (South-west)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received on civil service terms of employment as they affect the south-west region.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am not aware of having received any representations on this subject.

  Trade Union Lobby
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will agree to meet civil service trade union leaders on 31 October during their lobby of Parliament.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the lobby has been postponed.

  "Next Steps"
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent discussions he has held in connection with progress with the "next steps" agency programme.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have frequent discussions on the excellent progress which is being made in implementing the "next steps" initiative.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Budget
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the provision which has been made for expenditure relating to agriculture in the 1991 EEC budget; and what was the estimate for 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 October 1990, c. 764]: Revision to the sterling-ecu exchange has caused some amendments to the figures originally given in reply to this question.

  The provisions for expenditure relating to agriculture in the European Community's 1990 budget and 1991 draft budget are 30·0 billion ecu (£20·9 billion) and 33·4 billion ecu (£23·3 billion) respectively. In addition there is provision in each year for a monetary reserve of a further I billion ecu (£0·7 billion), which may be drawn on if unfavourable movements in the ecu-US dollar exchange rate cause an increase in expenditure on agricultural price support of more than 400 mecu (£279 million).

  Sea Trout
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has commissioned into the decline of sea trout stocks in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to a similar question. For England and Wales, there has been an overall fall in the catches of sea trout by rod and line in 1989 and 1990. This may not, however, be conclusive evidence of a decline in the stocks of sea trout supporting the fisheries. The interpretation of trends is complicated by the fact that there were dry summers in both years, as well as by the natural fluctuations in stock availability.

  Departmental scientists are continuing to monitor the situation in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the National Rivers Authority.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received on spongiform encephalopathies from Dr. Carleton Gajdusek; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government take account of all available research findings, including those of Dr. Gajdusek.

  Diet Survey
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information was obtained about the dietary intakes of food additives and contaminants from his survey "The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The survey in question was carried out on behalf of my Department and that of the Department of Health. The intention was to gather information on the current dietary behaviour and nutritional status of the adult population, and in particular to establish a database of the range of food, drink and nutrient intakes of adults. It does not, therefore, contain any information on dietary intakes of food additives and contaminants although it can he used to calculate these in conjunction with data on their levels in individual foods obtained from analytical surveys.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the problems faced by farmers in less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Curry
  I have recently received a number of representations concerning the problems faced by farmers in less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement outlining the initiatives currently taken by his Department and his future plans to assist farmers in less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Farmers in less-favoured areas (LFAs) benefit from a range of support measures which are available to producers generally, including particularly the suckler cow premium and sheep annual premium. In addition, Government expenditure on hill livestock compensatory allowances, which are paid only in less-favoured areas, will amount to about £127 million this year; we have recently announced that the suckler cow premium for less-favoured area producers will be increased to the maximum amount payable under the EC regulations; and less-favoured area sheep producers will benefit next year from a special addition to the sheep annual premium of 4 ecus per eligible ewe. We shall continue to keep the position of less-favoured area farmers under review.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to bring forward from February 1991 the date of payment of the special £3·10 ewe premium.

  Mr. Curry
  As part of the price-fixing arrangements earlier this year, the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed that sheep annual premium payments should be supplemented by a payment of 4 ecu per eligible ewe for producers in less-favoured areas. The agreement provided that the supplement should be payable from the 1991 sheepmeat marketing year which begins on 7 January 1991. There is little prospect of any change in timing, which would require a proposal from the European Commission and agreement by the Council of Ministers.

  Store Lambs
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the average current price, in real terms, of store lambs; and what were the comparable figures for such lambs in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The table sets out the average price of store lambs in England in September of this year and the previous three years. The figures in brackets reflect the prices at 1990 levels.

  £

  Lowland store lambs

  £ LFA store lambs

  First quality

  Second quality

  1987

  35·07

  29·84

  31·99

  (44·28)

  (37·68)

  (40·39)

  1988

  35·67

  32·70

  30·18

  (42·55)

  (39·01)

  (36·00)

  1989

  32·05

  26·66

  29·97

  (35·54)

  (29·56)

  (33·23)

  1990

  29·94

  25·90

  25·89

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what was the comparable figure in real terms in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The table sets out total payments of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the United Kingdom for this year and the previous three years. The figures in brackets reflect the payments at 1990 price levels.

  £ million

  1987

  112·8

  (139·3)

  1988

  114·6

  (134·9)

  1989

  118·9

  (129·8)

  1990

  1126·8

  1 Provisional.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to bring forward from 7 January 1991 the green pound devaluation for sheepmeat.

  Mr. Curry
  This devaluation will come into effect at the beginning of the sheepmeat marketing year on 7 January 1991. This is the normal practice and it would be an exception to the usual rules for a devaluation to take place before the start of the marketing year. Such an exception would have to be proposed by the Commission and agreed by the other member states.

  Advisory Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the financial remunerations that the chairmen and members of each of his advisory committees receive; and if he will make a statement.
  395
  Mr. Gummer
  Details collected earlier are set out in "Public Appointments" issued by the Women's National Commission in July of which a copy is in the Library.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions in the last 12 months, when animal feedstuffs containing ruminant-derived protein have been shipped abroad, giving the quantities involved, the destinations, the date when the shipment occurred, and whether they reached their destination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  This information is not available.

  European Community
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the joint meeting of the Agriculture and Trade Ministers on 26 October.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.

  Discussion concentrated on the Commission's proposal for a Community offer on agriculture in the current GATT round. A text was eventually produced by the presidency with Commission support, which made two changes to the draft offer and defined in general terms the Community's attitude to any agricultural measures which might be needed following an agreement in GATT. However, two member states were unable to agree and in these circumstances the presidency felt unable to put the matter to the vote.

  I very much regret that, because of the failure of some member states to agree to the implications of commitments they had previously accepted, the Community has been unable to meet the deadline for submitting its offer. This is bad for British farmers, continental farmers and for trade as a whole. A further Council meeting is expected shortly.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agricultural activities, including the responsibility for the storage and disposal of surpluses, have been transferred from the European Economic Community to member states in each year since 1973; and if he will publish a table indicating the expenditure involved in such transfers from the EEC to member states and to the United Kingdom in particular.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: No significant responsibilities for agricultural policy have been transferred from the European Community to member states since 1973.

  Surplus Produce
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision has been made in the 1991 EEC budget for the dumping and destruction of surplus food and wine.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 October 1990, c. 764]: Revision to the sterling-ecu exchange has caused some amendments to the figures originally given in reply to this question.
  396
  The 1991 European Community draft budget provides for 854 million ecu (£595 million) of expenditure on the withdrawal of agricultural produce, not all of which is destroyed.

THE ARTS

  Yorkshire and Humberside Arts Board
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts by what process he intends to appoint the chair of the Yorkshire and Humberside arts board.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am awaiting advice on these matters from the review team set up by the Arts Council to examine ways of implementing the broad principles for regional funding arrangements that I announced on 24 September.

  Arts Council Funding
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to revalue the Arts Council funding to keep pace with the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Mellor
  Arrangements for Arts Council funding will be the same as under my predecessors. Government funding of the Arts Council is now at its highest level ever in real terms, and I shall announce the level of the grant for the next three years next month.

  Greater London Arts
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what changes he proposes to make in the composition and responsibilities of Greater London Arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Arts Council has announced that Greater London Arts will be replaced shortly by a new London arts board. The Arts Council has also announced the arrangements for the management of Greater London Arts in the period before the new London arts board is fully operational. I hope these arrangements will result in greater confidence in London's arts body.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends local authorities to be involved in arts administration in Greater London.

  Mr. Mellor
  I expect the new London arts board to conform to the broad principles that I announced on 24 September, which reserve one third of the membership of the new regional arts boards for local authority nominees.

  Theatres
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of deficits in national and regional theatres.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) earlier today.

  Regional Arts
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress is being made in the restructuring of the regional arts funding bodies.
  397
  Mr. Mellor
  I announced on 24 September broad principles for regional funding arrangements which are currently being examined by a review team established by the Arts Council, and led by Timothy Marsh.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he will ensure a wide representation of local authorities on regional arts boards.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to involve local authorities in the structure of arts administration.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends to involve local authorities in regional arts boards.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the broad principles that I have announced, one third of the membership of regional arts boards will be reserved for local authority nominees.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister for the Arts by what process he plans to appoint the chair of the Northern arts board.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts by what process he intends to choose the chair of the West Midlands regional arts board.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consultation he will require the Arts Council to undertake before the appointment of local authority representatives on regional arts boards.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am awaiting advice on these matters from the review team set up by the Arts Council to examine ways of implementing the broad principles for further strengthening regional funding arrangements that I announced on 24 September.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consultations he had with regional arts associations and host authorities before announcing his plans to revise the structure of regional arts boards.

  Mr. Mellor
  I met the chairmen of the regional arts associations and representatives of the main local authority associations shortly after my announcement was made. I have set aside two months for consultation with all the interested parties.

  Theatres and Museums (Repairs)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of backlog of repairs and maintenance in theatre and museum buildings.

  Mr. Mellor
  I take account of the building and maintenance needs and priorities set out in the corporate plans provided for me annually by the national musuems and galleries which I sponsor. Most of these institutions have now carried out extensive studies of their buildings since untying from the Property Services Agency in 1988. It is for other relevant funding bodies, including local authorities, to determine the requirements for the buildings within their responsibilities.

  I understand that the Theatres Trust is carrying out a small pilot study to establish whether a systematic examination of the national state of theatres could be undertaken at reasonable cost.

  BBC Chairman
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will meet the chairman of the BBC to discuss the arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what have been the percentage increases in arts funding from his Department over the past five years in relation to inflation rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Central Government Arts Programme

  Inflation rates retail prices index

  Year

  Cash total £ million

  Percentage increase on previous year

  Percentage increase on previous year

  1986–87

  343

  —

  —

  1987–88

  368

  7·3

  4·0

  1988–89

  414

  12·5

  6·0

  1989–90

  446

  7·7

  7·8

  1990–91

  494

  10·8

  110·0

  1 Percentage change of first six months of the financial year over the same period of the previous year.

  This clearly shows the Government's commitment to support of the arts.

  North-west and Merseyside Arts Board
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to involve local authorities in the administration of the north-west and Merseyside arts board.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the broad principles that I have announced, one third of the membership of the regional arts board for the north-west and Merseyside will be reserved for local authority nominees.

  National Heritage
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next expects to meet civil service trade union leaders to discuss funding and staffing levels in relation to the national heritage.

  Mr. Mellor
  I meet representatives of the various civil service trade unions when appropriate to discuss matters of mutual interest. I intend to meet representatives from the IPMS to discuss recent developments at the natural history museum.

HEALTH

  Child Patients
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of child patients discharged from a stay in hospital had been nursed in an adult ward for each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available centrally. Guidance on the welfare of
  399
  children and young people in hospital, on which the Department is currently consulting interested parties, re-emphasises our policy that children should be treated in discrete children's departments, separate from adult wards.

  Community Nursing
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, further to the Minister for Health's reply to the hon. Member for Chislehurst,Official Report, column 423, 26 July, he can provide further information as to where responsibility will lie under the National Health Service and Community Care Act for improvement of the recruitment, administration and payment of those involved in community nursing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities, or NHS trusts where appropriate, will have responsibility for the recruitment, administration and payment of community nurses.

  The working party set up by the NHS management executive as mentioned in my earlier reply will set out the general principles which should inform the management and organisation of nursing services in the community. Draft guidance explaining those principles will be issued for consultation in December.

  Kidney Disease
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the provision of full renal units in England and Wales; what information he has on their provision in France, Germany and Italy; what proposals he has to increase such provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A number of representations on a wide range of issues concerning renal services has been received. Planning and provision of renal services is a matter for health authorities. Information on the provision of renal units in this country and in Europe is collected and published annually by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the arrangements to provide suitable transport for patients requiring dialysis outside the home where the nearest dialysis facilities are more than 40 miles distant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ambulance service transport is available free of charge for all patients, including those requiring dialysis, regardless of the distance to be travelled, provided their medical need for transport is certified by their GP or hospital consultant.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities for dialysis outside patients' homes exist within the health authority areas of Somerset, Cornwall, Bath, West Dorset, Gloucester and Cheltenham.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Somerset health authority does not have any facilities outside patients' homes but it is actively considering services for patients with chronic renal failure.

  Cornwall health authority has facilities for acute haemodialysis, which has been available at Treliske hospital in Truro since 1987. In April 1988 a satellite unit at Treliske hospital was established.
  400
  In Bath health authority there are two continuous arteriovenous haemodialysis (CAVH) machines for use by patients at the Royal United hospital. Patients also have access to treatment, on referral, at the Southmead hospital, Bristol.

  In West Dorset health authority, patients requiring dialysis outside their home are treated at the renal centre in Portsmouth. From 1 November 1990, West Dorset patients will be able to receive dialysis in a self-care dialysis unit at the Dorset county hospital. This new unit will provide facilities for approximately 12 patients per week, and it is expecting delivery of three Fresanious 1008 haemodialysis machines next week.

  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) training was set up and became autonomous at the Gloucester Royal hospital in January 1988. This service provides for Gloucester and Cheltenham residents. Some patients have care provided jointly by Oxford and Gloucester. A consultant nephrologist is now in place in Gloucester and plans are in progress for a haemodialysis service for Gloucestershire.

  Satanic Rituals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement in respect of what directives his Department has issued for the diagnosis of child satanic ritual abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Diagnosis is a matter for professional judgment and would not be appropriate for issue of a directive. The Department of Health is considering guidance on the handling of cases with an element of organised or possibly ritual abuse when reissuing "Working Together", a guide to inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse.

  Spinal Cord Injury
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics are kept by his Department on spinal cord injury; if he will consider ways in which the collection of statistics can be improved; and if he will consider making spinal cord injury a notifiable condition.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Statistics are produced from anonymised hospital records which contain details of diagnosis and treatment. The collection of these statistics is improving with new computer systems for patient administration statistics. There are no plans to make spinal cord injury a notifiable condition because only communicable diseases are notifiable under public health law.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the Spinal Injuries Association's programme for the prevention of spinal cord injury and on the effectiveness of such a programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is aware from discussions with the Spinal Injuries Association that it has obtained funding for a three-year period from the Monument Trust for a programme for the prevention of spinal cord injury. We have received no representations concerning this programme.

  Chronic Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out into chronic arachnoiditis; whether he has considered making it a notifiable condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council (M RC) which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. The Medical Research Council is not currently supporting any research specifically into chronic arachnoiditis. The Department has not considered making chronic arachnoiditis a notifiable condition.

  Number of abortions over 12 weeks gestation performed on women resident in the South East Thames Regional Health Authority 1985

  Place of usual residence

  Age of woman

  Under 20

  20–24

  25–34

  Over 34

  Total

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  562

  582

  386

  118

  1,648

  Brighton District Health Authority

  46

  46

  38

  9

  139

  Eastbourne District Health Authority

  26

  27

  17

  12

  82

  Hastings District Health Authority

  26

  13

  13

  2

  54

  South East Kent District Health Authority

  43

  32

  30

  14

  119

  Canterbury and Thanet District Health Authority

  34

  31

  23

  9

  97

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority

  32

  16

  11

  5

  64

  Maidstone District Health Authority

  17

  13

  8

  4

  42

  Medway District Health Authority

  40

  33

  26

  4

  103

  Tunbridge Wells District Health Authority

  28

  24

  18

  5

  75

  Bexley District Health Authority

  31

  30

  9

  3

  73

  Greenwich District Health Authority

  40

  31

  28

  8

  107

  Bromley District Health Authority

  41

  26

  26

  11

  104

  West Lambeth District Health Authority

  43

  55

  31

  9

  138

  Camberwell District Health Authority

  62

  126

  74

  12

  274

  Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority

  53

  79

  34

  11

  177

  Number of abortions over 12 weeks gestation performed on women resident in the South East Thames Regional Health Authority 1986

  Place of usual residence

  Age of woman

  Under 20

  20–24

  25–34

  Over 34

  Total

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  556

  681

  416

  117

  1,770

  Brighton District Health Authority

  43

  55

  28

  9

  135

  Eastbourne District Health Authority

  26

  13

  12

  5

  56

  Hastings District Health Authority

  24

  24

  10

  6

  64

  South East Kent District Health Authority

  32

  33

  26

  11

  102

  Canterbury and Thanet District Health Authority

  45

  29

  23

  11

  108

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority

  27

  17

  13

  1

  58

  Maidstone District Health Authority

  12

  12

  10

  5

  39

  Medway District Health Authority

  40

  41

  13

  10

  104

  Tunbridge Wells District Health Authority

  14

  13

  13

  4

  44

  Bexley District Health Authority

  13

  28

  20

  5

  66

  Greenwich District Health Authority

  40

  43

  32

  12

  127

  Bromley District Health Authority

  32

  39

  27

  5

  103

  West Lambeth District Health Authority

  48

  83

  44

  8

  183

  Camberwell District Health Authority

  83

  147

  74

  12

  316

  Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority

  77

  104

  71

  13

  265

  Number of abortions over 12 weeks gestation performed on women resident in the South East Thames Regional Health Authority 1987

  Place of usual residence

  Age of woman

  Under 20

  20–24

  25–34

  Over 34

  Total

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  601

  722

  542

  117

  1,982

  Brighton District Health Authority

  54

  67

  39

  7

  167

  Eastbourne District Health Authority

  20

  19

  16

  9

  64

  Hastings District Health Authority

  25

  17

  16

  5

  63

  South East Kent District Health Authority

  34

  30

  24

  5

  93

  Canterbury and Thanet District Health Authority

  44

  44

  27

  12

  127

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority

  37

  18

  17

  3

  75

  Maidstone District Health Authority

  16

  12

  10

  7

  45

  Medway District Health Authority

  47

  40

  30

  9

  126

  Tunbridge Wells District Health Authority

  25

  22

  15

  1

  63

  Bexley District Health Authority

  37

  27

  15

  5

  84

  Greenwich District Health Authority

  40

  56

  49

  9

  154

  Bromley District Health Authority

  26

  35

  17

  5

  83

  West Lambeth District Health Authority

  58

  80

  74

  11

  223

  Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of abortions over 12 weeks' gestation performed on women under(a) 20, (b) 20 to 24, (c) 25 to 34 and (d) over 34 years of age, resident in the South East Thames regional health authority, and in each constituent district health authority thereof, in each of the years (i) 1985, (ii) 1986, (iii) 1987, (iv) 1988 and (v) 1989. respectively.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  403

  Place of usual residence

  Age of woman

  Under 20

  20–24

  25–34

  Over 34

  Total

  Camberwell District Health Authority

  60

  118

  108

  10

  296

  Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority

  78

  137

  85

  19

  319

  Number of abortions over 12 weeks gestation performed on women resident in the South East Thames Regional Health Authority 1988

  Place of usual residence

  Age of woman

  Under 20

  20–24

  25–34

  Over 34

  Total

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  701

  774

  573

  146

  2,194

  Brighton District Health Authority

  41

  61

  36

  12

  150

  Eastbourne District Health Authority

  36

  24

  17

  10

  87

  Hastings District Health Authority

  26

  16

  11

  5

  58

  South East Kent District Health Authority

  38

  33

  15

  4

  90

  Canterbury and Thanet District Health Authority

  42

  32

  27

  9

  110

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority

  24

  22

  14

  8

  68

  Maidstone District Health Authority

  27

  19

  9

  7

  62

  Medway District Health Authority

  73

  44

  40

  8

  165

  Tunbridge Wells District Health Authority

  22

  18

  12

  2

  54

  Bexley District Health Authority

  41

  37

  18

  9

  105

  Greenwich District Health Authority

  51

  50

  38

  11

  150

  Bromley District Health Authority

  43

  46

  24

  5

  118

  West Lambeth District Health Authority

  58

  111

  70

  13

  252

  Camberwell District Health Authority

  82

  132

  119

  23

  356

  Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority

  97

  129

  123

  20

  369

  Number of abortions over 12 weeks gestation performed on women resident in the South East Thames Regional Health Authority 1989

  Place of usual residence

  Age of woman

  Under 20

  20–24

  25–34

  Over 34

  Total

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  600

  694

  620

  133

  2,047

  Brighton District Health Authority

  38

  41

  42

  9

  130

  Eastbourne District Health Authority

  30

  26

  26

  4

  86

  Hastings District Health Authority

  21

  21

  16

  4

  62

  South East Kent District Health Authority

  24

  30

  16

  7

  77

  Canterbury and Thanet District Health Authority

  46

  33

  19

  13

  111

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority

  27

  31

  16

  5

  79

  Maidstone District Health Authority

  18

  19

  9

  3

  49

  Medway District Health Authority

  68

  33

  36

  13

  150

  Tunbridge Wells District Health Authority

  11

  17

  15

  3

  46

  Bexley District Health Authority

  33

  24

  23

  5

  85

  Greenwich District Health Authority

  45

  48

  42

  4

  139

  Bromley District Health Authority

  31

  40

  35

  7

  113

  West Lambeth District Health Authority

  61

  95

  87

  10

  253

  Camberwell District Health Authority

  87

  109

  118

  27

  341

  Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority

  60

  127

  120

  19

  326

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has undertaken or sponsored any research into the development of the hand-tapper communication system for deaf-blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. I understand that this system is being developed by University college, London and that funding has been provided by the Science and Engineering Research Council and by the Nuffield Foundation and the National Deaf-Blind League.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether deaf-blind people are able to get hearing and sight-impaired communication systems through social services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Items of equipment for disabled people, including people with a sensory disability, may be provided by health authorities or local authority social services departments. Local authorities have a duty under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to meet the needs of people who, in the opinion of the authority, need an item of equipment to provide for their 404
  greater safety, comfort or convenience. Local authorities are empowered to recover all or part of the cost of any equipment they provide. Voluntary organisations also make available a range of specialist equipment for people with a sensory disability.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaf-blind people there are currently residing in long-stay mental handicap hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he intends to take to ensure that professionals working with deaf-blind people receive specialist training;

  (2) what steps he intends to take to monitor the response of local social services departments to the social services inspectorate report, "Signposts";

  (3) what action he intends to take to encourage local social services departments to implement the recommendations of the social services inspectorate report, "Signposts".

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the responsibility of health authorities and local authorities to make arrangements for the
  405
  training of professional staff. In 1991–92 the specific grant to local authorities for training social services staff will be extended to include staff who work with people who have physical, sensory or mental handicaps and will be increased to support expenditure of £35·5 million.

  The recommendations in the report, "Signposts", were discussed at a seminar with directors of social services in October 1989. The seminar, which was co-hosted by the Department of Health, the Association of Directors of Social Services and a number of voluntary organisations, was aimed at promoting models of good practice in the delivery of services for deaf-blind people.

  Local authorities will be expected to include in their community care plans services for people with multiple disabilities, including those with a multiple sensory disability. Such community care plans will be open to public inspection. We expect the social services inspectorate will play an active part in inspecting the plans and monitoring performance.

  Camelford Pollution (Research)
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his inquiry under the chairmanship of Dame Barbara Clayton will consider epidemiological evidence from the research carried out by Surrey university funded by the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Lowermoor incident health advisory group considered evidence from the university of Surrey when originally investigating the Lowermoor incident.

  The reconvened group has been asked to advise on any recent studies into the health of the population at Camelford.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department will fund the research into the long-term effects of the pollution of the water supply in Camelford, Cornwall, previously funded by the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have asked the Lowermoor incident health advisory group to advise me on the recent studies of the health of people in the Camelford area. I will be guided by it on the need, if any, for further research.

  Health Visiting, Greenwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich on 29 June,Official Report, column 369, when the nursing officer from his Department visited Greenwich health authority; and who was present at the meeting.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A nursing officer from the Department visited Greenwich health authority on 13 June and held an informal meeting with the then chief nursing adviser/ director of training (acting) and the director of community nursing (acting).

  Second Sensory Impairments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to local health authorities to ensure that people who are deaf or blind are adequately monitored for the development of a second sensory impairment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health does not issue guidance to health authorities on such clinical procedures.

  Deaf People (Eye Tests)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider allowing free eye tests for deaf people, given the problems of dual sensory impairment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government recognise the vital importance of sight to deaf people, especially where they also have visual problems. All children (including deaf children) are already entitled to free sight tests under the NHS, as are full-time students under 19, people on low incomes, people with exceptionally powerful lenses, diabetics, glaucoma sufferers and their relatives aged over 40, and people referred by their GP to the hospital eye service. These categories were decided on in the light of medical advice.

  We shall consider carefully the views on this matter which were recently put to officials by a member of the Social Services Select Committee.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has received to convert the Whittington hospital into a self-governing trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am not aware of any proposals for the Whittington hospital to apply to become an NHS trust.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of the new central computer at the London ambulance service; to whom the contract was let; and what is its expected period of operation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A contract was let in 1987 with International Aeradio Ltd. to provide a computer-aided despatch system, in the sum of £3,293,620. The date for operation was scheduled for January 1991, but this is currently under review.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what load testing has been undertaken on the London ambulance service central control system; when this was done; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Load tests were undertaken on the central control system on 26 June and 13 September 1990. The results did not meet the standards set down in the user specification in either test. We do not intend to publish the results.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of patients who have been regraded from chair to walking by the London ambulance service in the months of April, May, June, July, August and September.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No patients have been reclassified from chair to walking. The London ambulance service accepts the classification given by the ordering authority unless the crew finds that a patient requires further assistance and needs to be regraded from walking to chair case. The reverse situation is never applied.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of non-urgent patients whose transport has been cancelled by the London ambulance service per week in June, July, August and September.
  407
  Mr. Dorrell
  Data are not collected in the form requested but monthly figures for the non-emergency service are available as follows:

  Patient journeys cancelled per month

  June

  4,197

  July

  4,329

  August

  4,825

  September

  7,372

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of the central ambulance control of the London ambulance service for each year since 1989 in constant terms.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available figures are as follows:

  £000 (cash)

  1989–90 outturn

  2,569

  1990–91 budget

  2,823

  It is not possible to convert the 1989–90 figures to 1990–91 prices as general inflation outturn for 1990–91 is not yet known.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of non-emergency patients carried by the London ambulance service in(a) emergency vehicles, (b) taxis, (c) non-emergency ambulances and (d) the hospital car service for the months of April, May, June, July, August and September.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is as follows:

  Patient Journeys

  (a) Emergency ambulance

  (b) Taxi

  (c) Non-emergency ambulance

  (d) Ambulance car service

  April

  5,270

  6,591

  64,039

  13,894

  May

  5,463

  10,929

  71,939

  14,020

  June

  4,302

  11,611

  72,077

  14,892

  July

  4,615

  12,285

  74,070

  14,097

  August

  5,101

  9,728

  67,415

  13,549

  September

  4,887

  10,559

  61,071

  14,785

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement the National Audit Office has had in the installation and funding of the London ambulance service central control computer.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Audit Office has had no involvement in the installation and funding of the London ambulance service central control computer.

  Legionella
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute a study into the dangers to employee and public health arising from legionella in power station cooling towers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Legionella bacteria are naturally occurring organisms widely distributed in the environment and from time to time are known to exist in power station cooling towers. There have however been no documented outbreaks anywhere in the world of legionnaire's disease among employees or the general public, associated with 408
  large natural updraft cooling towers such as those used in power stations. Neither has the public health laboratory service found any such association in its outbreak investigations. Research is under way to determine whether or not the absence of any outbreaks of legionnaire's disease can be attributed to the relative isolation of power station cooling towers; or whether some design feature of these towers renders them unable or less likely to disperse legionella in an aerosol form that can be ingested and cause legionnaire's disease. The Department is keeping in close touch with this research.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether those hospitals, units or whole health districts which are granted self-governing trust status will be eligible for regional health authority development funds.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. NHS trusts will receive funding through contracts for the services they provide. In addition they will be able to borrow within external financing limits, which will be set for each trust annually.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will arrange for the numbers of registered overseas voters in each parliamentary constituency to be published in the 1991 edition of the electoral statistics to be produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Dorrell
  These statistics will be included by the OPCS in "Electoral Statistics 1991" (series EL No. 18) to be published next year, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of people on the electoral roll for England and Wales in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total numbers of parliamentary electors on registers in England and Wales in 1989 and 1990 were 38,560,541 and 38,596,117 respectively. Corresponding figures for each constituency have been published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in "Electoral Statistics 1990" (series EL No. 17), a copy of which is in the Library.

  NHS Campaigns
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) his Department and (b) the national health service spent in the last year for which figures are available on marketing (i) the national health service itself, (ii) health education campaigns, (iii) healthy eating campaigns and (iv) AIDS campaigns.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Expenditure figures for 1989–90 on public information campaigns, in the four areas requested, run by the Department are as follows:

  £ million

  National Health Service

  0·356

  Health Education (Drug Misuse)

  3·808

  Healthy Eating (Food Hygiene)

  0·373

  AIDS

  1·493

  The Department also funds the Health Education Authority whose total expenditure in 1989–90 was just

  409
  over £27 million. A large proportion of this money was spent on healthy eating and AIDS health education campaigns.

  Health authorities have to date reported spending of over £13·25 million in 1989–90 on local HIV prevention initiatives. They also ran other local health education campaigns, but the financial details of these are not held centrally.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sum is currently transferred from Mersey region to Wirral for psychiatric services; and if this sum could be divided between acute services and community support services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority.

  Ondansetron
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all patients receiving chemotherapy cancer treatment at a self-governing trust hospital or a directly managed hospital will have the drug Ondansetron available to them if it is prescribed by the senior medical doctor in charge of their treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Ondansetron is available for prescription by doctors throughout the national health service for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for cancer. Some hospitals, however, have drawn up formularies of preferred treatments for many conditions from which the doctors involved would usually prescribe.

  HIV
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is planned to be spent in the HIV budget in the Wirral during the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Of the £3,602,000 allocated this year to Mersey regional health authority for HIV-related services, I understand that the region has allocated £269,000 to the Wirral health authority.

  Hull Health Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the length of the waiting list of orthopaedic operations by hospital in the Hull health authority area; and what is the number of patients awaiting treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: Information about the number of patients on hospital waiting lists is collected according to the specialty in which treatment will be given and not by the diagnosis or type of operation. The information is available centrally only in terms of the district of treatment, not individual hospitals.

  The number of patients waiting more than a year in trauma and orthopaedics in Hull district health authority has fallen from 343 in March 1979 to 51 in March 1990. In addition, the number of patients treated in this specialty in this district has risen by 35 per cent. between 1979 and 1990 from 2,300 to 3,100. The total waiting list reduced over the same period, from 874 to 452. The total number
  410
  waiting in March 1990 therefore represented on average only eight weeks' work in hand, compared with the 20 weeks' work represented by the total list in March 1979.

  School Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to provide immediate repayment of moneys spent on the provision of milk for the under-fives for individual schools and nursery units that qualify for free milk under the Welfare Food Regulations 1988; and if this provision is made for private nurseries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The Welfare Food Regulations 1988 allow for the provision of free milk for the under-fives in registered day nurseries, local education authority day nurseries and schools, or those in the care of registered child minders. Repayment for the milk provided is made as soon as practicable following the receipt of an application under the regulations.

  The provision covers all registered private nurseries.

DEFENCE

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of EFA.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom remains committed to the EFA programme. There will be a continuing need to ensure the future air defence of the United Kingdom and British forces wherever they may be located.

  Armed Services (Discipline)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to review the disciplinary arrangements for members of the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such a review has already been carried out in preparation for anticipated legislation on this subject in the forthcoming Session.

  Middle East
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during his recent meeting with the United States Defence Secretary in London, he discussed the deployment of chemical and nuclear weapons in the middle east.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend discussed a range of current defence issues when he met Mr. Cheney on 15 October.

  Kuwait Invasion
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the additional daily cost per vessel incurred by the extended stationing of Royal Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and/or the Indian Ocean in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Costs are not collected in this way.

  Fuel Air Explosives
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of fuel air explosives are held by United Kingdom armed forces; and what research is currently being undertaken on such explosives in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom does not hold stocks of fuel air explosives. It is not the practice to provide information on detailed aspects of our research programme.

  Arms Sales Conference
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has received an invitation to attend or participate in the day-school colloquium "Future of International Arms Sales", organised by the Trust for Research and Education on the Arms Trade, to be held in Liverpool on 17 November.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will institute an inquiry into the long-term health effects of radiation doses received by civilian fitters who worked on the refit of the nuclear reactors in the Royal Navy submarines HMS Renown, HMS Dreadnought, HMS Churchill and HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I see no need for such an inquiry. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 19 October,Official Report, column 964.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the refit of HMS Churchill and on her future deployment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend announced in his statement on 25 July 1990 that the Royal Navy would maintain 16 submarines in the longer term, of which around three quarters would be nuclear powered. Following this announcement, the Government have decided to decommission a number of older nuclear-powered submarines, including HMS Churchill. Work on Churchill's refit has therefore stopped.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will institute an inquiry into the levels of radiation exposure received by civilian refit workers in the reactor room of HMS Renown in the early 1970s.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I see no need to institute such an inquiry. In all submarine refits individual exposure levels have been controlled in accordance with MOD and statutory instructions.

  Royal Ordnance Factory, Chorley
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cause and consequences of the explosion at the royal ordnance ammunition factory at Chorley on 13 October.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy for his departmental library of the videocassette and transcript of the BBC2 television programme, "Death on Delivery" on arms sales, broadcast in the "Open Space" series on 3 July.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Defence Export Services Organisation has played in the sale of weaponry and military equipment to Iraq since May 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Defence Export Services Organisation, in all its assistance to industry, has scrupulously followed Government policy as it has developed in relation to military sales to Iraq. Prior to September 1980 all potential exports to Iraq were considered on a case-by-case basis. In September 1980, at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq conflict, all exports of lethal equipment to Iraq were prohibited. This prohibition was further developed in the guidelines announced on 29 October 1985,Official Report, column 450. In conformity with the United Nations resolution, all exports to Iraq, except for some medical and humanitarian exports, are now banned.

  Submarine Patrols
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Royal Navy submarines or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation submarines were on patrol off the Aberdeenshire coast on 4 October.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to an incident on 4 October involving the fishing vessel Moray Adventurer. No United Kingdom or NATO submarines were in the vicinity at the time of the incident.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken by his Department to advise coastguards, fishermen and harbour-masters of patrols by Royal Navy or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation submarines in fishing waters off the coast of Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the efficiency of such communications.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For security reasons details of individual submarine movements are not disclosed. The more usual areas in which submarines exercise in United Kingdom waters are, however, clearly marked on Admiralty charts.

  Submarines (Fishing Nets)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents have been recorded by his Department of the snagging of nets of fishing vessels by Royal Navy or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation submarines in each of the past five years giving the location of such incidents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Vessel

  Location

  18 February 1987

  Summer Mourne

  Irish Sea

  26 September 1987

  Heroine

  North Channel

  6 December 1987

  Prevail

  North Channel

  413

  Date

  Vessel

  Location

  27 October 1988

  Brilliant Star

  Sound of Bute

  3 December 1988

  Mount Eden

  North West of Mallin Head

  17 April 1989

  Laurel

  Irish Sea

  28 June 1989

  Huntress

  Firth of Clyde

  12 September 1989

  Contestor

  Irish Sea

  13 November 1989

  Scotia

  Butt of Lewis

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if scientists from (i) the atomic weapons establishments, (ii) the Blacknest verification centre or (iii) his Department have(a) been given access by the United States Government or weapons development laboratories to data arising from United States nuclear tests in Nevada and (b) been permitted to be present to monitor United States nuclear tests since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the 1958 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States for co-operation in the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes, such information may be exchanged and joint experiments may be conducted. United Kingdom scientists may be present at the nuclear test site in connection with joint United Kingdom/United States tests for periods of several months.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out in the Official Report the proportion of overall costs of the United Kingdom nuclear testing programme that is made up by (a) research, design and development, (b) nuclear testing and (c) deployment and storage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It would not be in the national interest to reveal such details of the United Kingdom's nuclear testing programme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of nuclear warhead tests conducted by or on behalf of the United Kingdom in Nevada since 1979 were undertaken to check the safety and reliability of the warheads.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such tests are carried out in order to maintain the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons capability and it is not our practice to comment on specific aspects.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total radioactive inventory that has been vented to the atmosphere from United Kingdom nuclear explosive tests conducted underground at the Nevada test site since 1963; and whether his Department has conducted any survey on the potential adverse health effects posed by such releases of airborne radioactivity.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The total radioactive inventory released from United Kingdom underground tests at the Nevada test site amounts to less than 100 Curies—3·7 terabecquerels—and consisted of short-lived gaseous isotopes. No releases were of any health or environmental consequence on site or off site.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 18 October,Official Report, column 923, if he will indicate details of the recent exchanges between officials of his Department and Messrs de Normann and Mackenzie Geidt.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The exchanges between officials of my Department and Messrs de Normann and Mackenzie Geidt that followed the Central TV programme "Cambodia—The Betrayal" shown on 9 October related to their concern about allegations made in the media about them and the Ministry of Defence.

  Smoke and Noise Emissions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to ensure that the emission of smoke and noise on defence property that might cause a public nuisance will be kept to the minimum necessary to protect the national interest.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to ensure that the emission of smoke and noise on defence property that might cause a public nuisance will be kept to the minimum necessary to protect the national interest.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The policy of my Department is to act at all times in an environmentally responsible manner. However, essential activities, such as military training and research, unavoidably result in the emission of smoke and noise, in consequence of which an amendment has been made to the Environmental Protection Bill to exempt such nuisances which occur on defence premises. It is intended that the nuisance caused by smoke and noise will be kept to a minimum and I have placed in the Library a policy statement to this effect which is being circulated within the Department and to visiting forces.

  Community Charge
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage of service personnel in service accommodation in Britain who are liable for community charges(a) below and (b) above the average, as calculated for the purposes of reimbursement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The totals were (a) 48·2 per cent. and (b) 51·8 per cent.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage of service personnel 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.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: A total of 33·2 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage of service personnel in service
  415
  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.
  416
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: A total of 18·7 per cent. in 1990–91.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
Lord Cochrane of Cults—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Children: UN Convention
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will ratify the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Kingdom signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on 19th April 1990. We intend to ratify the convention as soon as possible.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, that is a disappointing reply, especially when one considers that 54 countries have now ratified the convention, including significant European states such as France, the USSR, Portugal and Spain. Does not the Minister agree that if Britain continues to drag its feet, our isolation within the United Nations will be almost as great as it is at present within the European Community? Is the Minister further aware that we need to ratify the convention urgently as the convention has provided that at the beginning of next year a 10-member committee will be set up? However, only countries that have ratified the convention can take part in the selection process. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will ratify the convention before that time in order to take part in that important procedure?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is disappointed with my reply. I can assure her that we are not dragging our feet over this issue. We have to consider carefully whether our domestic legislation is in harmony with the text of the convention. This is a matter which takes some time. It covers important, wide-ranging and complex areas of legislation which involve no fewer than nine government departments. As I have said, although this process may take some time, we shall ratify as soon as it is completed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there any truth in the report that the reason why the Government have not yet ratified the convention is because they oppose Articles 9 and 10 of the convention which lay down that children are not to be separated from their families? The articles further state that, if children are separated from their families, they should be reunited humanely. Does the Minister agree that that concept should not pose a difficulty? It is a point of compassion which I should have thought the Government would support at once. Will the Minister confirm that about 40,000 children are dying
1688
every day? Will the Minister further confirm that the Government's overseas aid will be increased next year and targeted to the needs of children?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the final point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition with regard to our aid programme for next year is a different issue. I do not have figures with me on that point. We may have to enter a reservation to protect the workings of our nationality and immigration laws; but this should in no way stand in the way of ratification. We shall submit the convention to Parliament for ratification once we have completed the process of scrutinising the compatibility of our legislation with the terms of the convention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again, but I respectfully suggest that the Minister has not dealt with the point I made about Articles 9 and 10. Do these form an obstacle to the Government's ratification of the convention?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we may have to enter reservations. That is a matter which is under consideration at the present time. No final decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the convention by Her Majesty's Government before ratification. However, would it not be possible to accelerate these processes somewhat considering that it is now nearly one year since the convention was opened for signature in the United Nations? Will the Government not support the Prime Minister in her unanimous approval as one of the 71 heads of state and government who approved the recent plan of action at the children's summit in New York which I witnessed as a representative of the British national committee of UNICEF?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's standing in this matter. The scrutiny that is required in this case constitutes a long and time consuming process. However, there is a further reason why the scrutiny takes a certain length of time in our case. We have to discover the attitudes of the 13 dependent territories to ascertain whether they wish to ratify the convention and whether they wish to enter reservations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked a specific question about Articles 9 and 10. The Minister did not answer the question in regard to those articles. If he is unaware of what the articles contain, the House will have its usual sympathy if he frankly admits to that fact.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I answered that question. There are areas where we are considering whether or not to enter reservations. We have not yet made any final decisions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is not part of the problem the fact that Articles 9 and 10 may well involve a substantial derogation from extant case law on immigration?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we may have to make a reservation to protect the workings of our nationality and immigration laws. However, I can

1689
assure the House that that will not affect the existing rights of children to join their parents in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. I pressed the point, as did my noble friend, because of a case which came to my attention of Kurdish parents in this country who applied for their child, who was seriously ill in Turkey, to join them here. Because of delays inherent in the system, of which the noble Lord is aware, the child was not allowed to come to this country and died. Does he agree that that is not in the tradition of governments in this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only reassure the noble Lord and the House that the Government will not be responsible for any unreasonable or unnecessary delay in the ratification of the convention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give the House and the people of this country an indication as to when the final decision will be made so that the position will be clear?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that once the process of scrutinising our legislation and assessing its compatibility with the convention is complete and once we have concluded our consultations with the dependent territories, we shall introduce the convention to Parliament for ratification.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure me that one of the reasons why the Government appear to be dragging their feet is not because they do not agree with Article 19, which deals with the protection of the child from all forms of physical or mental violence? I hope that that is not the case and that the noble Lord can give me that assurance.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House once again that we are not dragging our feet in this matter. Although two of our colleagues in the European Community—Portugal and France —have ratified the convention they did so only within the last two months, and it is unreasonable to insist that we are dragging our feet.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give more information in respect of some of the articles of the convention which, as the noble Lord said, we signed in April? Will the Government restore income support for 16 and 17 year-olds to a level which will enable those young people to secure independent accommodation, where necessary, in line with Articles 26 and 27?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is another question. However, I am quite happy to look into the matter and to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the House, will the noble Lord now reply to the question that was put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he sought.

Post Office: Sunday Collections
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many Post Office collection boxes now have Sunday collections and how many do not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I understand that of the Post Office's 105,300 post boxes Sunday collections are being made from 20,300.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he not aware that it is a very disappointing Answer in as much as the original announcement, made at the time of the increase in postal charges, indicated that whole areas would have a complete collection? Does not discriminating in this way, mainly against rural areas, undermine the whole doctrine which has supported the concept of the Post Office's monopoly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that my noble friend is disappointed. The 20,300 post boxes were chosen following a great deal of consumer research and consultation with users of the Post Office. Some 9,000 of those post boxes are in rural areas. The whole of the country is covered, apart from some communities in Highland areas which decided not to accept Sunday collections for religious reasons.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether any information is available as to the times of Sunday collections from those post boxes? I ask that question because near my home there are two post boxes from which Sunday collections are made but one has to post one's letters by midday. That is not nearly as convenient as 4.30 p.m., which was the time of the collection in the old days.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that in different parts of the country individual post boxes have different collection times.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as well as having no Sunday collection there is no collection from many post boxes in central London after 1 p.m. on Saturday? Does he agree that that means that a letter posted soon after lunch on Saturday cannot be collected until Monday and therefore does not reach its destination until Tuesday or Wednesday, and then only if you are lucky?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that Post Office management will read carefully the points that have been made on this Question and will respond accordingly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as my noble friend's original Answer revealed that about one in five boxes will have a collection on Sunday, can he say whether the post boxes will be selected area by area or whether collections will be made from 20 per cent. of post boxes in a number of areas? If it is to be the latter, could there be a distinguishing mark on those post

1691
boxes from which collections are made on Sundays so that one knows where to go when there are so few minutes in which to post a letter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the general rule will be that there will be a Sunday collection from all sorting offices, Crown post offices and sub post offices. Those post boxes will have a special sticker to say that there are collections on Sundays.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am one of those people who spends most of Saturday writing letters in order to stuff the post box on Sunday and who is anxious that now we have the service we do not lose it. Can the Minister tell me the rate of delivery of first class post from Sunday collections? Is the percentage delivered on Monday as high as on normal weekdays?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no individual breakdown for weekdays but I understand that there has been an overall improvement of some 3.6 per cent. against the previous year, which beat the 3 per cent. target.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when a final decision is made on Sunday collections, will the Minister ensure that due account is taken of the desire of many Post Office workers to share in the advantage of spending Sundays with their families as do so many other workers in this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there are vast numbers of workers who work during the weekends and at night. Decisions are taken by Post Office management after discussion with the unions concerned.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend know that last week I posted a letter on Friday morning to go by first class mail and it did not arrive in the centre of Birmingham until the following Wednesday? Will he ask the Post Office whether it believes the old statement that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we all have individual horror stories of the quality of the postal service. At the same time, I know my noble friend will agree that the vast majority of her letters arrive on time.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in parts of London an additional box has been added to the pillar box? Can he explain the reason for that?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why, after some months of such discrimination, there is still no indication on letter boxes of whether they are subject or not to a Sunday collection?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the Post Office has made it quite clear that it will plainly mark post boxes that have Sunday collections. I shall ask the Post Office to look into the matter.

NHS Trusts: Criteria for Approval
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the criteria on which the Secretary of State for Health will judge applications for NHS trust status and what weight will he give to expressions of opinion by doctors and nurses working in the National Health Service and to the views of the local communities concerned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the key criteria in assessing National Health Service trust applications will be tangible benefits to patients and improvements in the quality of the services offered; strong leadership and effective management; involvement of senior professional staff, including clinicians, in management; and financial viability. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take account of views expressed by all those with an interest, including health authorities, staff, patients, GPs, community health councils and the local community.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her right honourable friend will take those interests into consideration. Is she aware that, in a very large number of districts where health service managers are seeking to opt out of district health authority control, polls have been held of consultants, local GPs and a cross-section of local opinion and that in the vast majority of cases there is massive opposition? Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to force NHS trusts on unwilling consultants, doctors, nurses and their patients, thus creating conflict and antagonism within a service that is already hard pressed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very well aware that the noble Lord and his party are keen to whip up enthusiasm against National Health Service trusts. Such ballots as have been held nearly all ask different questions and apply to different constituencies. We have consistently made clear that it would not be appropriate to hold ballots on applications for trust status. Such applications will include complex and detailed proposals on service management and personnel matters. It would not be right to attempt to reduce those matters to a form which could be used as the basis of a ballot; nor would it be right effectively to give any one group a power of veto over a trust application. The Secretary of State will decide whether an application for trust status should be approved on the merits of the individual application and in the light of the views of all those concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is not just a question of prejudice. It is a question of judgment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is very difficult to consult the community since one cannot define the community? Will she take it from me that what people want is a free, comprehensive hospital service which uses its

1693
resources effectively and efficiently and therefore gives a better service? Is that not precisely what these trusts are designed to do?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is indeed an efficient and effective service that we seek. I remind noble Lords that National Health Service trusts will remain firmly within the National Health Service. I emphasise that consultation is built into the process.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the point of my noble friend's Question was to make certain that the answer she gave showed that all those involved in creating the new National Health Service trust hospitals had been taken into consideration? Can she say whether representatives of the majority of the people whom she mentioned are directly opposed to what the Government propose? If so, will their views prevail? Will she confirm that when they have made their points it will not, because the Government continue to ignore them, have been a waste of time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in preparing formal applications regions have ensured that they have been given local publicity. They have sought the views of all those with an interest, including, as I said, health authorities, staff, patients, GPs, community health councils and the local community. All those views will be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he considers the application.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in this country we are very lucky to have an enormous amount of voluntary service given to hospitals? Although it is argued that it is difficult to consult the community, does she further agree that consulting voluntary associations which work in hospitals, such as the leagues of hospital friends, the WRVS and the Red Cross, would give a very good overall view of the feelings of the community?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes indeed. I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that those are exactly the kinds of organisation that we expect will have an input. We have made it clear that consultations should take place over a three-month period, and therefore there is time to obtain an input from all those interested.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether the Secretary of State will take into account the degree to which the individual hospital has been able to develop the resource management initiative—in other words, to modernise its management—before it can qualify to become a self-governing trust?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the financial viability of the unit concerned will be of extreme importance. Clearly those which have made considerable progress with the resource management initiative will be in an advantageous position.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the community health councils have the same rights in visiting trust hospitals as they do for non-trust hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, both types of hospital remain fully in the National Health Service.

Electricity Generation: Non-Fossil Fuel Levy
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government
Why nuclear and renewable generation of electricity are not separated for non-fossil fuel levy purposes.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, before I answer this Question, I should declare an interest, in that my family business has been engaged in exploring the possibilities of wind generation. The fossil fuel levy compensates the regional electricity companies in England and Wales for the additional costs they incur in fulfilling the non-fossil fuel obligations imposed on them. While separate obligations have been imposed for nuclear and renewable generating capacity, it would be unnecessarily complex to impose separate levies in respect of nuclear and renewables.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord in declaring an interest. I am concerned with certain, as I consider them, wholly desirable renewable schemes. Does the noble Lord agree that government policy is strongly to support the renewable generation of electricity, particularly in view of what is written in the White Paper on the environment? If so, does he further agree that a period of eight years for which there is levy support is too short a time in which to raise project finance for some of the larger schemes and to prepare a viable plan? While a number of smaller schemes could get by on that basis, is he aware that great difficulty could arise for larger schemes?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, under the NFFO, the 12 regional electricity companies have entered into contracts for over eight gigawatts of nuclear capacity and 170 megawatts nameplate capacity of renewables. That demonstrates the success of the policy to date.
At the moment I can see no advantage in separating the two until it is possible to review the success of the scheme in the light of experience. At present it is better for any adjustment to be made through prices rather than timescale.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that I have no interest to declare in this Question other than as a seeker after truth, as always.
Since the passage of the Electricity Act, the nuclear industry has been taken away from the privatisation system and kept in public ownership. In the light of that change, would it not be a sensible manoeuvre to make it entirely clear to the public whether they are

1695
paying a levy for nuclear energy, what the real costs to them of nuclear energy are and what the real costs of renewable energy are?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. Those costs will emerge in the declared accounts of Nuclear Electric and others; and it will become apparent what the levy will be.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the number of renewable schemes that have recently been agreed. They amount to 75. However, the total amount of megawatts installed will be only 170. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that a small sized power station would amount to more than that. Is that not evidence that only the smaller schemes are getting by and that many desirable larger schemes are finding difficulty in getting moving?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I take the noble Lard's point. We shall be reviewing the matter. I cannot reveal the details at the moment but I shall inform him.

Child Maintenance
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about child maintenance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be making a corresponding Statement in another place.
The Government have today published a White Paper, Children Come First, which sets out their proposals for a new system of maintenance for children. Copies have been placed in the Library.
These important proposals are a collaborative effort involving many departments of state. They are to be seen as a further step in the wide-ranging review of the family justice system which the Government have in hand. As with other aspects of that review, its aim is to give priority to the welfare of children and to highlight their parents' responsibility for ensuring it. It is a natural adjunct to the Children Act over which this House spent so much time and care in the last Session. It takes its place with the other items in that review such as divorce reform and the law on domestic violence on which Law Commission reports are expected and current work in departments on the arrangements for and place of conciliation, reconciliation and support services for the courts in family proceedings. At the same time my colleague the Home Secretary will be taking steps to ensure that maintenance is paid more reliably.
Every child has a right to receive care from his or her parents. Parents have a legal and moral responsibility to care for their children until the children are old enough to look after themselves. The parents of a child may separate. In some instances the parents nay not have lived together as a family at all. Events may change the relationship of the parents to each other. They may divorce, for example. But these events cannot in any way change the responsibilities of the parents towards their children.
1696
The payment of child maintenance is one important way in which parents fulfil those responsibilities. Government cannot ensure that families stay together. But we can and should ensure that parents make proper financial provision for their children whenever it can reasonably be expected.
The present system of maintenance is unnecessarily fragmented, and uncertain in its results. It is based largely on discretion; and it is operated through hundreds of courts and hundreds of social security offices throughout the United Kingdom. The cumulative effect is uncertainty and arguably inconsistent decisions about how much maintenance should be paid. In a great many cases, the maintenance awarded is not paid at all or the payments fall into arrears and take many weeks to re-establish.
Only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive maintenance regularly Over million lone parents and their children depend on income support. In 1989 only 23 per cent. of lone parents who were receiving income support received maintenance. Ten years ago the figure was 50 per cent. Income support represents 45 per cent. of the income of all lone parents. The cost in real terms to the taxpayer has risen from £1·4 billion in 1981–82 to £3·2 billion in 1988–89.
We have made improvements within the present system. These will help parents but they cannot solve all the problems. We now need strategic reform. Our proposals will deliver a single system available to all; consistent and predictable decisions about how much maintenance is to be paid; payments that bear a realistic relationship to the costs of caring for a child; a fair and reasonable way of deciding maintenance so it does not become a contest between parents to the detriment of the children; regular reviews of maintenance; a chance for children to share in their parents' standard of living; and continuing incentives for absent parents to work and to go on working; and we want to help caring parents who are ready and able to go to work to do so.
We do not want children to become dependent on income support whenever this can be avoided. It is not right that taxpayers should shoulder that responsibility if parents are able to do it themselves. After all, taxpayers include other families who are bringing up children.
We intend to achieve all these many objectives by introducing three important measures. The first is a formula for the calculation of maintenance. The second is to create a Child Support Agency which will assess, collect and enforce maintenance. The third is to make changes to the social security benefits which are paid to parents who work.
Before turning to the details of the formula I should tell the House that there will be a protected income level which is higher than income support. Nobody who is working will ever be left with less than that after maintenance is deducted. There will also be an

1697
upper income limit on the operation of the formula beyond which further support for the child will have to be sought in the courts.
Turning to the formula itself, it has three elements. First, there will be a maintenance bill which represents the day-to-day costs of caring for a child and which all parents should pay if they can afford to do so. The size of the bill will depend on the number and age of the children and will be based on income support rates.
Secondly, there will be an exempt income which the parent keeps before he pays any maintenance at all. So from his take-home pay he keeps enough to meet his own necessary expenses and his housing costs and the cost of those of his children who are living with him.
Thirdly, maintenance will be paid from the remaining income. We believe it is right that, once his expenses have been met, he should share the remaining income equally with his children until the maintenance bill has been paid. In most cases, this will mean that the absent parent will keep between two-thirds and three-quarters of his net, post tax, income. Those who can afford to meet the maintenance bill will continue to contribute to their children but at a lower rate.
Where the caring parent has enough income, she will also be expected to contribute towards the maintenance bill. Both parents are liable to support their children. We hope to apply this formula from early in 1992.
Absent parents who are receiving income support have the same legal and moral obligations towards their children as any other parents. As a general rule, they will be expected to make a nominal contribution from their income support for the maintenance of their children.
The second measure is the Child Support Agency, which will have responsibility for tracing absent parents, assessing, collecting and where necessary enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require the provision of information and to determine the method of payment. The agency will be required to review the maintenance payable every year. In Great Britain, the agency will operate as a Next Steps executive agency within the Department of Social Security. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make similar arrangements in Northern Ireland.
When the agency is fully operational, the courts will generally no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards. The courts will retain jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. These matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity, property settlements and spousal maintenance. As at present, generally parents may choose to apply for an assessment or may make their own private arrangements. The details of the formula will be well known and they will be able to use the formula themselves.
However, where there is a third party interest, that of the taxpayer, parents will be obliged to use the
1698
agency's services. The taxpayer has an interest when the caring parent is receiving income support or family credit for herself and the children. It is also in the parent's own interests. If a regular pattern of maintenance is established it is easier to move from benefit to work. If a parent unreasonably declines to seek maintenance, it will be possible to make some deduction from her adult allowance. There will of course be exceptions for those rare circumstances where it is not in the interests of the children to seek maintenance.
The third measure, and one to which the Government attach great importance, is providing more help for those parents who are looking after children and who want to go to work. Receiving maintenance, in addition to their earnings, will provide an invaluable bridge between reliance on income support and the world of work. But we believe that we should offer further help still to parents who work. We shall be making two significant changes in the rules for benefits paid to working people.
To coincide with the introduction of the formula we shall introduce a maintenance disregard of £15 per week. The first £15 of maintenance paid will be ignored for the purposes of calculating entitlement to family credit, housing benefit or community charge benefit.
At the same time we shall reduce the number of hours work which qualify for family credit from 24 to 16 hours a week. Similar adjustments will be made to the rules for receipt of income support. This will apply to all claimants. It will be of particular value to lone parents. This will make it easier for parents to combine work with their responsibilities for caring for children. No one will lose from this change because full protection will be provided.
These measures will make it easier for parents to achieve independence through their own efforts. The choice must be the parent's own; but we know that many of them wish to work. It is right that we should take steps to help them realise those ambitions.
We shall bring forward legislation which provides for the use of the formula, the powers of the agency and rights of appeal against the agency's decisions. We are giving further consideration to the precise form of the appeal structure.
This is an integrated package of important measures which will help children. Where maintenance is paid, it advances the interests of all of us. It is in the interests of the children that they should be maintained by their parents. Maintenance provides them with a reliable source of income, and they learn about the responsibilities which family members owe to each other; and it is in the interests of the caring parents. Maintenance provides them with a bridge into work and greater independence.
I commend the proposals in the White Paper to your Lordships as a further valuable step in our staged reforms of the family justice system.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making that interesting Statement. The principles behind the Statement—namely, that fathers, together with mothers who can afford it, should be responsible for the maintenance of their children and that the children come first—are obviously acceptable to the whole House and certainly to the Benches that I represent. However, there are some questions that one must ask in order to ensure that the measures are not intended merely to save money for the Government but effectively to relieve hardship in regard to the children, wives and mothers in the cases that will be considered.
I noted that when making the Statement the noble and learned Lord said that when the agency is fully operational it will deal with the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments. Then he used the words:
"the courts will generally no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards".
Does that statement mean that there will be exceptions to the rule and that the courts will be dealing with some applications? If so, what applications? Are they to be applications relating to people outside the income limits with which we are dealing when we think in terms of hardship, poverty and the general liability that will fall upon spouses who separate?
I also noticed that the noble and learned Lord dealt with the issue of lone parents. One has heard it said in many circles that in order for a lone mother to be able to claim the benefits through the agency when it is set up she must disclose the name of the father of the child. Is that right? Is it to be a qualification for an award c f maintenance that whatever the circumstances the lone mother must disclose the name of the father?
The noble and learned Lord also spoke of a possible appeals procedure which is to be worked out. Will provision be made for legal aid at the stage of first instance and also on appeal? It will be necessary for legal aid to be made available to parents with whom we shall be dealing in the main, and certainly in connection with an appeal.
I have read the Statement rapidly, as I am sure have other noble Lords who received copies. However, I have not seen or heard a reference to the way in which second families are to be treated. We often think of the children of the marriage that has broken up because the father has disappeared in order to set up another family. Under the regulations, how are the children of the second family to be protected?
The child support agency is also to have the task of enforcement. How will the agency enforce the payment of maintenance apart from those cases where deductions can be made from assets and income other than from earnings? Will that be done through the courts? What jurisdiction is the agency to have? One can think of many other questions. Indeed, I am sure that other noble Lords will raise further questions, but those I have asked have an application regarding the legal aspects.
1700
I have only one other comment to make in that context. There are many noble Lords who have repeatedly spoken with hope and have taken every opportunity to mention the family court. We did so last week when the Courts and Legal Services Bill came before your Lordships' House for consideration of Commons amendments. Will the business of obtaining uniformity through the agency mean that the family court will be made more distant? Many noble Lords considered that this very work could have been carried out by that court, providing uniformity and comfort for the family as a result of knowing that all its problems were being dealt with within the court's confines.
I repeat that the principles of the Statement may be right but we all wish to look at the details.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for making that interesting Statement.
We too on the Liberal Democrat Benches accept the principles behind the Statement. We too believe that fathers should be responsible for their offspring. We recognise also that the taxpayer has a legitimate interest in that matter. We are aware of the growing cost to the taxpayer. However, we do not wish our anxiety about that to become out of proportion with anxieties about other aspects of the problem. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord not to hope for too much from the application of this Statement both in terms of any possible deterrent effect on public morals and in terms of any possible reduction in expenditure.
The problem of single parents is not new. It has been with us as long as history. It has always been a cyclical problem. Attempts to deter the old Adam—if I may so put it—have never been particularly successful. There has always been a cyclical pattern. For example, if one looks at the rise around 1600, it is thought that to a large extent that was the result of unemployment and mobility—putting men in a position where they were not economically able to undertake the task of caring for a family. Therefore, I do not believe that this is something which maintenance applications can necessarily deter. I do not believe that it will save public expenditure quite as much as the Government hope.
If they are concerned about government expenditure, perhaps they will bear in mind that the cheapest way of reducing the bill for single parents is contraception. They might consider, for example, the position of the FPA clinics.
There are some crucial questions which cannot be answered by the information available to us. Phrases about the level of protected income sound all right so far, but we do not know exactly what that will mean in practice. In passing, I should like to ask not only the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but also whether the level of protected income will be index-linked. That will be quite important to its operation.
If that level of protected income is set too low, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about second families there is a risk—if the House will

1701
forgive me for putting it that way—of killing the gander which lays the golden eggs. There are plenty of cases of people who have taken the king's shilling, or whatever else one did in the past to evade such responsibility. If one sets the rate too high, that will be self-defeating.
Perhaps I may pursue the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the exclusion of the courts. I should like to know precisely how far that will go and, in particular, whether it will cover one of the commonest of all maintenance disputes; namely, the man who says, "You cannot make me maintain her. She is living with another man". I should like to know whether that dispute goes to the Child Support Agency or to the courts.
I warmly welcome the disregard. Indeed, I could not do otherwise without self contradiction. It is vital that the single parent of either sex should have an incentive to apply the procedure. The Child Support Agency is clearly a body about which we shall need to know more. I see no need to make any objection to it at present. I am interested.
The reduction in the number of hours needed to qualify for family credit is something which we can only welcome warmly. I should like to ask whether the procedure is to be used for attachment of earnings to maintenance orders. If it is, has there been any consultation on that matter with the Confederation of British Industry? That has a legitimate interest in the issue.
Finally, I should like to look with some care at the words:
"If a parent unreasonably declines to seek maintenance, it will be possible to make some deduction from her adult allowance".
That is a guarded form of words. However, in the light of past press reports, I am bound to wonder whether that is a procedure for pushing the mother to name the father of the child under the disincentive of some loss of benefit if she does not.
That has been tried before. It was tried in the times of Elizabeth I in Wiltshire. The result was that the mother named a man who had subjected her to sexual harassment. That man found it difficult to clear his name. I should like to ask whether the noble and learned Lord agrees that there are many good reasons for a mother not wishing to name the father of her child. Fear of violence is the most obvious reason. Desire to protect the man's position may be another reason. People may say that that is improper, but one cannot stop the fact that some mothers feel that. There may be a desire not to have the father involved in the upbringing of the child, and there may be perfectly good reasons for that, or it may be something as simple and elemental as a desire to wash that man right out of her hair. Those matters deserve respect; and whether or not we respect them, we cannot change them so we had better live with them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome of the principles of this Statement. Some questions have been asked and some detail has been requested. The situation is that the White Paper contains a good deal of detail. I am simply heralding the White Paper to your Lordships.
Perhaps I may take the very last question first as that is fresh in our minds; namely, about washing that man out of her hair and similar desires on the part of the lady unwilling to name the father. I believe that the phrases which we have used which the noble Earl kindly quoted covers that matter in the best possible way as a matter of principle; that is, the question of what is reasonable is in issue.
As regards the question about the courts that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the idea is that we should have a formula which applies and can be applied readily once the facts are ascertained. It will be the responsibility of the agency to inquire into those and to determine them.
I mentioned the question of an appeal from that determination, and we are considering the form of that. I mentioned also that there may be applications to the court in circumstances which I indicated. For example, that would have the effect of taking account of an income which is above the ordinary limit in particular cases. However, the general idea is to make this system of maintenance relatively simple to operate so that it will not require the interposition of the court in the ordinary situation.
Powers of enforcement were mentioned. I expect that the agency would have a variety of powers of enforcement available to it, and attachment of earnings would be one of those powers. I should say that while the White Paper sets out what is proposed, it invites comment on the way in which that may be carried out, and an opportunity for consultation will arise from that.
A very important question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the treatment of the second family. The primary rule is that a person is responsible for his own natural children. The situation as regards stepchildren is more difficult and the detail of that, so far as we have proposed detail upon it, can be found in the White Paper. I acknowledge that it is a difficult question. It will have a bearing on the protected level of income for that particular family.
The noble Lord is very attached to the family court and fears, without real reason, that the proposal may make what he regards as the family court more distant. The steps that we are taking and have taken are intended to achieve the ideals of the family court campaign, and the ideals that are dear to the noble Lord. We hope to minimise the amount of unnecessary conflict between parents over their children, and to have a graduated system of tribunals, from the lowest to the highest court, available to deal with cases involving children or families as may be appropriate to the nature of the problem in question.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about maintenance of the woman where, I believe he said,

1703
she is living with another man. We are not concerned with that. We are concerned with maintenance for the children. There will be an element in the maintenance of the child covering the need for someone to care for that child. Maintenance for the woman is a separate matter and is not subject to the agency. As to the protected income, the noble Earl asked whether it would be index linked. The level of protected income will be related to the income support levels and therefore will have built into it the changes appropriate for that.
As regards expenditure, it is important to have a proper system for the maintenance of children in the interests of the children. That is the primary aim of the change we are proposing. I believe that I have answered the questions put to me so far.
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, many of us in the Churches are profoundly distressed at the level of this problem in our country at the present time. Anything which the Government are able to do to meet the problem has our warm support. Like others who have asked questions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I support the principle of responsibility of those who have children and whose family relationships have broken down, whether men or women. My question relates to the protected level of income and how possible it will be to administer the system. One fear already expressed by noble Lords opposite is that some of the poorest people in our society will be affected by what is proposed, thereby making the problem for second families possibly worse.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can say whether it is possible to administer a system such as this simply enough for it to be generally understood? Anything unduly complex would cause more problems.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the idea of the formula is to try to enable that to be done. I know that the right reverend Prelate will be aware that it is always difficult to provide a simple rule which is just in all circumstances. We are endeavouring to provide a rule which is as simple as possible and which will do justice in the vast majority of cases. There may be exceptional circumstances; for example, at particularly high levels at which the court's intervention will be necessary. Apart from that, we are aiming at a system which will be reasonably simple to administer and which will do justice on the basis of the formula in the vast majority of cases.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, without going into the substance of this important Statement, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord for clarification. It has come to our notice that the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord is different from the Statement the Secretary of State is now making in the other place. I may be mistaken, but in the 40 years or so that I have been in these buildings I have never known that to happen before. I wonder whether the Statement the Secretary of State is making
1704
in the Commons will be repeated here after the noble and learned Lord has finished, and whether his Statement will be repeated in the House of Commons.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right. I made a Statement which it will not be necessary to repeat in the Commons. The substance of what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is saying in the Commons will bear a marked similarity to what I said. However, as both departments are very much involved in the matter it is appropriate that I should make the Statement to your Lordships and that the Secretary of State should make his Statement to the other place. The differences between the two are such as not to require their being repeated in either place. That will be seen when noble Lords have had a chance to examine the detail.
I wished to make the Statement because it is a very important statement of principle on family law generally. The support agency will be in the department of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Therefore he has a very direct interest in the matter also. It was thought right between us that we should arrange matters in the way we have. It is in the nature of an innovation for two Statements so closely related not to be repeated. I hope it may be an innovation in this case which the noble Lord will feel is, if anything, an improvement on the practice he has known over 40 years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord; I do not criticise him. His admission that it is an innovation will be helpful to the whole House. I see the reasons perfectly well. I am obliged for his explanation.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I too can thank the noble and learned Lord for the Statement. In the light of what the Leader of the Opposition said, may I say that many of us are grateful that the noble and learned Lord has himself spoken on the matter inasmuch as it is very closely linked to the Children Act. The noble and learned Lord took that Bill through the House.
Perhaps I may ask a number of questions. Many of us welcome the fact that men are to be responsible for their children, whether in or out of marriage. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that under the Children Act 1948 it was suggested that men who could not afford to pay for their children should be exempt when the children were either removed for adoption or put into care? It was decided by all the social workers in the country that however small the assessment, those fathers should pay something—not for financial reasons but in order that a father should feel responsible for his children, and the children feel that their natural father was taking an interest in them. I therefore welcome that part of the Statement.
Will it be possible for mothers with young children —babies—to have the choice of staying at home and looking after those young children rather than going out to work? Can that be taken into account in the formula that is to be set up? Many of us believe that it is in the interests of very young children that they are

1705
cared for by their mother. Is it to be possible, as it is in France and other countries in Europe, for the mother to stay at home and look after her very young children?
I refer now to the agency that is to administer the situation. Will there be one agency in the country or separate agencies for different regions? How is a mother, or indeed a putative father, to appeal? Will they appeal to the agency or to the courts? How will it be done? How will the agency be set up? Who will serve on it? To which ministry will the agency be responsible? There are many ministries involved in this type of work. I think I have asked a sufficient number of questions for my noble and learned friend to be going on with.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend's questions are always well informed and important. I am sure that she has many more but perhaps the White Paper will answer some of them.
There will be one agency for Great Britain. It will be an executive agency of the Next Steps variety within the Department of Social Security; in other words, responsible to the Secretary of State for Social Security and on the basis of a Next Steps agency structure.
The intention is that a person wishing either to claim maintenance or to have maintenance liability determined will apply to the agency and the agency will then undertake the matter. As regards appeal, the precise machinery for appeal against an agency's determination will be a matter to be further considered and any views which your Lordships may have will be considered with great care. There is the possibility of having a form of tribunal as the appeal from the agency. Alternatively, the matter might go to the courts.
As regards the formula, as I said, this will be based on income support considerations. However, it may well be right that a proportion of that should be related to the element of need for a carer. That might well reflect the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I put a specific matter to my noble and learned friend. He will be aware, of course, that it is a feature of the divorce law in England, and probably elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that before a court grants a dissolution of a marriage it has to be satisfied as to the care and maintenance of the children; otherwise the parents do not get their final decree. I did not understand from the Statement whether what has been said this afternoon will interfere with that feature or whether it will be retained in its present form.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I have said this afternoon does not touch directly on that. The Statement concerns simply the question of maintenance responsibilities. If the parties can agree on maintenance, there is no need for any action under this system. On the other hand, even if parties have been able to agree, questions may arise later on the enforcement of their agreement. If that happens and a party wishes to use the agency, the agency would be
1706
operating in accordance with the formula system generally. Other matters, of course, will remain with the court subject to the effect of the revisions of the Children Act on the matters to which my noble and learned friend refers. I do not see that the present proposals will affect that position. The main effect on the matter to which my noble and learned friend refers will derive from the provisions of the Children Act which modify it.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I have a question which may have a simple answer. While I, too, cannot possibly disagree with the principle that fathers should be responsible for the maintenance of their children, nevertheless for a single mother bringing up her children the bottom line is that the cash comes in at the end of the week so that she can feed and maintain her children. If a mother is reliant on maintenance rather than income support, or part of each, and there is a breakdown in the payment of the maintenance, what can be done for that family in the short term?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is part of the reason why I believe it is sensible to have an executive agency within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Security. The system would certainly seek to pursue the maintenance obligations by pursuing the liable parent. However, if for some reason the payment were not forthcoming under the agency's efficient collection system, of course the ordinary income support system would be in place.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I have one question for the noble and learned Lord, but first I welcome the fact that similar legislation will be introduced in Northern Ireland by a separate order. I hope that there will be no time lag in its introduction into Northern Ireland and that it will coincide with operations within the United Kingdom. My question refers to appeals. I did not hear the noble and learned Lord reply to the question concerning legal aid. Will such assistance be given in cases going before a tribunal? Does the noble and learned Lord envisage that happening?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, the detail in regard to appeals is still open to consideration, as the White Paper will show. The precise form of an appeal has yet to be determined; therefore, any question of legal aid does not arise at this juncture. The question is whether appeals should go to some form of tribunal, existing or new, or to the courts. That is a matter still to be determined and views on the matter would be extremely welcome.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues on tackling a problem which is a legal and social minefield. We have not yet had the opportunity to see the White Paper but presumably there will be equality in treatment. The noble and learned Lord used the masculine gender, but will he confirm that the mother and father will be equally responsible, particularly bearing in mind that, quite rightly, women have careers and are just as capable of leaving their families as men?

1707
My second question relates to access. I have heard many men say that they would be happy to pay maintenance—indeed, have wanted to pay maintenance—but have been denied access to their children. That hurt them very much and, indeed, discouraged them from paying maintenance or continuing with maintenance.
I ask one final question which relates to the family support and family income system. Will the amount of income support —I do not know how to phrase this —still encourage men, and indeed women, to go to work rather than become unemployed and exist simply on the amount of income support?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as it is fresh in my mind I take the last question first. Certainly part of our aim is to do nothing to discourage people from working and remaining independent. Therefore, the arrangements are proposed with that very much in mind.
As regards the first point, I used the masculine gender in describing the absent parent, and the White Paper is careful to point out that that is a very common case. Therefore, we use the masculine gender, but the proposals are intended to apply equally if the absent parent is a woman. I use the phraseology that the noble Lord will find in the White Paper, which makes it absolutely plain that we intend that the proposals apply to both genders equally.
The noble Lord raised a question about access, which is of vital importance in practical terms. I believe that he will find the issue mentioned in the White Paper. It is another matter to know precisely how to deal with it. If the noble Lord has help to offer us on that we shall be glad to hear it.
Speaking generally, the truth is that the father should have access to his child and he has an obligation to maintain his child. However, there may be circumstances in which it is not in the interests of the child that the father should have access. If the court takes that view, the result ought not to be to remove the father's responsibility for maintenance. As the father is responsible for maintenance, he should pay it, whether or not he has access.
Anyone who has had experience of dealing with litigation in this area knows that fathers often put the two together, as the noble Lord did in the example he cited. That is perfectly understandable though the two are really distinct. The responsibility to pay maintenance for the child is a general and subsisting obligation. Sadly, there may be cases in which the court decides that it is not appropriate in the best interests of the child that a particular father should see the child. It is a problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. As I say, any help which noble Lords can give in providing the machinery to solve the problem will be much appreciated.
I re-echo here what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. It is a practical view which I share. It is unwise to expect too much of any system. To be able to solve this problem completely may be expecting too much of the system. However, we have the matter very much in mind.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive my persistence? The point that I wish to raise is particularly relevant to the interesting question which my noble friend asked. If there were to be established a family court where questions of access could be dealt with at the same time as issues concerning maintenance, would that not be so much better than setting up a separate agency? The two matters would dovetail. Is the noble and learned Lord, with all his knowledge and experience, not aware of this? We may have a situation where maintenance is awarded against a father in a situation such as that to which my noble friend referred. The child may be illegitimate. The circumstances would be such that maintenance would be awarded by a different tribunal, at a different place from that where access may be dealt with, if, for example, it was a divorce matter. Are we not separating two matters that should be judged together?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, will my noble and learned friend forgive my intervention? We have now spent 21 minutes on this matter. After my noble and learned friend has replied we should move on to the next business.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the object is to provide a simple way to arrive at maintenance. As I pointed out in the Statement, a variety of discretions is available at the moment to determine the amount of maintenance. I believe that, generally, maintenance should be a relatively simple matter and determined by a formula, with an agency having the power to get the necessary information and provide the necessary help in collection which is available to it.
Access is a distinct question. As I said earlier, the considerations are quite different. Considerations in respect of maintenance and the responsibility for it do not disappear, whatever the other circumstances. Access is a different matter. It is appropriate that it should be decided by the court where it is contested. It is important that these two issues are seen as distinct for the reasons which I have sought to explain.

Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
City of Dundee District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Air Traffic Control and Civil Aviation: ECC Reports
3.56 p.m.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd rose to move, That this House takes note of the reports of the European Communities Committee on Air Traffic Control (12th Report, HL Paper 41), and on Civil Aviation: A Free Market by 1992? (16th Report, HL Paper 63).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I refer to the two reports that emanate from Sub-committee B of the Select Committee on European Communities. The first relates to air traffic control and the other to civil aviation and a free market by 1992. I feel that I should say a word of appreciation to the very many witnesses who provided valuable evidence to the committee. Without their evidence I do not believe that reports of this nature could have been produced. I would also like to thank our special adviser, Mr. Hofton, from the Cranfield Institute of Technology. I wish also to give a very special word of appreciation to our remarkable clerk, Simon Burton.
Since I shall be leaving Sub-committee B in November because of the rotation rules, I thank all my colleagues on that committee for the very noble work that they have done and the heavy burden that they have borne. It is not just taking evidence in inquiries that takes up the time; it is the mass of paper that has to be scrutinised if the proper process of scrutiny of these committees is to be performed. Despite the very heavy pressure, I am quite convinced that in no way should there be any diminution in the scrutiny of EC proposals before Parliament.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, is present here to answer what are both complex and important issues. I am also delighted that my noble friend Lord Clinton Davis is here. I hope that he will be speaking from the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his promotion and on representing my party on the subject of transport. With his past connections with the Commission as a commissioner, he will be able to provide us with an enormous degree of information and advice.
Air traffic control is part of the infrastructure of transport. Infrastructure is a prerequisite for a healthy society, whether it be concerned with industry or trading, road, rail, the horse or shipping. Air transport is a component part of the infrastructure of transport. Air traffic control is an essential part of that infrastructure. We are already seeing signs of congestion and delay, particularly in the South East of England. It may be that new airport capacity will provide some answer. However, the provision of new facilities will only aggravate the situation unless we can finds ways and means to ensure that our air space is used more efficiently than at present.
The committee did not inquire into aspects of air traffic control such as equipment and staffing levels but we received evidence of the incompatibility of much of the equipment decided upon by national governments and also of very poor forms of communication between transport centres. We decided that we would concentrate on the Commission's proposals, particularly as the Select Committee on Transport of another place was looking into the question of air traffic control in this country.
The Commission's proposals are set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the report. In taking evidence it became clear that the central issue was whether or not the Commission should have a significant role in
1710
setting and implementing policy. The committee concluded that it preferred at present—I stress "at present"—the decision of the Council of Ministers that the role should be more modest since there are already in existence various international organisations with legal competence for resolving political and economic problems, organisations representing countries which are not members of the Community. We took the view that if change was necessary it would be better done through evolution.
We make a number of proposals in the report which centre mainly around greater co-ordination between the various authorities already in existence. We suggest that the Commission should consider, and Ministers consider, whether an observer role would be more apposite than the role proposed by the Commission itself. I should like to ask the following questions. How will Ministers ensure that the present European Civil Aviation Conference recommendations are implemented? I refer to paragraph 35 of the report. In particular, will the Commission produce proposals for their implementation as part of Community law thus making them legally binding on the Twelve? I refer to paragraph 42 of the report. The Council of Ministers needs to ensure effective co-ordination between the work of the various bodies. Is the Minister confident that this will be sufficient to provide effective responsibility for long-term planning? Can he tell the House what use is being made of Community money under the structural funds to solve local air traffic control problems? That is referred to in paragraph 41.
I turn to the second report referred to in the Motion. All of us are aware of the dramatic increase in the past 25 years in both passengers and freight. And there is every sign that this increase will continue. We have all witnessed, or participated in, congestion and delays. What is now happening should be a warning to us.
The committee recognised that the industry has been and to some extent remains highly protected. In 1987 the Commission brought forward a series of proposals with the intention of liberalising the regime. It is fair to say that little change has taken place as a consequence of those proposals. Progress, where it has been achieved, has been through bilateral agreements such as that between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
The package of proposals is in many ways very radical and, taking the known attitude of some governments, very brave. If the proposals are implemented much greater opportunity for competition will arise. Whereas in the first report the committee preferred the Council of Ministers' approach, in the second report the committee fully supported the Commission and was in some ways critical of some governments' reactions to the proposals. If we can sweep away the legislative protection—an objective these proposals go a good way towards achieving—how will we drag this industry screaming into the free market? How will we create and maintain competition? The Commission's

1711
proposals are set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. I shall deal with just two of them. I refer, first, to the question of fares.
Under the present provisions, if an airline wishes to introduce a new fare structure on a route—between, let us say, London and Paris—and one of the governments wants to refuse, that is the end of the matter and the air fare cannot be introduced. The new proposal means that there will have to be double disapproval. In other words, both governments concerned with the route will have to disagree. If that proposal were to be brought forward and implemented a great deal could be achieved in regard to the liberalisation of air transport.
The second and perhaps more important proposal relates to access and capacity sharing. This is set out in paragraph 5 of the report. The proposal on market access and capacity sharing would oblige a member state to grant an operating licence to any carrier established by that state without discrimination provided that it met the necessary technical and economic standards. Member states would also be required to grant route licences to all economically viable services, to grant traffic rights to carriers established by other member states—the so-called third and fourth freedom rights—on almost all of the intra-Community international routes, and increase the fifth freedom services and limited cabotage within the Community. This proposal received the fullest support of the committee. The two proposals taken together would bring about a radical change in the operating regime. The committee generally concluded that, while it welcomed the progress made by the Council of Ministers, a lot needed to be done if a fully liberalised market was to be achieved by 1992. The report commended the laudable zeal of the Government and recognised that it is not shared by other member states.
What is the main theme of the report? The committee started from the consumers' interest, which means reliable services at a realistic and affordable cost. One way to achieve this would be through competition between more airlines. However, for a number of reasons the committee concluded that this was not necessarily the answer. Those reasons are set out in paragraphs 88 and 90 of the report. The presence of a large number of carriers does not necessarily guarantee competition. If one adds to that the shortage of infrastructure capacity, the conclusion is that the number of airlines operating is less important than ensuring aggressive competition between them. We say in paragraph 100:
"It is airlines' behaviour that needs to be regulated and not the structure of the market".
The logical conclusion of that is that the committee would not be opposed to the European aviation industry containing only a few large airlines provided that those airlines competed. There is no reason why British Airways and Lufthansa should not fight hard to obtain the best deal for the consumer flying from London to Frankfurt, or, for that matter, from Frankfurt to Rome or from London to Paris.
The main question is how will this be achieved? American experience shows that deregulation without effective anti-trust laws led to high fares and a lack of consumer choice. There is a corresponding fear that without the stimulus of smaller airlines, Europe's large carriers will carve up the market and strike "under-the-counter" deals, or, as in the case of Lufthansa and Air France, a "non-aggression" pact. The report's conclusion is that the Community's competition rules provide the answer. In paragraph 102, we refer to this and say that,
"Community rules must protect the consumer".
The Commission should be given the powers it needs to enforce them.
I have several questions to put to the Minister in this respect. First, how adequate are the powers of the new merger control regulation? Secondly, how many, and what size, mergers in the aviation sector would it apply to? That is dealt with in paragraph 105. Thirdly, what other powers has the Commission to tackle anti-competitive practices, such as artificially low fares and unfair selling practices? Fourthly, what proposals are under discussion in the Community to boost the Commission's powers, and how soon will they be adopted by the Council?
There is a new proposal which has just been put before the Committee. In a sense it relates to one of the comments which were made in the report. It concerns the need to give the Commission power to act very quickly when there are signs of predatory practices being adopted by airlines. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government will be supporting that proposal and what are the chances of it being implemented in the very near future?
The committee spent a good deal of time on slot allocation. Efficient operation requires a slot for the aircraft's take off, a slot for the flight and a slot for its landing; it also needs a similar process for its return journey. The present slots available at London Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, and at other major airports, are those agreed by the airlines. They are known as the "grandfather rights". On the face of it the system appears to be working well, but it provides the opportunity for protectionism and the frustrating of new entrants.
Sub-Committee B took evidence on slot arrangements. It considered a number of alternative suggestions and proposals. Members of the committee recognised that the present system may hinder competition and frustrate new entrants. However, considering the complexity of ensuring the efficient movement of aircraft, the present system would appear to be the one which should remain in force. Nevertheless, we very much welcome the fact that the Commission is undertaking its own inquiries into the matter, and also the fact that the Minister has written to the CAA asking it to inquire in to the operation of the system.
The report calls for a greater transparency in the system and looks for the Commission to produce proposals for reform. Can the Minister say when this is likely to take place? Is the delay caused by the

1713
Commission trying to get as many views as it can, or has it occurred simply because there is no obvious solution to the problem? So far as concerns greater transparency, can he say whether he is satisfied that the working of the scheduling committees is open to effective scrutiny? How do the Government interpret the provision which exempts slot allocation from the competition rules, provided that it is carried out "without discrimination"? What do they have in mind by the use of those two words?
In paragraph 98 the report also calls for airlines using "grandfather rights" to justify the type of aircraft they use, so long as the customer's wish for frequency of service is considered. Is the Minister aware of any cases where airlines use an aircraft with an excessive passenger capacity merely to retain control over a slot?
There are two further points that I wish to make in connection with slot arrangements. First, the report recognises the importance of the worldwide system of slot allocation. Therefore the Commission ought to ensure that any proposals it makes can be fitted into the IATA procedures and should aim to develop and improve such procedures rather than trying to satisfy all parties (perhaps by some unworkable bureaucratic compromise). The committee will be looking at the Commission's proposals in more detail when they are published. Can the Minister say how the Government are contributing to the deliberations of the Commission? Are they working with the CAA on a study of slot allocation options and, if so, when will the results be published?
I am sorry that I have not given the Minister notice of this question, but it has become rather important in view of recent press reports. Do the Government believe that slots at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports can be sold as United Airlines and Pan Am have done in the United States? There is the further possibility of United acquiring the slots at present held by Pan Am at Heathrow. Are such slots a marketable asset of the airlines? If that is the case, such a purchase means that the acquiring company has those slots in perpetuity. Moreover, those slots are unlikely to become available to new entrants.
I return now to the subject covered in the package of measures agreed by Ministers. Especially welcome were: a greater limit for the fifth freedom and the inter-regional services; the relaxation of multiple designation thresholds; and, the abolition of capacity controls. However, two important decisions will not come into force until 1993. The first is the introduction of cabotage. Can the Minister say how the Community's proposals are affected by the Chicago convention? Secondly, in the case of double disapproval for fares, will the Government be urging the Commission to study the benefits of the double disapproval system which at present exists between the United Kingdom and Ireland?
The latter leads me to one final area of concern to the committee. I refer to safeguards against unjust fares. Do the Government agree with paragraph 109 of the report which calls for consumer groups and
1714
individuals to have a right to monitor fare levels and to make representations to the Commission in a more formal way than is now possible, perhaps through an advisory committee? What will they be doing to ensure that those concerned receive,
"accurate and timely data on airline costs and performance",
as is applicable in the United States?
The report covers many other matters which could be passed over in the debate, except perhaps for the question of negotiations with "third countries". This is dealt with in paragraph 113 and it is a subject which Sub-Committee E on Law and Institutions will almost certainly be considering early in the new year.
In conclusion, I commend the two reports to the House. I believe that the Commission's proposal creates opportunities for competition and with it consumer choice. However, it does not ensure that the operators will compete. The Commission's objective is correct: it is the need for users to have a wide choice of services at as low a cost as is possible, while maintaining the highest safety standards. That will not be easy to accomplish. In many respects, it goes against the whole nature of commerce. As the noble Lord, Lord King (who was referred to in the report) said with great truth,
"It is the motivation in every businessman to become a monopoly".
I fully support that view. I believe that to be a fact and something which the Government and the Commission must bear in mind in seeking liberalisation through the Community.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on Air Traffic Control (12th Report, HL Paper 41), and on Civil Aviation: A Free Market by 1992? (16th Report, HL Paper 63). —(Lord Shepherd.)
4.19 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, not just for the extremely interesting and, if he will allow me to say so, extremely lucid speech explaining some highly complicated matters but for the work which his sub-committee has done on those two important subjects. I am glad that your Lordships' House is now debating the two reports. Perhaps I may also add how glad I am that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Apart from his experience as a European Commissioner, he will recall that a number of years ago when I was chairman of the CAA he was a Minister in the Department of Trade, which for some reason was then the department concerned. We had many and, from my point of view, most helpful dealings at that time for which I have always been grateful to him. I shall listen to what he has to say with especial interest for that reason.
I have less enthusiasm for those who printed and bound the reports. As some of your Lordships may have discovered, there are pages missing and there are pages interposed at the wrong place. They are therefore not easy reading. In view of the high standard of government reports to which we are accustomed, it is a pity that these have suffered at the

1715
hands of the printers some considerable and dislocating errors. I hope that my noble friend the Minister is prepared—if I may use the phrase—to administer a raspberry in that direction.
I shall speak first about the report on air traffic control. The problem is that colloquially when we discuss the EC and its doings we refer to it as Europe, but it is not the whole of Europe by any manner of means. There are many important countries—from an aviation point of view Switzerland is one that is obvious, as well as the countries of Eastern Europe —that are not members of the Community. So it would be difficult to put into the hands of the Commission a system of European air traffic control because it would involve flying over countries that would have no say in the arrangements and which on the grounds of national sovereignty and interest might very well reject such flights.
It is a great mistake to use the word "Europe" as a synonym for the Commission, but it is a mistake that we all make. These two reports bring out the fact that, important though the Community is and important though the countries which it contains are, they are not the whole of Europe. There is a non-Community element and therefore when we are dealing with air traffic control, which in the nature of things involves flying aver the whole of the Continent, it is inconceivable that the Commission should be given responsibility for it. Eurocontrol, which for all its limitations and imperfections still exists, is the basis upon which development should take place.
Eurocontrol operates in and with the co-operation of all the countries of Europe concerned with aviation —the vast majority of countries—and does not suffer from the disadvantage from which the Commission suffers in respect of limited areas of responsibility. Perhaps. I may interpose the thought that that issue rather strengthens the view of those who feel that in general matters the Commission should concentrate more on widening rather than on deepening.
I come now to the more important of the two reports and perhaps the more difficult. It is the one dealing with the liberalisation of services. I agree with what the sub-committee says in the first paragraph of its report:
"The objective is to provide the customer with the range of services that he wants at a price reasonably related to the operating costs of efficient airlines. To achieve this, a radical transformation is now required in an industry traditionally dominated by a cosy cartel of national 'flag carrier' airlines each protected by its government and with no incentive to compete".
That sets out the current situation in a nutshell. There are too many national airlines in Europe. It is natural for governments who have a national airline to try to preserve it, almost regardless of the needs of the customer. Some of the smaller countries in Europe —to avoid giving offence I shall not name them— would do better to drop their idea of having a national airline and collaborate with the larger airlines that operate on the Continent.
It is a sad fact, as the report brings out, that the cost of air travel per mile in Europe is far greater than the cost per mile in almost any other part of the world. If
1716
one contrasts it, for example, with air travel in the United States, people can travel about three times as far in the United States for the same money. The present situation, to which the sub-committee properly addressed itself, is an unfortunate and unhappy one.
Here again, of course, the issue is complicated by the matter to which I referred in the context of air traffic control; that is to say, that the Community embraces part but not the whole of Europe. That again makes it much more difficult for the Community to take effective action in the liberalisation of air transport because it has no authority in respect of airlines which are the property of non-Community countries. That is a difficulty which may again point to the desirability to which I referred of widening rather than deepening.
One or two points arose to which the subcommittee referred to which I should like to draw attention. It was apparently suggested by the Commission's officers in Brussels that VAT should be imposed upon air fares. I hope that that suggestion will be rejected. It will not cheapen air fares; it will make them more expensive. I believe that VAT is a bad tax, somewhat inflationary in effect and inequitable in operation; but, in any event, to extend it to air travel would be a retrograde step. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reject the proposal. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will make it clear that the idea will not be given sympathetic consideration.
Genuine competition in air transport is essential if prices are to be kept at a reasonable level. I hope that my noble friend will say something about that topic. We have to distinguish—I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did altogether clearly distinguish—between air traffic inside the European Community and that from Community countries with the rest of the world. From the point of view of our own civil aviation, that is the most important aspect of all.
That brings me to another point on which I differ from the Commission; namely, the suggestion which it appears to be about to make that control of negotiations over flying rights from Community countries to the outside world should be vested in the Commission. I can imagine few things more disastrous for British civil aviation. After all, British civil aviation operates world-wide. After the United States, we have the largest international system of airlines in the world, whereas the overseas air navigation of some of our European friends is very restricted. It would be disastrous to hand over to the Commission negotiation of what is a matter of the greatest importance to civil aviation and thus to the British economy, for our civil aviation makes a major contribution to the balance of payments. After all, the interests of most of the European members of the Community in this matter are quite different from ours. They are much more concentrated on air traffic within Europe, whereas our interest is substantial in Europe but even greater all over the world. I hope that that idea will be rejected.

1717
In that context I read with great interest the excellent evidence tendered to the sub-committee by Singapore Airlines. Having travelled a certain amount with Singapore Airlines I have the highest regard for them. They are among the most efficient and comfortable airlines on which to travel anywhere in the world. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will agree that their evidence to his committee was clear and to the point. They make strongly the point, which I rather briefly made, about the unsuitability of the idea put forward by the Commission. I therefore hope that it will be rejected.
It is now rather a tendency of the Commission to seek to expand its activities in a great many directions. That is largely the work of the bureaucracy. I doubt whether it is the purpose and intention of those nominally responsible at the head of the organisation, but the Brussels bureaucracy—sometimes, as your Lordships know, known frivolously as the Brussels sprouts—is apt to extend its scope in human terms, as are most bureaucracies. It is important that we should watch that it does not extend its no doubt in many ways beneficent activities into areas such as this, which would be extremely unsuitable.
The issue that needs tackling, as the report brings out, is the high level of fares in Europe. If we can get rid of the cosy state of affairs in which national airlines have to be kept going and the consumers' interests rank below those of the people responsible for the airlines we shall greatly improve the facilities for the consumer. That is of the greatest importance. If the European concept is to be a success, people must be encouraged to travel to other European countries. The more they see of each other, the more they realise that the old-fashioned type of prejudice against foreigners is wholly unfounded; the more friendly they can be in personal terms, the better. However, if you make air travel, which is now the best and most used method of travel in Europe, inordinately expensive, you inevitably prevent people from travelling as much as they would wish. It is therefore not only in the interests of aviation, as it certainly is, but very much in the interests of the public and of the European Community that air fares in Europe should be restrained.
I hope that in considering that matter Her Majesty's Government will always have in mind the two aspects of civil aviation policy—the policy to be pursued in Europe, to which I have just referred, and the policy of developing our airlines' activities all over the world. Again, if one wants good advice on that subject, one can look at the evidence of Singapore Airlines because it is backed by a remarkable performance. As your Lordships know, Singapore is a tiny island. It consists of hardly any territory, yet it has built up an airline which operates successfully all over the world. I believe that the airline now operates to some 50 countries. We should treat its advice on that aspect of aviation seriously because it is based on experience and practical efficiency.
I am delighted that we are having this debate, not only to show respect for the work of the
1718
sub-committee but to underline your Lordships' concern with these enormously important matters. Having had some contact with the aviation industry in the past, as your Lordships know, I realise that a great deal of the future well-being of this country depends on the success, expansion and development of British civil aviation. In so far as the committee's report will help in that good work, it is doubly to be applauded.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with whom, as he said, I had the pleasure of working as a Minister and when he was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I think that ours was a positive, worthwhile and happy working relationship. He is always eloquent, persuasive and a wee bit provocative, as he has been this afternoon. He has not disappointed us in that regard. If I join issue with him on one or two matters, he will not be surprised.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his Committee on their excellent work. They have examined with great thoroughness a considerable amount of evidence on the most complex issues in relation to both matters.
I must declare my interests in a number of respects at the outset. First, I had some responsibility for the development of the 1987 package, as it has become known, together with Commissioner Peter Sutherland and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who saw that quite rightly as an integral part of the development of the internal market proposals in which he played such a significant role in the Commission and, incidentally, was always a friendly and helpful colleague as far as I was concerned.
I have another interest in that I am the president of a newly formed organisation known rather inelegantly as the European Cockpit Association which is made up of pilots' organisations from the 12 member states and which seeks to negotiate pay and conditions on a pan-European basis. That is a worthwhile enterprise.
It is a great pity that the 1987 package was delayed for one year as a result of a dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain over the issue of Gibraltar. That was a wasted year. We had the package in place in December 1986 and that extra year would have given us an additional opportunity to see how the package would work out in practice. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd that little was achieved by reason of that package. I should add that not too much was ever claimed for the package: it was a first step. But it provided the opportunities for removing the veto powers of member states and airlines over tariff proposals that were made by another member state's airlines. It provided new opportunities with regard to fares and more flexibility in relation to capacity. It provided greater market access and some limited fifth freedom rights—and I shall return to those rights later on if I have time to do so. Air traffic rights were created for the first time at European

1719
Community level. Some new services, although not enough, were started up. I claim therefore that there was value in what was achieved under that package.
On this highly complicated matter there is generally a clear need for a balanced approach. I acknowledge that balance is difficult to achieve. I believe it was the comedian Dave Allen who once said that if one seeks to achieve true balance, one needs a chip on both shoulders. He was right in many respects. There has been far too much special pleading in this area, and far too much ideology has been put forward over the years. I believe the Commission has been absolutely right to stress the virtues of greater competition. However, it has never spoken about deregulation in the American sense. It was right for the Commission to seek to meld aviation into a more comprehensive approach to transport problems generally. Under Commissioner Van Miert the concept of the complementarity of the different modes of transport is being developed. I believe that needs to be stressed quite as much as the need to stimulate competition. They are both important issues. It is also right for the Commission to assert that the Community and the member states must never lose sight of the importance of infrastructural progress, most especially in terms of civil aviation. Nor must they ever lose sight of the fact that safety must never be compromised.
This debate takes place at a period of immense difficulties for the airlines. I heard it predicted on the news today that in 10 years' time the industry is likely to suffer losses of approximately £5 billion a year. The chairman of American Airlines, when speaking of his results, said, succinctly, "We appear to be in a position that is stinko". That is not perhaps the most elegant term but we can all understand what he was getting at. The airlines are facing massive increases in overheads. Return; are diminishing and the climate for investment is poor. There are likely to be cutbacks in staff and in routes, and fuel-thirsty old aircraft must be phased out. The result of that is that overall fares are likely to increase, whatever decisions the Community may take. However, I suppose that some bargains may be available to fill the back of aircraft.
The major problem is that the Council of Transport Ministers have been guilty of inertia in all areas of transport. Indeed, the ministers had refined inertia into a fine art over the years. It has taken pressure from the public, the Commission and the courts—that point is demonstrated in the report we are considering —to get the show on the road. That has clearly been the case as regards transport policy on land, sea and air.
In the field of civil aviation some rather patchy progress has been made. But Ministers clearly stalled for too long over the Commission's aviation proposals which were tabled as long ago as 1985. The anti-liberalisers used any and every argument, and notably the argument about safety, to obstruct progress on policies they did not like. I know only too well that that was the case. The liberalisers argued for too long for the pace to be set at such a rate that the poorer member states who were operating national airlines often with heavy state aid—maintaining their
1720
airlines as virility symbols—simply could not keep up. The liberalisers did not pay enough attention in my view to the serious arguments about air traffic control problems and safety. The fact is that there is truth in both sets of arguments. They are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why liberalisation cannot proceed by providing proper safeguards for safety, infrastructure and socially acceptable behaviour. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, consumers must be taken into account, as must the people who are employed in the industry. They all have a real part to play. Above all, member states must willingly devote more resources to these objectives. However, they have declined to do so over the years.
I mention specifically in this connection the report on air traffic control and the criticisms of the Commission. Some of those criticisms are correct but some, I suggest, are misplaced. There is great public anxiety and irritation about the failure to provide a more effective pan-European air traffic control system. The public pay for that. Vested interests have stalled on this issue over a period of some 25 years. Absurd ideas about sovereignty have abounded and have prevented progress being made. In my judgment the present limited pan-European developments referred to in the report would not have come about if the Commission had not taken the initiative in the form of the communication to the council in 1988. I respectfully submit that the report fails to appreciate that point.
The Commission was right to address these issues. The Consumers' Association says that the matter has nothing to do with the Commission. However, I believe that it has everything to do with the Commission when consumer interests are prejudiced right across the Community. The initiative took place against the backcloth of the liberalisation proposals and massive public concern and the lassitude of member states to act, save for West Germany and the Benelux countries, in support of the concept on which Eurocontrol was founded. While the Commission has never sought to present itself as an air traffic control regulatory authority, I believe it has an important role to play—this again is not sufficiently emphasised in the report—in complementing the work of Eurocontrol and in harmonisation in significant areas such as technical harmonisation and improving communication and the compatibility of air traffic control systems. It could complement the work of Eurocontrol in pressing for more advanced automation and in focusing on the need to make more military airspace available for civil air transport. It could help to make more efficient use of airspace generally and its proposals for mutual acceptance of licences of controllers and other staff and of common training programmes are of major significance. The opinion of the committee made no reference to those matters although they are referred to in the evidence.
The Commission also has a role in research and in giving the force of Community law to decisions made by other institutions, thereby reinforcing those institutions. It has a role in providing support directly

1721
for airport and air traffic control developments. It can also encourage such developments on the part of member states. It is worth observing that the stance of the Commission on these matters has been substantially supported by the European Parliament.
In addition to the specific points I have mentioned I further criticise the report for failing to address the impediments to progress such as the scope for delay and the obstruction on the part of member states despite the resolution of the transport council in June 1989. That resolution failed to suggest the need for and the ways towards effective monitoring of its recommendations.
The report calls for better co-ordination of the existing institutions but it does not help in indicating how that might be accomplished. Indeed, I believe it has the reverse effect. It takes too pessimistic a line towards the creation of what it clearly wants to see set up—a single new multilateral organisation. It ignores the force of public opinion in accelerating the pace for institutional and other reforms. We have seen that in the environment field and I believe that we shall see it also in this field. In addition, it tends to support those who call for no role or a very limited one for the Commission. At least it concedes observer status in Eurocontrol, but that is to ignore the importance of full membership in achieving the very goals which have been supported by the committee. It also ignores precedents. The Community has used very effectively its membership of United Nations agencies to stimulate progress in the maritime safety and environmental fields in the International Maritime Organisation and in the United Nations Environment Programme.
In over-emphasising the value of the work of technicians as against generalists—and I consider that there is a place for both—I believe that the committee has made a mistake. The technicians have sometimes tended to engage in empire building. I believe that we have to be very careful to ensure that there is a useful balance between both.
Of course, I agree that technical competence does need to be built up. So far as concerns the Commission, that will require additional budgetary resources. I also believe that the committee is wrong in asserting that Community finance to develop infrastructure should come from existing structural funds. That is to take far too limited a view of the matter. What happens, for example, in areas which are not eligible for the use of existing structural funds?
I turn, albeit briefly, to the report on civil aviation and 1992. I agree with the committee that deferral by the council of major decisions, which are to remain simply as objectives for 1992, is grotesquely unsatisfactory having regard to the commitments made by heads of state and government back in 1986 and again in 1987. For the council to wait beyond 1992, as I think will happen, provides opportunities for those who are hostile to progress to engage in all sorts of subterfuge.
1722
On the question of the development of oligopoly we need to give very careful attention to what has happened in the United States. Most recently the United States experience has been unhelpful for the consumer: in Act I, some 12 years ago, there were dozens of new airlines challenging the giants; Act II led to merger mania; in Act III, debt-burdened airlines, such as Eastern, TWA and Midway, are now candidates for merger or failure. It is a question of the survival of the fittest, the fattest, the meanest and the strongest. That is not good for consumers and we need to be on our guard for there is a real risk that we face the same problems. There are those who say that only the strong will be able to compete with the few huge United States and Far Eastern carriers. They are not wholly wrong.
There are others who express doubts about the Commission having the powers to control or eliminate collusion, cartels and predatory practices on the part of the dominant few. Proper questions are asked about the inadequacies of the merger regulation, a point eloquently argued in paragraph 86. However, this Government were anxious to control the limits of the merger regulation itself. Then there are questions about the computerised reservation systems. I do not believe that anyone has the right answer to these problems yet, except, perhaps, the CAA is pointing in the right direction. It is a pity that the committee has not given adequate attention to the views of the Civil Aviation Authority in that regard.
Nor have we been able to achieve any clear or coherent ideas about the questions of slots and airport access, which are critical if we are to achieve fairer competition. Unquestionably, the incumbents are unduly favoured by the present system, which is explained very fully in the report. I do not believe that airlines ought to expect to continue to have those cosy arrangements among themselves. There needs to be more transparency. There needs to be much more control, perhaps by the national authorities, such as the CAA, or perhaps by the Commission. Frankly, I am uncertain about the right solutions in this regard and, like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am not sure that the Commission has come forward with the right proposals on this subject. However, I do not believe that grandfathering or slot auctions will be the correct answers. They will only help the big boys.
I believe that the question of consumer representation is also tremendously important. Consumers need a share in the determination of matters relating to slots and computerised reservation systems. However, I must say that the Consumers' Association has not helped its case with the evidence that they have given to the committee. If they could see a top, they could not resist going over it. Some of their criticisms are ill-founded and unduly pejorative. Having said that, I believe that we must not forget the role of the consumer in relation to these issues.
On the question of fifth freedom services I very much agree with the opinion of the committee. However, we should recall that when the crunch came in 1986 and 1987 and the question of giving fifth freedom rights to some of the smaller, peripheral

1723
countries was raised in the Council of Ministers, the great liberalisers were found wanting. Britain and Holland, who had argued impressively for greater liberalisation—and I very much agreed with most of the arguments that they adduced—did not like the idea of introducing fifth freedom rights to Aer Lingus and TAP. However, it has to come and I hope that we shall make significant progress in that regard.
I am sorry that I have exceeded the usual speaking time, but there has been a lot of ground to cover. My penultimate point is that criticism has been made about the roles of Directorate-General IV and Directorate-General VII—competition and transport respectively. The word used by the committee in its report is "dismay" that those directorates-general are working on separate proposals. The committee finds that totally unacceptable.
I direct the attention of the House to some very pertinent remarks made by Mr. Argyris of Directorate-General IV reported on page 87 in paragraph 297. He said, in relation to the computerised reservation system:
"The proposal from…DG VII is a proposal which would be for a regulation to be adopted by the Council, and its content is a separate matter. It would be a proposal to the Council for a Council regulation. The Commission's proposal from DG IV will be a proposal for a Commission regulation to be adopted by around the end of the year by the Commission after engaging in consultations".
There were two different approaches. Yet the directorates-general are able to work together. But there is a constructive tension, it is perfectly true. Does that not apply in Whitehall occasionally? Indeed, we saw an example only this weekend. I believe that the kind of relationship that I had with Commissioner Sutherland, which led to fierce arguments from time to time, was an example of such a constructive relationship. The roles of DG IV and DG VII are, to some extent, different. That is a point which the committee has not taken on board.
I conclude by saying that during my time in the Commission, and the same is true today, the Commission has never striven for a free-for-all in civil aviation. It has never striven for complete deregulation but rather has adopted an approach which is based on creating order in the market place with greater opportunities for competitive enterprise, for fairer competition and for efficiency. I believe that those ideas have been largely supported, notwithstanding some criticism, by the committee. I conclude by once again congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his colleagues on a very comprehensive and well argued report and for enabling us to debate the issues today.
5 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to join those noble Lords who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on his excellent report. It is a true and exhaustive contribution to the long-standing debate on civil aviation policy and the controversy over the high cost of European air travel. As one who has taken some interest in this question in recent years, I
1724
should like to pay tribute to both the Commission in Brussels and the British Government for being the twin pillars of any progress that has been made.
One sometimes forgets how dire was the situation 10 years ago. At that time there was hardly any competition in European air travel permitted between European airlines. There was the famous prohibition on an excessive number of prawns in a prawn cocktail, and rules about whether a piece of tomato could be placed on a piece of lettuce. It was forbidden to provide extra leg room in aircraft, and baggage restrictions were carefully enforced. Much of that nonsense has been removed.
Indeed, in the wake of the 1987 package in which the two former Commissioners present in this House (one of whom has now left the Chamber) played a very important part there has been the possibility of true progress toward a more liberal European air regime. The conditions are there—or if not, they could be and soon will be—in which imaginative, enterprising airlines could move in and provide a better and cheaper product for the European consumer. In other words, the horse has been led to the water. However, I am not yet sure whether he is ready to drink. The conditions have been created, but an industry still remains which consists largely of sharks and minnows. I was about to say Davids and Goliaths, but in that respect a parallel is not perhaps exact since David killed Goliath.
However, the competition between the very large European airlines, including our own British Airways, and the small airlines which are allowed to pick up the crumbs is not necessarily in the consumers' best interest. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the series of non-aggression pacts made, tacitly or not, between a fair number of traditional European carriers. There are probably more than we know about. Certainly, looking at any airline's timetable one finds very little variation in the fare charged from A to B or from B to A between those (usually the two flag carrying airlines) that operate the route. If there is any variation, it is the exception rather than the rule. Somehow they manage to charge the same fare.
I do not say that that is done by secret discussion and agreement in cartel as used to be the case. Maybe it is a question of water finding its own level. Still, there is little variation, little price differentiation and little scope for the consumer to shop around in the way that he or she might prefer to go to Safeway or Tesco in order get the best bargain.
There are a few exceptions, most of them brought about, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, by bilateral arrangements rather than by implementation of the Treaty of Rome. Bilateral arrangements exist between this country and the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, and there is some flexibility with France and Germany. As a result a large number of carriers now operate between London and Amsterdam, some flying from Heathrow and some from Gatwick. For instance, it is possible at British Midland to obtain an off-peak return flight from London to Amsterdam for £116 or a three-day excursion return for £159. That is a lot cheaper than

1725
the ordinary unrestricted fare of £194 return and much cheaper than the fares between London and Brussels which are now in the region of £210. That is a route which is shorter than London-Amsterdam.
I often ask myself why London-Brussels is a more expensive route than London-Amsterdam. I have to conclude that because there is more competition on the London-Amsterdam route, the fares are more competitive. There is some competition on the London-Brussels route now. There is Air Europe, although it operates out of Gatwick and is not always the most convenient way to go to Brussels. However, Air Europe has made some inroads. I suggest that flights between this country and Ireland have been totally revolutionised by the emergence of Ryanair, both in the creation of new airports and new traffic, and in the provision of better and cheaper services for the traveller. The product has been made both better and cheaper as a result of the emergence of one enterprising, brave airline on routes between the two countries.
That shows that it can be done. But it is not easy, given the power of airlines such as British Airways which, in spite of all the reforms, controls more than 90 per cent. of British scheduled air traffic to Europe. Under those conditions it is very difficult for a smaller airline to come in on a route and make a profit. Usually it can be seen off with some dispatch by the noble Lord, Lord King, and his employees.
I want to concentrate on a subject mentioned by previous speakers; namely, take-off and landing slots. It is fair to say that that is one area which has not been seriously tackled by those who are trying to create fairer competition. It has been pointed out that the situation still remains whereby an airline that has had previous facilities at the overcrowded airports (such as Heathrow and Gatwick in this country, and Munich, Frankfurt, Milan and popular airports on the Continent) enjoys the privilege known as "grandfather rights". That means that as the incumbent airline, it gets first call on any slot which has been available to it during the previous six months. I fail to see why that practice should be allowed to continue. I see no justice in it. Why should some airline have a valuable privilege worth a considerable sum of money passed down to itself every six months in perpetuity so that it can steal a march on a new airline which might be willing to charge a cheaper fare if only it could obtain the take-off and landing slots?
British Midland is a company that is very heavily penalised by the present situation. If noble Lords wish to fly tomorrow from London to Paris by British Midland they will find that there are flights at 6.45 a.m. and 7.45 a.m., and the next flight available is at 11.25 a.m. The peak hours of the morning—when business people wish to fly from London to Paris in large numbers—are not available to British Midland because they are all bequeathed (I believe that would be the right word) to Air France and British Airways. This puts the new interloper airline, British Midland, at a considerable commercial disadvantage.
1726
Why does that happen? We are told by the Government—and it is in the report—that the system is enshrined in the rules of the International Air Transport Association. Why should IATA have the final say in the matter? Why should we bow down in our obedience to the IATA organisation? Some of us feel that it has no right to be seriously interfering in such matters. Indeed, many feel that its existence should be called into question. I understand that that is happening in the United States. Some people across the Atlantic in the Department of Commerce believe that anti-trust legislation should be taken against IATA to remove it from the United States. I shall be interested to know whether the British Government believe that it is right to renew the block exemption on competition rules which may be renewed in order to allow IATA to continue to function in European Community countries. I am coming to the view that that body has been sitting in Geneva for too long for any good that it has done and that perhaps it should go. However, it should certainly persist in its imposition of the principle of grandfather rights over the allocation of slots.
I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he stated that the present system of allocating slots should be maintained. As I understood him, he was in favour of reform of the present system. He mentioned the proposals which I believe have now been tabled by the Commission in Brussels. If implemented, they will give new airlines priority on new slots that may be created. If no new slots are created, they will oblige the older airlines to relinquish some of the slots that they have inherited. That would be a substantial, and I believe excellent, reform although it would be maintaining the old system. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Government will support it. I shall be interested to know whether they have a view on what the Commission is about to put forward.
With great respect, I felt that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was a little harsh on the Commission. After all, if it were not for the Commission, I doubt whether we would have taken some of the modest steps that have been taken towards a better deal for the air traveller in Europe. They have been very much at the forefront of the struggle for a more liberal air policy in Europe. Commissioners such as the two noble Lords who have taken part in the present debate, and Mr. Sutherland, have been pre-eminent in the fight, as have Her Majesty's Government, as I suggested earlier. However, it will not be easy for the Commission to implement the rules about the allocation of slots unless we have steadfast pressure in support of them from British Ministers. I very much hope that I can be assured that this pressure will be maintained when those proposals are tabled.
Such proposals are our only hope. Airlines must have the ability to take off and land, otherwise they cannot offer the best fares and facilities which I believe they could offer if only there were free competition in Europe. The aim of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd is to create free

1727
competition to create the conditions in air travel that we hope to achieve as a result of the free internal market in 1992, and to benefit the consumer.
I therefore trust that the Commission, as guardians of the Treaty of Rome—which has been referred to by the Prime Minister as a charter for economic liberty —will see fit to interpret that aim with regard to the airline sector to the benefit of the European air traveller.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the opportunity to discuss the subject. I felt that another member of his committee, should speak in the debate. However, having put my name down and observed that no other member of the committee had, I looked into the subject and then realised why.
The two inquiries took place some time ago. We had the first evidence on traffic management and air traffic control last November. The larger report, A free market by 1992? was published in March or April of this year. It therefore required some mugging-up on the subject. I shall not keep noble Lords too long today. The Minister has been asked relevant questions and we all look forward to hearing his answers.
I speak today if only to draw attention to the absolutely vital importance of air transport in Europe to the trade of Europe. We know that the Single European Act will take effect by the end of 1992 and the beginning of 1993. The recommendations of the Commission are timed to coincide with that. Ease of transportation and of travelling through Europe is of similar importance to telecommunications. Air communications is one of the infrastructures that is absolutely vital for a healthy two-way trade between nations.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that his influence on the liberalisation of air transport will be much welcomed. There have been discussions today about the roles of the great national governments and of the Commission and how the right motivation can influence the protectionist monopolist structures of the European aviation industry. I am sure in my own mind that double disapproval, and the competition that it creates, is one such motivation. It does not force lower fares but it creates the opportunity for them. I hope that pressure will be brought so that that system can be introduced by other countries.
The existence of national airlines is another restriction. The sovereignty of the countries is reflected through their airlines. It would be difficult to impose privatisation on Europe's national airlines. However, the experience of British Airways has made it profitable and it has never been more healthy or active.
The future of air transport in Europe is constantly evolving. The technologies, thank goodness, are always improving. As regards air traffic management, communications are becoming ever better. Eurocontrol is in the process of making communication systems common throughout Europe. Of course, the European field is likely to become wider, with the
1728
additional traffic that will come from Eastern Europe. There has been an enormous advance in the speed of aeroplanes and the loads that they carry, and that advance will continue. I am sure that the problem of slots will be eased by further improvements in speed and carrying capacity.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Shepherd for introducing the two excellent reports. Whether or not we agree with all the committee's decisions and findings, noble Lords will agree that they are two first-class reports. I echo my noble friend's appreciation for the many witnesses who gave oral evidence and for the useful memoranda which will hold all noble Lords in good stead for the future. I was particularly interested in the many questions that my noble friend directed to the Minister. I hope that he will be in a position to reply.
Although there is a link between the two reports, I propose to deal with them separately. My intention is not to roam over the general aviation field but to pick up what are important passages from various paragraphs of the report and, where necessary, comment upon them. I too am pleased that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has taken part in the debate. He gave the House valuable information from his knowledge as a Commissioner in Europe responsible for many transport issues. That will be extremely helpful.
Paragraph 8 of the report reminds us that in 1989 the Council of Transport Ministers adopted the resolution on the need for improved co-operation on air traffic control. Although that was a unanimous decision, it was non-binding. As is stated in paragraph 6, the Commission called on member states to become members of Eurocontrol. I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Shepherd that the decision should have been legally binding. Will the Minister say what efforts are being made to ensure that in future it is made legally binding?
Part II sums up the evidence given on the possible role of the Commission. After reading the report I share the anxiety expressed by many witnesses about the plethora of organisations involved in some way or another in air traffic control in Europe. Although details of the composition of several organisations are given in the report, there is little indication of exactly how they function and the work that they undertake as regards air traffic control. Various organisations which submitted evidence put forward the view that the intervention of the Commission would further duplicate matters. However, the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities would support Commission activity in order to harmonise, coordinate and implement the work of other bodies upon which it argued that no other body was taking speedy and effective action.
Some witnesses suggested that Eurocontrol had not been allowed to develop as intended for nationalistic reasons. There is a tendency by some states to want to go it alone. If that is the position, surely the Commission should step in to tackle the situation. The

1729
International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations put forward the view that the fragmented nature of air traffic control facilities and the growth in control deficiencies arose because aviation traffic had increased much faster than capacity. That increase was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
In its memorandum National Air Traffic Services held that the Commission had overlooked the fact that it had no technical knowledge of air traffic control, whereas the Eurocontrol staff were of good quality, with sound experience. I failed to find any reference in the report to the fact that the Commission's proposals are that it should play a positive part in air traffic control. I may have read the report too quickly or missed something but I did not gather that to be its intention.
As stated in paragraph 32, some witnesses pointed to the shortage of controllers as a contributory factor in air traffic control problems. I appreciate the further view expressed by NATS that the many existing organisations which are mentioned as taking some part in air traffic control take a significant amount of the valuable staff resources. The resources of experienced people should be deployed to areas where they can do the most good. We must consider how that position can be alleviated so that we may make the best use of the efficient staff members who are available in the various units of air traffic control.
I note the point made in paragraph 34, and it was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is the significant factor that the issue will affect European countries which are not members of the Community. Paragraph 38 makes the point that individual states should recognise that air traffic control is a matter for the whole Continent of Europe and not only for the Community. How will that be achieved other than by an effective Eurocontrol organisation? I cannot see how it can be achieved other than by a Eurocontrol organisation that is effective, efficient and adequate.
The view of the committee is that there is a sound case for the involvement of the Commission in Eurocontrol, but that does not require full membership. However, it must be agreed that the Commission can ensure not only that member states take a part in Eurocontrol but that they do so effectively by providing adequate control staff who have intensive training and up-to-date equipment, using Community funds where appropriate.
The report also mentioned flow management, a subject to which no noble Lord has yet referred. It was first referred to in paragraph 16 as being the development to manage the flow of air traffic throughout Western Europe from 1993. Paragraph 28 sets out a very useful explanation of the difference between air traffic control and management. I believe that it is worthy of quotation:
"Control was designed to prevent collisions and would be exercised by each controller to deal with every aircraft in the airspace under his control, however congested that became.
1730
Flow management was exercised to organise the traffic flow so that no controller was overloaded with more aircraft than he could safely handle".
That is a very useful, simple explanation of the difference.
Some witnesses put forward a proposal for a central flow control unit under Eurocontrol. However, I support the view expressed by the committee as set out at paragraph 43 that flow management is a short term measure which will not address the long term problem of capacity. I share also the opinion of the committee that the Council should now turn its attention to those very urgent matters and maintain a sense of urgency created by recent crises in air traffic management. Can that best be achieved by giving to the Commission full membership of Eurocontrol or observer status only? In my view the committee's argument which supports observer status only is not fully convincing. It will be interesting to know the view of the Minister on that issue.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quoted from the other document on civil aviation because that had been my intention. I considered it very important in showing what is desired of the single market in 1992 as regards aviation and also the cosy cartel situation which exists today.
The Department of Transport in a supplementary memorandum states:
"The task now is to ensure that interim arrangements are as liberal as possible in the three crucial areas (fares, market access and capacity constraints)".
At paragraph 84 the committee observes that the zeal for greater liberalisation is not shared by some other member states of the Community. If that is the case, what is to be done? What action will the Government take to ensure that that position does not continue? That seems to be a matter for consideration by the Commission and also by the Council of Transport Ministers.
To most people, talk of liberalisation of aviation means some movement towards lower fares. From the evidence in the report, there would appear to be general approval of the proposal for a double disapproval regime for fares. I believe that the Community can play a great part in that, but adequate competition may be the key, especially in view of the fact that there are airlines outside the Community—a point stressed by one or two noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I repeat it.
I ask one question. If we are to move towards lower fares, what sort of regulatory system can there be? A regulatory system may be possible with those airlines attached to member states. But what about those airlines outside the Community? What attention are the Commission and the Council of Transport Ministers giving to that matter?
We must keep in mind also that liberalisation could bring something which may not be helpful to us; that is, encouragement to use smaller planes and the duplication of route services with increased congestion at airports and in the air. Therefore, when we speak of open access for all airlines, those particular points must be borne in mind.

1731
The point is made at paragraph 20 that competition for new entrants depends on physical access to airports and airways. Paragraph 23 emphasises that most witnesses saw proposals on market access as crucial to the development of competition. One questions how small carriers can compete if they cannot obtain permission to operate the services they want and are unable to secure access to airports became of congestion. That is an issue about which one cannot be airy-fairy. It must depend upon the national position regarding agreements. I do not believe that it can be said that any airline must be permitted to fly anywhere and land at any airport. That would be an impossible situation; yet that viewpoint has been advanced.
Section 5 of the CAA memo deals with the lessons of the United States in the move towards liberalisation. That is dealt with also at paragraphs 61 to 63 of the report. I should like to emphasise what is in those paragraphs to which reference has been made by other noble Lords. It is emphasised that mega-airlines now dominate the United States' industry more than they did before deregulation. New entrants is came in to provide competition but with few exceptions failed to survive. It is said that the entry of new or substantially new airlines in the United States has now dried up. At paragraph 62 the Civil Aviation Authority argues that what went wrong in the United States was that deregulation akin to laissez faire replaced regulation.
I make the declaration—and it may not please all noble Lords—that looking at the lessons of the United States, it is clear that there must be some degree of regulation. It cannot be possible to allow any airline to decide to land at any airport where there may be congestion and where it may be impossible to take in further routes.
On the question of mergers, a number of paragraphs are headed "The Threat of Oligopoly". In paragraph 86 the committee suggests that larger and stronger European carriers may be necessary to compete internationally with the giants which dominate the American and Far Eastern markets. My noble friend Lord Shepherd made some reference to the question of how that will affect consumers for whom we desire the liberalisation.
Paragraph 17 questions whether market forces will lead to the domination by a small number of mega-carriers and what may be needed to protect the interests of consumers. The tendency towards mergers is dealt with in detail in the 14 pages of evidence of Mr. John Loder, the aviation consultant, which I found of considerable interest.
The CAA memo at paragraph 17.2 states that there are now agreements between already dominant airlines in five EC countries, including three of the largest carriers. It goes on to comment that regional airlines are becoming increasingly dominated or even swallowed up by their larger brethren, as has happened in the United States.
Again, I may have missed matters in the report but I can see nothing in the Commission's conclusions as
1732
to how to deal with the question of mergers, some of which could be contrary to the interests of consumers. I do not know whether the Minister can say what action the Government propose to take on the question of monitoring and control of mergers. They will inevitably occur, as we saw only this week with Pan Am in the United States. We already know of the activities of British Airways in making overtures, and in some cases completing mergers or agreements with other bodies.
That leads me on to the question of slots, to which a number of noble Lords referred. In paragraph 94 the committee questions whether, if there are to be new entrants wishing to compete, the present system of slot allocation gives them a fair chance. I note that that matter was dealt with by some very probing questions from members of the committee on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the evidence.
Paragraphs 27 to 32 deal with the important question of who obtains the slots. It is recognised that the grandfather allocation, to which some noble Lords referred, is dealt with through the scheduling committee system and is extensively applied. I noted that in paragraph 96 the committee conclude that there is as yet no obvious alternative to the present system of slot allocation. It would seem that the committee is opposed to a pricing system or auction of slots.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd asked some questions in that regard. In response to noble Lords who said that we must tackle the question of the allocation of slots, I ask how it is to be done. Has anyone suggested how it should be done? Will it be left to the CAA to become the regulatory organisation dealing with the allocation of slots? How is it to be done? The last thing we want to see is an auctioning of slots with possible increases in costs to the consumer. Therefore I say again that airy-fairy talk is not the answer to the problem of allocation of slots. We may not like it. We may feel that the grandfather system must be tackled. But how is that to be done? Do the Government have a definite view on the matter? Should we ask the CAA to give its viewpoint?
The opinions of the committee are set out in Part 3 of the report. One could speak for a long time if one attempted to deal with the 32 paragraphs of that section. It is clearly recognised by the committee that there are matters beyond the competence of the Commission to determine. That would appear to be the tone of the general conclusion in paragraph 116 of the report. That view applies to the question of external policy. Although that is referred to in paragraphs 78, 79 and 80, in paragraph 113 the committee makes clear that it decided not to comment on the proposal that the Commission should negotiate agreements with third world countries on behalf of EC member states. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the giving of that power to the Commission would be disastrous.
The committee decided to deal with the matter in due course in view of what it referred to as the complex matter of policy and law which the proposal raises. My noble friend Lord Shepherd said that the

1733
committee would consider that matter in the new year. That is encouraging. I should like to know the Government's view on the matter. The question of negotiation with third world countries is an important matter and one that we cannot leave to the Commission to handle.
I conclude by saying that this has been a useful debate by noble Lords who know a great deal about the aircraft industry. I congratulate the members of the committee on their report, and I thank my noble friend Lord Shepherd for introducing it in the way that he did.
5.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government welcome these two reports by the Select Committee on the European Communities. While they cover separately the important issues of European liberalisation and air traffic control, their subject matters are obviously interrelated, as the full benefits of liberalisation will only come about with improved air traffic control facilities. I warmly commend your Lordships' hard work, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on introducing the two reports. I am also grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to answer this afternoon. It is the first occasion on which I have had to speak on these matters since returning to my responsibilities in the Department of Transport.
On the European front, the Government's clear aim is that civil aviation in the Community should be liberalised. With increased competition between airlines, consumers will benefit through a greater choice of services and fares offered in response to consumer demand. Unnecessary restrictions must be removed, without prejudicing safety, and without exposing consumers or airlines to exploitative practices or unfair competition.
We are making progress. On 18th June the Council of Ministers agreed a second package of aviation liberalisation measures. In the Government's view, the most important aspect of the agreement was the commitment in Community law to complete the final stage of introducing a single market in aviation by the beginning of 1993. That commitment consists of the introduction of uniform licensing criteria by July 1992, and of double disapproval for fares and the abolition of bilateral capacity sharing by the end of 1992. That is of course subject to safeguards against exploitative and anti-competitive behaviour.
The second package agreed in June, which comes into effect on 1st November, builds on the first set of measures agreed in 1987. It contains arrangements for setting fares which introduce an element of double disapproval and simplify the existing zonal system. The package also eases access to the market by opening up routes between virtually all EC airports, relaxing restrictions on fifth freedom services within the Community—which I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the United Kingdom fully welcomes
1734
—and progressively lowering the thresholds above which multiple designation of airlines on a particular route is allowed.
The Government's attention is now focused on the vitally important final stage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, we fully support the system of double disapproval for fares, which will replace the double approval system under which the approval of both authorities at either end of the route has been required before a new fare could be introduced. The new system will remove the present impediment to introducing cheaper fares, and allow freedom to airlines to respond to the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked the Government to urge the Commission to study the benefits of the existing double disapproval system between, for example, the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, gave some good examples of what we achieved by that bilateral agreement, which I had the pleasure of signing with the Dublin Government a couple of years ago. There have been substantial cuts in fares. On-demand fares are available at approximately 20 per cent. below their 1987 prices in real terms. The number of airlines serving London and Dublin has increased from three to five, and the number of routes flown between the United Kingdom and Ireland has increased from 26 to 34. Those are the benefits which may be seen by all. I assure noble Lords that we shall continue to preach those benefits to those who still need persuading of the benefits of liberalisation. I would add, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we even gave additional fifth freedom rights on that particular package.
The Government believe that fare setting must be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that fares are neither excessive nor predatory. We have already laid some of the ground in the context of the second package, but we shall be seeking to build on and adapt that to meet the circumstances which will be created with the full introduction of the single market. We shall examine the suggestion of the committee to allow wider representation to the Commission on fare levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about the Commission's proposal to tackle anti-competitive practices. Other noble Lords also mentioned that point. The Government regard it as essential that liberalisation is accompanied by proper safeguards against carriers who abuse or threaten to abuse their position in the market through predatory behaviour. We welcome the commitment made by the council in June to apply a suitable mechanism to stop carriers before their predatory activities can do any damage, which can happen very quickly. With UK support, the presidency is working for a formal adoption of such a "cease and desist" mechanism at the December transport council meeting. I hope that clarifies the position.
The Government can see no reason for the continuation of constraints on market access within

1735
the Community, and welcome the fact that bilateral capacity limits will be removed entirely from the final stage. A true single market in aviation should allow equality of opportunity for airlines of all member states. The Government therefore also warmly welcome the commitment to uniform licensing criteria by 1st July 1992. This means that member states will be obliged to apply uniform criteria in deciding whether to grant an operating licence to an airline established in any member state. The details remain to be worked out, but the important goal is to do away with the ability of member states to favour their flag carriers and discriminate against other airlines.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about the compatibility of cabotage with the Chicago Convention. I am bound to say that this an extremely complicated issue. We, like the Commission, do not think that the exercise of cabotage is contrary to Article 7 of the Chicago convention, because any cabotage rights granted within the Community would not infringe the rights of third countries. Under such circumstances, third countries might apply for cabotage rights, which would then become a matter for negotiation.
The Government are also aware that competition cannot be fair while some airlines are protected from the full discipline of the market. They will continue to urge that provisions in EC legislation covering state aids should be strictly enforced.
The Government will continue to play a leading role in discussions in Brussels on the final stage of liberalisation with the aim of introducing a single market in aviation in which a multi-airline industry can flourish to the benefit of consumers and the economy.
The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, and Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Bethell, drew attention to the report's discussion of slot allocation. This is a complex issue, as I think is agreed, with wide ramifications and no easy solutions, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out. The Commission has expressed some ideas for change, and a proposal for council discussion is awaited. This is an important issue and the council must decide on policy after full debate. Our concern is shared by other member states as well as by the aviation industry. What we seek is a system that can generate fair and vigorous competition, and reward efficiency and innovation, without sacrificing the flexibility and practicability of the existing arrangements.
We are concerned to ensure that it is indeed the council which decides what changes may be appropriate, and that the Commission should not unilaterally develop policy without council approval. There are clear signs that the Commission intends to introduce a new slot allocation policy unilaterally as part of the removal of a group exemption from the Treaty's competition rules. My noble friend Lord Bethell referred to that. That would be done without decision by the Council. At the same time, the Commission is preparing a proposal for a code of conduct on slot allocation. This would be decided on by the council. I can tell your Lordships that we are
1736
not prepared to see scope for council debate on the proposed code of conduct limited by any pre-emptive measures taken unilaterally by the Commission. The UK will be raising this important point at the council meeting in Luxembourg tomorrow. I would say to my noble friend Lord Bethell that we have received representations from airlines such as British Midland who fear that if these proposals are followed through it could result in that airline losing slots as well as some of the larger airlines.
Noble Lords have commented that, in collaboration with the CAA, the Government have recently Commissioned their own consultants' report on possible new ways of allocating slots among airlines at congested airports. The consultants are working to a tight time schedule, with Stage 1 of the study due to be completed at the end of November. Stage 1 will identify alternative methods of slot allocation that appear to merit more detailed study in Stage 2. Assuming Stage 2 goes ahead, it will be completed by the early Spring of next year.
We hope that the consultants' work will help to inform the debate in the council. The consultants have been asked to report on arrangements for slot allocation within the EC which would be compatible with the system based on the IATA procedures which are applied on a world-wide basis. Even at congested airports the current slot allocation system can work flexibly. I can give two examples. My noble friend Lord Bethell has already referred to British Midland. British Midland had 3 per cent. of the slots at Heathrow in 1979. It now has 12 per cent. Air Europe has increased its slots dramatically at Gatwick, from just 3 per cent. four years ago to more than 21 per cent. now; so one can say that the existing system can work reasonably effectively.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently visited the chairman of the Heathrow scheduling committee. He was most impressed by the scheduling operation and was satisfied that the airport co-ordinator and his team carry out their tasks without discrimination. However, it would be fair to say that the UK is ahead of most, if not all, other countries in the transparency and quantity of scheduling information available to user airlines. For example, I understand that the Heathrow scheduling committee is currently considering moving from the British Airways building to offices owned by BAA, further to reinforce its already apparent independence. Incidentally, I am not aware of any cases where airlines have used an aircraft with an excessive passenger capacity merely to retain control over a slot. In that context the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the United Airlines' purchase of the Pan American routes to London. He apologised for not having given me notice of his question. However, I can assure him that no notice was necessary. Since this announcement, which came to us as a complete surprise last Wednesday morning, we have thought of little else. It raises some important

1737
issues. We were not consulted before the announcement was made and we understand that approval for the purchase has not yet been obtained from the United States Government.
Any proposals for United Airlines to operate flights from the United States to London would need to be considered in the light of the Bermuda 2 agreement governing air services between the two countries and the traffic distribution rules for airports serving the London area. The current TDRs would not permit United Airlines to operate flights to and from Heathrow. Clearly, I cannot speculate now on the outcome of any discussions between the US and the UK which might be held under Bermuda 2; but, as I believe I mentioned a moment ago, the traffic distribution rules are already under review by the Civil Aviation Authority at my request, and the authority will be submitting advice to the Secretary of State early next year. At this stage I cannot predict the outcome of that.
The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Underhill, asked whether the powers in the new merger control regulation are adequate and how many mergers in the aviation sector it would apply to. The regulation gives significant new powers to the European Commission: indeed, it seems appropriate that larger mergers should be considered on a Europe-wide basis, since the companies concerned are so often international. Where a merger is not a concentration but rather a joint venture, the Commission will still have powers to investigate. Under the regulation, mergers will be judged on strict competition criteria.
I emphasise that the merger control regulation leaves the UK authorities with a significant role in this sphere. UK merger law, with the central role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, gives substantial powers in respect of mergers. The Government believe that appropriate powers are available for the various circumstances which arise. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will appreciate that I cannot foresee how many aviation cases are likely to arise which may be caught by the new mergers regulation and he will understand why it would not be appropriate for me to speculate in this area.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the Commission's proposals on external competence and arranging air service agreements with countries outside Europe. The Government believe that it is premature for the Commission to seek exclusive competence in external aviation relations, at least before the conclusion of the single market. The proposal has extremely grave complications which I believe would become obvious if they were to be discussed.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also asked about the imposition of VAT on air fares. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I cannot give the Government's views on the proposal at this very early stage. I can assure my noble friend that we have taken account of his views.
1738
I now turn to the Select Committee's report on air traffic control. The Government welcome this well-balanced and thorough survey of the European situation, and we are in agreement with many of the committee's opinions. Again, I am most grateful for your Lordships' hard work. And I am glad to have the opportunity to update the House on recent initiatives in this area, which I trust your Lordships will agree are in line with the thinking underlying the report. There have been significant developments since the European Commission submitted its proposals nearly two years ago.
I am delighted to see that since 1988 two additional countries have joined Eurocontrol, making a total of 11 full members. A further seven states have either applied to join or indicated that they intend to join Eurocontrol. They are all at the moment actively participating in its meetings as observers.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether, as all members of the Community have joined Eurocontrol, except at this stage Italy, Spain and Denmark, all member states would be required to join. Italy and Spain have already applied and Denmark is considering the position. I hope that before very long all members of the Community will become full members of Eurocontrol. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, we want more than just the members of the EC to join. That is why we are pleased that there are other European countries outside the Community which are also members.
I was pleased that the committee noted the importance of establishing a central flow management unit for Europe under the auspices of Eurocontrol. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to that. As many noble Lords will recall, the Government put forward this proposal and played a leading role in getting it endorsed. At that time I was President of Eurocontrol's permanent Commission, and was heavily involved in this work. The unit is to be operated by Eurocontrol in Brussels, and is being progressively introduced, with full implementation in October 1993. It will increasingly ensure that air traffic in Western Europe is managed in the most efficient and safe manner, with the least delay to traffic and the maximum utilisation of all available system capacity.
However, perhaps the most important development for many years was the unanimous agreement on 24th April last by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and 22 other transport Ministers from Western Europe of an action programme to increase capacity in Europe. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter emphasised the need for air traffic control in Europe to be co-ordinated on a pan-European basis rather than just within the European Community. As I have said, the Government strongly support that view. This programme, which again was the result of a UK initiative, will integrate air traffic control systems throughout Western Europe, thus facilitating the flow of traffic from area to area, and will optimise the air traffic route network. The effect should be an increase in capacity over the coming years, with great benefits to passengers through a reduction in congestion and delays.

1739
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked how Ministers will ensure that this programme is implemented. The directors general of civil aviation for each of the participating states will of course be monitoring the implementation of the programme. Transport Ministers of the participating states have agreed to meet again next autumn to review progress and consider whether acceleration of the programme's implementation is a possibility.
This programme of integration is being managed by Eurocontrol. The Government are in full agreement with the committee's opinion that Eurocontrol should be strengthened; it is the organisation best placed, in terms of membership and expertise, to handle matters on European air traffic control, and its key role in the integration programme is evidence of this. But as well as enhancing the role of Eurocontrol this programme will also assist coordination throughout Europe. We have seen this to be the case in the agreement between the 23 participating states of the European Civil Aviation Conference, but in addition Eurocontol, the European Commission, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, NATO and several organisations representing airspace users have all been represented at meetings to plan the implementation of the programme. Congestion is a European problem, and the problem cannot be resolved in isolation. We do indeed take seriously the need for co-ordination, especially where long-term planning is concerned.
The committee considers that decisions taken by bodies such as Eurocontrol or ECAC should be made legally binding within Community law, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked this afternoon that this might be applied to the programme agreed by the ECAC member states in April. I do not know of any proposals within the Community to take such action, and I have to say that I do not think that it would be necessary. The ECAC agreement revealed a sense of common purpose and commitment among the participating states. The will to implement the programme is there, which surely makes legislation unnecessary.
In addition, work is being undertaken in parallel with the integration programme to examine the interface between airports and air traffic control, concentrating on terminal areas and the main airports. The working group concerned, in which the UK is playing a leading part, is looking for ways to increase capacity and eliminate the bottlenecks which cause so much congestion. The group's findings will be presented to ECAC transport Ministers next autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about use of Community funds for infrastructure funding. There is only one significant area where the Government beg to differ from your Lordships' committee, and that is the suggestion that the EC infrastructure funding should be used to overcome problems in those member states whose air traffic control systems do not yet meet the highest standards.
Clearly, there is a need for high standards and compatibility to handle the growing air traffic in
1740
Europe. However, Eurocontrol has recently taken out loans with the European Investment Bank in order to fund the development of new systems, recovery of the financing costs being made through the established en-route charging system; the charges being paid by airlines—that is to say, by those who actually use the air traffic control system. I submit to your Lordships that this is the right way forward to bring in the necessary infrastructure improvements. I suggest that there is no reason why taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise the buoyant aviation industry.
Turning to the part being played by the UK itself in increasing capacity, I am pleased to be able to inform the House of the strenuous efforts being made by the Civil Aviation Authority to provide the equipment, facilities and systems which will enable the increasing volume of traffic to be handled. The CAA has embarked on a £750 million investment programme, its largest and most ambitious ever. Already this year a new computer system has been installed at the London air traffic control centre at a cost of £22 million, on budget and on time. But the most significant projects are the central control function (CCF) and the new en-route centre. CCF will organise airspace in the London terminal manoeuvring area, and will increase the area's capacity by at least 30 per cent. on present levels by the end of 1995. The new en-route centre, for which a site has very recently been purchased in Hampshire, and planning permission gained, will handle all en-route flights over England and Wales outside the London area, and should provide a 40 per cent. increase in capacity by 1996.
But the CAA is investing in people as well as in equipment and new systems. Recruitment of air traffic controllers has risen from 80 to 200 a year, rising to a record level of 240 in 1991. The CAA's College of Air Traffic Control is being expanded. Safety remains the paramount concern of the CAA, and its investment programme and recruitment drive will enable the authority to maintain, and where possible improve, the existing high standards.
I hope that the House will recognise the full part the Government have played in tackling the problems of air traffic control in Europe. Much remains to be done; and nobody suggests that the tasks ahead are easy. I believe that with our European partners we are on the right path towards relegating the inconvenience of congestion and delays to the past.
In conclusion, I should like to say again how much the Government have welcomed the opportunity to debate these two very thoughtful and, if I may say so, constructive reports. I hope that your Lordships will realise from what I have said that the Government are highly conscious of the need to ensure that the objectives of liberalisation are not thwarted by congestion problems. We are working hard to tackle these issues in the forums where they can most appropriately be addressed. I trust your Lordships will agree with me that the Government are acting on lines consistent with the reports.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I hope that the House will not think it discourteous on my part if I do not seek to reply to the very many points made in regard

1741
to the two reports. I should like to express great appreciation to the Minister for the way in which he replied to the debate. I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions. It has been helpful because it has not been a debate solely of praise of the committee. There has been some criticism, which I take in the spirit in which it was given. Instead of seeking to reply I undertake to go through the Hansard report of the debate and where I think it necessary I shall write to noble Lords in regard to the matters they have raised. I again thank the Minister and all noble Lords for their contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

A Wider Europe: Council of Europe's Role
6.12 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what role they believe the Council of Europe should play in the construction of a wider Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one year ago tonight the Berlin Wall was still standing, hardline communists were governing Czechoslovakia and Ceausescu was still terrorising the Romanian people. Today Václav Havel is President of Czechoslovakia, Lech Walesa is running for the presidency of Poland and all of Eastern Europe, including Albania, is looking westwards. In a week's time Hungary will become the first ex-communist country to join the Council of Europe. Three other countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, have applied for membership, and all the countries of the former Eastern bloc bar Romania and Albania have special observer status with the Council's parliamentary assembly. These developments show very clearly both the speed and the nature of the changes that have occurred in Central and Eastern Europe over the past 18 months.
If we cast our minds back even further, some of us will remember the sombre days of the spring of 1949 and the Berlin crisis. In April of that year the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was established, and less than one month later, on 5th May, the agreement setting up the Council of Europe was signed here in London at St. James's Palace. If the conception behind NATO was that of a military alliance to check the spread of communism by force, the Council of Europe was certainly in part originally planned as a political and ideological barrier to collectivist totalitarian thinking. Its statute was based on the very principles of pluralistic parliamentary democracy— those of human rights and the rule of law. Little wonder then that for the next 37 years the Council of Europe, with all its ups and downs in the shadow of the EC, would be complete anathema to those who ruled in Moscow, Prague or Budapest; little wonder also that today those very same countries are all knocking at the door of the Council of Europe in search of a clean bill of democratic health.
It is against this background that I should like to look at the role the Council of Europe should play in the development of the wider post-Berlin Wall Europe which we all greeted with such euphoria just a few months ago. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe obviously need massive aid to move towards the establishment of some sort of market economy. The group of the 24 rich industrialised countries and the EC through a new generation of "super" association agreements are trying to cope with that side of things. But the idea of early EC membership for them which some people are putting about does not in my view seem a realistic assessment at the moment.
The Community cannot at present cope with new applications from Western Europe let alone with hypothetical ones from countries which will take years to establish healthy market economies. But Europe's fledgling democracies need more than mere economic aid. That is why for some months now there has been a great deal of talk about setting up new pan-European political institutions. Mikhail Gorbachev set the ball rolling with his idea of a common European home when he addressed the Council of Europe in Strasbourg 15 or 16 months ago. Since then others, from Francois Mitterrand to Václav Havel, have waxed lyrical on ambitious schemes which on closer analysis often seem to amount to little more than reinventing the wheel.
Meanwhile, perhaps uncharacteristically, the Council of Europe has acted. By June 1989 the parliamentary assembly had set up what was termed "special guest status", to be granted to the parliaments of those countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are moving towards democracy and implementing United Nations and CSCE Helsinki process human rights agreements. As a result, and as I said earlier, the Council of Europe Assembly now groups representatives of the parliaments of all European countries except for Romania and Albania. To all intents and purposes it is already, de facto, the first pan-European political forum.
As things stand, no other existing European organisation is in a position to play such a role. EFTA is an economic grouping. A minimum requirement, as with the EC, is that there should be a market economy in place. NATO and the Western European Union are by definition military and defence organisations. The only other possibility is, of course, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe or the so-called Helsinki process, which includes the United States and Canada in its circle. It has played a major role in easing relations between East and West since it first saw the light of day back in 1975. In a certain sense it was the Trojan horse through which Western values permeated eastwards. Today, with the end of the Cold War and the subsequent political upheavals, we have to ask ourselves whether we still need that Trojan horse or whether we might not be better off using different vehicles to promote democracy, human rights and co-operation among all the countries of Europe.
Heads of state and governments of the 34— previously 35, before German reunification—CSCE countries will be meeting in Paris from 19th to 21st November to map out the post cold-war organisation, or, to use the "in" Eurojargon term, "the future architecture of Europe". Understandably, they will be seeking to accentuate the benefits of the Helsinki process in its three major areas of concern—security issues, economic matters, and what is termed the "human dimension"; in other words, the principle of human rights, democracy and so on.
Alongside those issues they will be looking at how best to involve the former Eastern bloc in the European unification process and foster co-operation between those countries and Western Europe. One option would be to set up a whole series of new institutions to carry out those tasks. In my view that must be resisted. We do not need more bureaucracies. What we need to do is to make better use of existing ones. We should only think in terms of new bodies if existing ones cannot do the job better.
So far as concerns economic matters, we now have the group of 24, the EC, EFTA, the OECD and the UN Economic Commission for Europe. It would need a very fragile imagination to consider anything else. As for security issues, with the demise of the Warsaw Pact and in the face of a new military and strategic situation which is developing, there may well be a case for setting up a new, small and effective organisation to draw on the experience acquired by the CSCE in that area.
However, when it comes to human rights, we in Britain are only too aware that there already is highly effective machinery operating at European level in the shape of the European Court and the European Commission of Human Rights, set up under the Council of Europe's human rights convention which, incidentally, will be celebrating its 40th birthday on 4th November. As a passing reference to the continuing concern about the human rights issue within the Council of Europe framework, only last week the Commission published its findings on the Spycatcher case.
Inevitably, human rights agreements, drawn up by the 35 CSCE states, represent no more than a common denominator agreed by Brezhnev's Russia and the West at a time of confrontation politics. On the other hand, the Council's European human rights convention is actually the highest level of internationally guaranteed human rights protection ever achieved anywhere in the world.
We must at all costs avoid establishing competing schemes. That would merely lead to double standards and in my view would be detrimental to all concerned. It is in our interests and those of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to bring them into the protective and enforceable framework of the Council of Europe and to give their citizens access to the European Court at Strasbourg.
I believe that the Council of Europe is well placed to provide a political home for Europe's emerging democracies. As I have mentioned, Hungary will be
1744
joining on 6th November when the organisation's foreign ministers meet in Rome. Poland has been invited to join once it has held fully democratic elections and these, in all probability, will take place some time early next year. Czechoslovakia's application is being examined. As other countries complete their internal democratic reform process, nothing precludes their also being admitted.
At parliamentary level, with the whole of Europe —that is, bar Romania and Albania—involved, the Council of Europe suggests itself as the obvious nucleus upon which to build a CSCE, parliamentary wing. That fact did not escape the notice of NATO leaders when they met in London last July. At the instigation of President Bush they supported the,
"establishment of a CSCE parliamentary body, the Assembly of Europe, to be based on the existing Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe."
That concept was taken on board by the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly which convened a two-day meeting in September of the representatives of the parliaments of all the CSCE countries to discuss the setting up of an "Assembly of Europe" along the lines suggested by the NATO leaders. All CSCE countries (plus Albania as an observer) were present, but not the United States. The official explanation given was the heavy schedule of the US Congress. Be that as it may, an overwhelming majority of the delegates at the Strasbourg meeting called for continuous parliamentary involvement in the CSCE process to be guaranteed through an "Assembly of Europe" based on the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly. They also asked the CSCE Paris summit meeting to take full account of the potential of existing European, Atlantic and United Nations structures and to create new institutions only where necessary—for example, in the field of conflict resolution. Once again, common sense seems to dictate that we should use an existing structure to meet a new and totally justified need.
I turn to the question of fostering intergovernmental co-operation between the countries of Europe. Again, it would be pointless to set up a new organisation to work in areas such as law, culture, the environment, youth, health and so on. Today, with over 40 years' experience behind it, the Council of Europe has, for instance, drawn up nearly 140 European conventions on almost anything and everything from the international transport of corpses to satellite broadcasting, and from extradition to insider trading. In my view, setting up a new body to do what has already been achieved would be tantamount to re-inventing the wheel. Surely, yet again, common sense dictates that we should use the Council of Europe so that its work can be extended to the new democracies of Eastern Europe with whatever organisational adjustment is subsequently felt necessary.
Governments should indeed take this opportunity to ensure that the Council modernises and streamlines its working methods so that it is able to meet new challenges. They should also ensure that the organisation has sufficient resources to pursue and

1745
increase its programmes of aid towards constitutional, legal and democratic reform which are an essential pre-requisite to consolidating and capitalising on the political changes which have been under way since last year.
Next week two important meetings regarding the future of the Council of Europe and the preparation of the CSCE Paris summit are to take place in Rome. On 5th November, human rights ministers will be meeting on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the signing, in the same city, of the European Convention on Human Rights which now gives more than 400 million people the right to file complaints with the European Commission of Human Rights. Among other issues, the ministers will be looking at how to plug the CSCE into the Council of Europe human rights protection scheme. On the following day foreign ministers meet to plan the Council's place in Europe's future "architecture".
Decisions have to be taken. I therefore ask that Her Majesty's Government inform this House as to the role that they believe the Council of Europe should play in the wider European structure.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, we should all welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in opening the debate and congratulate him on the way he has done so. I agree with everything he has said. As a member of the Council of Europe, he of course has present knowledge and can speak with much more authority than I can. A good many years have passed since I led, first, the Conservative delegation to the Council of Europe and, then, the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament. However, I still maintain my interest in both those bodies. Their roles, as I see it, are in no way antagonistic; they are essentially complementary.
The Community of Six, as we always used to proclaim, was not the whole of Europe; nor is the Community of 12. Austria has applied to become a full member of the Community. I am glad that the Government appear to have withdrawn their initial opposition to that application. Other countries in Scandinavia and elsewhere also have the right to join in due course. The new democracies may enter, as the noble Lord has said. That cannot be done quickly. Meanwhile, closer unity is needed among all states of Europe.
When we joined the Community we said firmly that our purpose was to build a bridge between the Community and our EFTA partners. We are still all together in the Council of Europe, where I believe the assembly is an important forum for Members of all our national Parliaments, including, I am glad to say, the noble Lord. As he explained, with the emergence of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, the role of the Council of Europe becomes increasingly relevant and important. As he put it so clearly, the Council of Europe is in a real sense the first pan-European forum.
1746
Europe in its widest sense, comprising 30 individual sovereign states, is not, for most of us, a mere geographical concept. By virtue of its composition, and the nature of its activities, I believe, like the noble Lord, that the Council of Europe is best qualified at present to be the instrument of European cooperation right across the board. That is especially true in respect of the promotion of human rights and the common European cultural identity.
Even before recent events transformed the political situation, the council was dealing in a wider context with, for example, problems of the environment, recognising of course that pollution of the Danube does not stop at an imaginary iron curtain. In those and other fields the Council of Europe has achieved a great deal through its many conventions, to which reference has been made, and by other means. It has done, and it is still doing, a good job within the constraints of its unfortunately limited resources.
I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government are making more money and resources available to the Council of Europe to meet its growing responsibilities. It does a great deal which is of value to Europe as a whole. For example, for three years, until March of this year, it was Councillor John Morgan of the United Kingdom who was president of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe—the local government arm of the Council of Europe. He was only the second British president since the first local government conference was held in 1957. In that capacity he led with energy and commitment efforts to strengthen local government, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. I hope that the high standing in this field which Britain secured through him will be followed up by Her Majesty's Government, and that we shall hear that funds are being made available to the local authority associations to help with the training of local government officers and in other ways.
I speak, in a sense, with an interest, as president of the Association of District Councils. I am aware how anxious British local government is to help in that way. I should like to know what support the Government are giving to the Council of Europe in its role of promoting strong and independent local government, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, because it must be understood that it is not possible to secure anywhere real and effective democracy without real and effective local government.
I agree with the noble Lord that the Council of Europe is the first major institution that the new democracies can become qualified to join. We have heard that Hungary is soon to become a member; Poland's application is on the table; others will surely follow and I hope that many are on their way to becoming full members of the EC, however long that process may take. In those circumstances we must pay more regard to Article 230 of the Treaty of Rome, with which your Lordships are no doubt familiar, which states:

1747
"The Community shall establish all forms of co-operation with the Council of Europe".
In 1986 I was a member of the Colombo Commission—so called because it was presided over by Mr. Emilio Colombo, former Prime Minister of Italy and a former president of the European Parliament. We were asked by the Council of Europe to work out future perspectives for European co-operation beyond the present decade. Of course, in due course we reported and made a number of recommendations about structure, organisation and other matters. I shall not weary your Lordships at any length with those recommendations. No doubt they are gathering dust in some appropriate corner of Strasbourg. I shall say only that in our report we laid stress on the need for greater co-operation between the European Community and the Council of Europe. We recommended more extensive contacts at every level —ministerial, parliamentarian and official—and in that connection we argued the case—I put it forward in a general way now—for a single European Civil Service which would create bonds and common interests.
The lack of such a single service for the organisations engaged in the same process of European unification is anachronistic, to say the least, in present circumstances. We also made some comments upon what we described as the modest funds currently at the disposal of the Council of Europe, considering the problems to which it is expected to provide solutions. It deals with terrorism and drugs as well as all the matters that arise in connection with the Convention on Human Rights. I should like to know what the Government are doing with regard to increased or, alternatively, new sources of finance. I agree wholeheartedly with those who argue that rhetoric is no good without action. On the other hand, it is important that we in this country—I make no particular comment upon recent events— should not be too negative in our attitudes to what we seek to achieve in Europe.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister what action the Government are taking to support the role of the Council of Europe in the construction of the wider Europe which I believe we all wish to create.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am afraid that the debate will show a certain unanimity among the speakers who are asking the questions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on putting down the Question. He is a colleague of mine from the parliamentary assembly, and, while I have been thinking about putting down the Question, he has done so and has given us the opportunity to speak.
I shall start by commenting on the similarity between the noble Lord's well thought-out speech and the informed comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with his long experience of office in the Council of Europe and elsewhere. I should like to speak mainly about the importance of the parliamentary assembly and what it does to achieve genuine unity among the parliamentarians of Europe. There is
1748
an extraordinary proliferation of bodies, all of which do some good but all of which now face a different situation. The CSCE was the first body to provide unity between the East and the West and a common purpose and, as such, it was enormously valuable. The EC, which, as its name implies, is an economic community, is undergoing tremendous development, but is not immediately available to the Eastern European countries. EFTA was set up as an antidote to the EC. The WEU needs a new role which people doubt that it will get. NATO is effective, but the enemy has disappeared. A new role is needed for the combination of countries which form NATO and which do not include all the countries of Western Europe.
We are faced with a very promising situation. Everyone agrees that something must be done, but no one agrees how it should be done. Members of the parliamentary assembly realise, probably more than Ministers, the great value of the Council of Europe. That point has been greatly reinforced by the desire of Eastern European countries to join it. It underlines the importance of the Council of Europe in a way that is of great value and encouragement to those of us in the parliamentary assembly.
The parliamentary assembly is important simply because the parliamentarians get together in a social way and discuss important problems. They are way ahead of their governments in many subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred to some of those subjects. For example, the question of demography and migration is of great importance. The committee of which I have the honour to be a member works extremely hard. It is of great value to governments considering those problems.
The social side is important. My friend Karl Ahrens heads the Social Democrats from Germany. He and I both served in the Middle East. We worked out that I must have bombed him at one time. I apologised for missing him and he accepted my apology gracefully. Such contact is of great importance in solving the problems that we are tackling.
I do not think that the plan outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to expand the Council of Europe and to use it as a forum should include the North American countries. The parliamentarians should be present as guests and should co-operate, but we should go for Europe as an entity in itself. To spread it too wide would mean losing some of its obvious appeal.
I do not want to elaborate on what has been said. The Council of Europe is extremely valuable. It is the original concept and the one which is most practical at present. We want to know whether Her Majesty's Government recognise that point and whether they will support it with money and, more important, with political backing in the Council. The Minister should say what he thinks about the WEU and where it is going because that is another important body. In our case, the parliamentary delegates and substitutes belong to both bodies, but the WEU is a separate structure.

1749
Finally, the Government must give an assurance of their commitment to Europe, especially these days when the newspapers are full of the Government's disagreements in Europe. It is important that we are not left behind again in an insular and isolated position. I hope above all that the Minister can assure us that there is a commitment on the Government's part to supporting the admirable institution of the Council of Europe.
6.46 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on introducing this timely debate on the Council of Europe and on raising a number of interesting issues. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I had not even thought about putting down this Question because I am not a Liberal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for doing so. Without seeking to embarrass him, but as a colleague on the British delegation, I should perhaps say that he has won considerable admiration among our European colleagues for his tireless work as chairman of the Human Rights Committee, involving a great deal of travelling and effort. That shone through in his splendid speech this evening.
It is also fair to say that the present delegation, which is ably led by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, makes a considerable impact on the debates, reports and work of the assembly. It is fitting tonight that my noble friend Lord Reay who is to reply is a past member of the delegation. I hope that his brief is as enthusiastic as his work was when he served on the Council.
Since 5th May 1949 when, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminded us, the Council of Europe was born in London, the institution has grown steadily in achievement in upholding democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It must take credit for the many patient years of work in the period of the cold war, the confrontations of the 1960s and the 1970s, the strains within Western Europe and then the reforms in Poland and the dramatic collapse of the Eastern bloc. It must take credit for the numerous conventions covering many aspects of life from human rights and suppression of terrorism to animal welfare, protection of wildlife, the trans-frontier co-operation and, more recently, television broadcasting.
On a more individual scale, the Council's inception of the twinning of towns has led far beyond the unpronounceable names on roads outside towns to the getting together of European communities and a viable mixture of cultures. It is appropriate that such fine ideals should stem from the inspiration of such a beautiful city as Strasbourg.
The success of the Council's achievements stems from the wisdom of sticking to the firm standards of qualification not only to join but while one is a member of the Council. Both Greece and, partly, Turkey, discovered that to their temporary cost. The respect for the Council has today made it an essential
1750
club for any European country which is a non-member to join to legitimise itself in the eyes of its neighbours.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has described vividly the responsible task facing the Council with regard to Eastern Europe. It is both an exciting and an exacting task of checking not only that true democratic elections have taken place, but also of advising on the new structures of local and central governments and even helping to rewrite constitutions. None of those are mean tasks and they require great experience and skill. Where does the assembly fit into the work of the Council? Although it accounts for only 10 per cent. of the Council's activities, I believe its work is carried out in the most extraordinarily effective way. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to that point.
It is a natural foil to cosy committees of ministers. The Council with its 23 members takes a much wider view than a more narrowly based body. Its members are in direct touch with home parliaments. That is of great value. The Council, backed by a small but dedicated staff of only 50 people, submits the most impressive reports, often upon issues which are ahead of public opinion. They regularly form the basis of new draft conventions. It was encouraging to read recently that the Council's budget, having undergone negative growth for 10 years, is now to be strengthened to meet the extra demands imposed on the Council of handling Eastern European matters. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, would be interested to know what the plans are for strengthening the Council's budget. I hope my noble friend can give us the increase on previous budgets as a percentage figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, referred to the future of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe as did all the other speakers. He referred to the role that the Council of Europe could and should play in that matter. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that it would be bureaucratic madness to set up a separate Assembly of Europe to meet once a year for four days when the Council of Europe can easily accommodate that. I hope that it will be agreed in Paris in November that the Council's considerable experience on human rights can be used for the benefit of the CSCE member countries. There is even a new building that is now under construction which could accommodate them.
The matter of security is left for the consideration of the CSCE. This again could be handled by the Western European Union, which has an existing capability in this matter. I am sure there will be a great deal of lobbying as regards what new institutions are needed for the CSCE. In truth, given time, the Council of Europe could adapt to tackling this task and could carry it out with distinction and experience. If this debate had taken place two years ago, before the political map of Europe was changed by President Gorbachev's ideals, the arguments on where the Council of Europe was going would have been somewhat muted. Today the Council stands at the threshold of new challenges. It is well equipped in

1751
experience and has a good reputation. It is a wider European institution. It does not haggle over trade or seek to grasp economic control over fellow member states. Rather it seeks to create a unified Europe that cares about culture and the environment but, above all, about democratic freedom. The Council is the unsung hero of Europe and it deserves support for its proper role in the future. I hope that my noble friend will confirm the Government's support for the Council tonight.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, when I was asked if my name could be put forward as a delegate to the Council of Europe, I have to admit that I had little, if any, knowledge of that body. That occurred in 1986 and since then I have got to know the Council well. I hold much of its work in high esteem. However, I fear that there is small knowledge of the Council among the general public, and perhaps even among some Members of your Lordships' House.
As we have already heard, the Council represents 23 European countries and is in the process of welcoming the first countries from what until recently was known as Eastern Europe. Its delegates are all nominated from their elected parliaments and are therefore able to speak with the authority of their assemblies. In spite of this, confusion still exists in some people's minds as to the difference between this assembly and the European Parliament. It is regrettable that the Council of Europe is not better known and that the activities of its committees, the contents of its reports and the decisions of the Council of Ministers are not given more coverage by the media. Here I hope I may join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on initiating this debate. It is, in my memory, the first time that mention of the Council has been given any exposure in your Lordships' House. However, it is regrettable that the debate is taking place at quite a late hour and that so few noble Lords are present.
As we have already heard, the Council of Europe's main aims are to promote European unity by protecting and strengthening pluralist democracy and human rights; to seek solutions to the problems facing European society and to promote awareness of a European cultural society. I think your Lordships will agree that these aims are important to us all. They lift us above the narrower personal and even national concerns. At the same time they can have a lasting influence on the Europe of the future. I hope they will also have a spin-off effect on the rest of the world.
There can be little doubt that many third world countries look to Europe for an example. The Parliament at Westminster is not called the Mother of Parliaments for nothing. We therefore have a responsibility not only as Europeans but also as members of the wider world in which we live to take note of our conduct, of our concern for moral issues and of the kind of world our children and grandchildren can hope to inherit. It is so easy to sit back and say that everything will come right in the end. However, if the people of Eastern Europe had
1752
followed that philosophy, I wonder whether they would today be emerging from the traumatic experiences they have lived with for so many years.
As I said earlier, I have a high regard for much of the work that is undertaken by the Council of Europe. But, having said that, I believe it has a tendency to involve itself in too many different issues, some of which are of comparatively minor importance. Its committees have virtually a free rein to investigate, report on and debate almost anything they wish. This in turn involves expenditure, the time of its permanent officials—we have heard that those officials are few on the ground—and debating time in the hemicycle.
It is my belief that, if there were tighter control over the subjects undertaken for investigation and debate and if the Council concentrated more on the major questions of moral issues and human rights, it might be more successful in making its voice heard and in influencing the decisions taken by the governments of its member states. Having said that, I believe that the Council of Europe can and should be considered as the watchdog of our society, or perhaps even as its conscience, so it is a pity that the general public are not more aware of it and that the media do not think it worth paying more attention to. It is true that the Council does not produce many sensational stories, but it carries out much useful and important work. It also sends many worthwhile recommendations to the Council of Ministers. Perhaps, if those recommendations were subject to a little more exposure to the public, more of them might see the light of day.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start, as many other noble Lords have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, on initiating this debate. It has been extraordinarily useful. Perhaps it has demonstrated a degree of unanimity and agreement which is not always apparent across the floor of either this House or indeed another place. I wish to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said, just before he sat down. Those of us who are in the House tonight probably consist of current members of the Council of Europe or past members of the assembly. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. If he has not attained the Council yet, I am sure that at some stage his party will send him there. I know of no one who has served on the Council of Europe and not found it a worthwhile, helpful and broadening process so far as concerns his own views, attitudes and experience. I certainly found it so some years ago. To that extent this is a useful, helpful and timely debate.
It is also useful, helpful and timely because it gives the Government an opportunity—which I hope they will take when the Minister replies—to tell the House about their thinking on the role that the Council of Europe can play in the new situation in Europe. Having listened to the debate I do not believe that there is much disagreement between us on matters of principle. Clearly, at the moment Europe is in a state of intense and rapid transition. Intense and rapid transition may be exhilarating but it is extremely difficult to control. We are moving with immense speed from a Continent dominated by two power

1753
blocs, led successively by the world superpowers. Our task is now to try to achieve a more flexible, reasonable and co-operative structure.
Transition is not only difficult; it is painful. The danger is that in that transition, as in so many others, the best may become the enemy of the good. In my view we have to build on what we have. I echo the suspicions that have been voiced tonight about the possibility of creating new institutions. I am not against creating new institutions if new institutions are needed; but looking at what is going on in Europe at present I should have thought that a new institution which was designed purely and simply to give parliamentary backing to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was unnecessary.
If we are all agreed that the newly emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have to be accommodated within the comity of European nations, the question to be decided is how to bring about that accommodation and what institutions can be used most successfully to achieve it. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, say that the Council of Europe and the European Economic Community were not to be viewed as antagonists. Of course they are not. Their roles are different; their structures are different; their membership is different; the way in which they are developing is totally different; and their duties are different. They are two different institutions, each of which is playing, in its own way, an extremely important role in the development of Europe.
In some ways it is the very flexibility and adaptability of the Council of Europe that makes it particularly appropriate in today's situation. I read a debate which took place in another place about a year ago in which my honourable friend Mr. Donald Anderson, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that, rather like the famous beer advertisement, it could reach places that others could not reach. If one compares the way in which the Community can act and the way in which the Council of Europe can act, it is that flexibility and adaptability which makes the Council of Europe extremely helpful and useful in the present situation in Europe.
We support the principle that the Council of Europe, suitably adapted, could provide the basis for a parliamentary assembly for the CSCE countries. However, it will need to be adapted, and it may have to be adapted quite radically. The problem, as in so many difficult situations, is how we get from where we are now to where we want to go. I therefore have a number of questions to put to the Government. I do not believe that this is an appropriate occasion for a long speech from this Bench, but there are a number of issues on which I should be grateful if the Government would let us know their thinking.
I should like the Minister to say how the Government see the process of the adaptation of the Council of Europe. To take one of the most difficult questions of all, if the Council of Europe is to provide the basis for a parliamentary assembly based upon the CSCE countries, what about the North Americans? Whatever else one can say about the United States of
1754
America, it is difficult to argue that it is a European country. On the other hand, I hold the view strongly that to exclude the United States from the affairs of Europe would be a disaster in the state of fluidity, instability and uncertainty that is now upon us. No doubt the Government have given some consideration to how one could accommodate the justifiable and justified position of the United States in the Council of Europe if it were used as the basis for a CSCE assembly. I should be grateful to hear the Government's thoughts on that subject.
Secondly, how do the Government see the existing Council expanding to take in all European countries? There, indeed, we have problems. To take only one, Albania, the Government's position, held very strongly in the past and supported from these Benches, has been that the Council of Europe is meant for countries which have representative democracies. Whatever Albania has, it does not have a representative democracy. Do the Government consider that Albania should be part of the process? How, indeed, does the Minister see the very strong human rights role of the Council of Europe being maintained if the Council is expanded to take in all the countries of Eastern Europe? I should be unhappy to see the very strong human rights work carried out by the Council of Europe almost since its inception weakened. On the other hand, if the existing structures of the Council are to be changed, would the Government accept the principle that any such change should not weaken the human rights role of the Council?
Can the noble Lord advise the House as to how many applications for membership of the Council have been received from countries in Eastern Europe? Perhaps more importantly, can he indicate what progress is being made in the processing of those applications? It would be helpful for us to have a basis of fact on which to consider the problem.
Again, can the noble Lord advise the House as to what progress is being made in reinforcing the role of the Council of Europe and the CSCE in monitoring human rights in Eastern Europe? If that is to be one of the criteria for admission to an expanded Council of Europe or whatever it becomes, are we actively monitoring what is going on? Can the Minister tell us how that is being done and to what effect?
If the Council of Europe becomes institutionalised as the parliamentary body of the CSCE, what enforcement role does the Minister see the Council of Europe having, bearing in mind the criticisms levelled at the Council in previous years that it is merely a talking shop? If it is to fulfil a role as the parliamentary assembly of the CSCE there is a fundamental question of competence. I do not believe that it would be sufficient merely to expand the Council of Europe in its present form, with its present responsibilities and powers, to include the countries of Eastern Europe and then pretend that we have created a valid pan-European parliamentary assembly.
There is a further small point which was provoked to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who made a passionate plea for local government,

1755
which we all support. Can the Minister tell us why, in that event, the Government have not yet signed the European charter for local self-government? Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point. I am delighted to receive the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for that point.
Finally, there is the question of money. If the Council of Europe is to be adapted and that process of adaptation is to be successful and it is to become the nucleus of a parliamentary assembly for CSCE, it will not come cheap. There is a myth that peace is cheap and war is expensive. In my experience it is frequently the other way about. If we are to create democratic institutions which will last and which include the Eastern European countries, the Government will have to face up to the difficulty of providing sufficient resources for that to take place.
In conclusion, perhaps I may reiterate my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill on having initiated this debate. As I said, I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between Members who have taken part in the debate. I hope that the Minister will have taken note of the questions. I see that the Box is busy and no doubt notes will be passed to him. However, if he cannot answer the questions tonight, I hope that at least he will look at them seriously and give his considered answers in due course.
7.10
Lord Reay: My Lords, Britain has been closely associated with the Council of Europe since its inception, and even lbefore. We remain staunch supporters of the Council of Europe to this day; and we contribute actively to thinking about the Council's role in the future. In 1943, when Europe was torn by armed conflict, Winston Churchill put forward a vision of:
"a Council of Europe which must inevitably embrace the whole of Europe, and all the main branches of the European family must some day be partners in it".
That vision was only partially realised in May 1949 when Europe was tragically and unnaturally divided by the Iron Curtain which descended across the Continent. The Council of Europe became the first European political organisation to be created after the Second World War, by means of a statute signed in London. The Council's role, embodied in that statute, was to achieve:
"an ever-greater unity between its member states on the basis of pluralist democracy and human rights".
That role is as valid now as it was then. Then, the Council had only 10 member countries, of which Britain was proud to be one. It expanded over the years to incorporate other Western European democracies and has reached a total of 23 members.
Today an even more glittering perspective beckons as a result of the magnificent political transformation that we have seen develop in Europe in the past few years. Before too long we can expect to see the accession of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia to the Council of Europe. Eventually we hope that conditions will be such as to enable the remaining
1756
countries of Eastern Europe to join. Thus, the vision of the Council of Europe's founding fathers of uniting Europe shows at last a possibility of being realised.
Before going on to the future, let me say something about the Council of Europe's achievements. The Council's work in the field of human rights is uniquely valuable and Britain has contributed significantly to it. Britain was the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. This preceded the creation of the European Commission of Human Rights in 1954 and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights in 1959. The European Convention on Human Rights was a landmark in the development of international law and sets a standard of law and behaviour by which modern democracies can be and have been judged. If a country fails to meet that standard, it runs the risk of being expelled.
The threat posed to the fabric of our society by drugs is being actively combated by the Council of Europe Pompidou Group, which was established in 1980. We welcome the Pompidou Group's decision to offer full membership to Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia.
The Council of Europe parliamentary assembly provides a unique forum—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, called it the first pan-European forum —for elected representatives from 23 European democratic parliaments. The contribution to that assembly of successive British representatives is well known throughout Europe. It continues to this day, not least as a result of the contributions of noble Lords taking part in the debate tonight. I should like to pay tribute to that continuing work in your Lordships' House this evening.
Time would not allow me to comment on all the other aspects of valuable activity, such as the implementation of the 1985 European Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage and the Council's current project on the protection and enhancement of 20th century architecture. The Council of Europe also has an acknowledged role to play in areas such as social affairs, where it has established a social charter, or in local government matters, where it has promoted co-operation between local authorities. That I believe is a point dear to my noble friend Lord Rippon. The Council's work here may not often hit the headlines but it is nonetheless useful for that.
Turning back to the future, the Council of Europe is indeed beginning a new phase. As I have said, we now have the prospect of welcoming Eastern European members. The Council of Europe has done much to promote this outcome. It has been active in promoting reform and democratisation; it has afforded advice to aspirant members on the legislation which would be required for membership. It has put aside special financial provisions for co-operation with Central and Eastern Europe; and it has been involved in monitoring free and fair elections in countries which have not experienced them for over 50 years.

1757
Membership of the Council of Europe is for those countries a major step toward rejoining the wider European family. Further steps are possible, as Britain has already proposed, by means of association agreements between individual East European countries and the European Community. Membership of the European Community may for some of them also be an eventual possibility. On 3rd October, with the unification of Germany, the geographical area of the Council of Europe, as that of the Community, increased to include the eastern part of Germany. On 6th November Hungary will become the first state from Central and Eastern Europe to take its seat as a full member of the Council of Europe. I feel sure that all Members of this House will wish to join me in welcoming that prospect.
Poland, which was a pioneer of reform in Eastern Europe, and Czechoslovakia are likely to join before long. Meanwhile, both of those countries have been invited to send representatives to the meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers which is due to take place in Rome on 6th November. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and Bulgaria currently have guest status in the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly and are thus able to witness part of the democratic process in action.
Of course, as many noble Lords have recognised, the Council of Europe is not the only body which has a role to play in the field of human rights in Europe. The CSCE, through the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, affords the West an unrivalled opportunity to monitor the human rights performance of all European states. The CSCE of course includes the Soviet Union, Canada and the United States, in addition to the 23 members of the Council of Europe and the Eastern European countries. We believe that their close involvement in multilateral human rights work in Europe is desirable. That was a view which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quite strongly expressed.
The Council of Europe and the CSCE have developed their respective instruments and practices along distinctive lines. While the European Convention on Human Rights is based upon legally enforceable obligations, the human rights commitments of the Helsinki Final Act are exclusively of a political rather than a legal nature. Both the CSCE and the Council of Europe in their different ways have been of enormous value as benchmarks and as a means of encouraging the development of human rights and of democracy. Work is now in hand, supported by us, to find the most efficient division of labour between the two organisations. As noble Lords will be aware, the London Declaration of the NATO summit last July recommended the establishment of:
"a CSCE Parliamentary body, the Assembly of Europe, to be based on the existing Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg, and to include representatives of all CSCE member states".
The United Kingdom welcomed this suggestion.
Establishing an assembly of Europe is a decision for CSCE states themselves to take. But in our view it would make good sense to harness to the new body the
1758
prestige and experience of the Council of Europe assembly. There would be obvious advantages in a close co-operation between the two bodies over procedures and facilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said, we must make use of existing bureaucracies before we think of creating new ones. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said something along similar lines. The CSCE debate, which was hosted by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 26th to 27th September, was a positive first example of how CoE/CSCE co-operation in this area might work.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords, although I am afraid that I shall not be able to deal very well with the barrage of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, fired at me in the speech that he made just before I rose. I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having introduced the subject and congratulate him on his speech. He has admirably identified the issues facing the Council of Europe. I agree with him on virtually everything he said. I should particularly like to endorse his remarks on the need for financial efficiency.
My noble friend Lord Rippon raised the question of the budget. I should like to emphasise that we are one of the major financial contributors to the Council of Europe. In 1990 our contribution was £8.7 million. We met about 17 per cent. of its total budget. We also contribute actively to discussions designed to concentrate the Council's resources on priority areas. Before agreeing to new resources, we seek in the Council, as we do in many other international organisations, to ensure that existing resources are used more efficiently.
In that context, I should like to mention the Know How Fund. It was established for Eastern Europe. In this financial year we expect to spend some £15 million in various key sectors in those countries. It is a fund which covers among other things political, legal social and media matters, banking and financial services, industrial restructuring and privatisation. It also gives help to emerging parliamentary and local governments.
My noble friend Lord Rippon raised the subject of local government. As he knows, the Council of Europe is the home of the European Conference of Local Authorities. It is active in promoting co-operation between local authorities in the member countries. As new members join from Eastern Europe, that co-operation will certainly increase and will continue to have the Government's support.
My noble friend referred to Article 230 of the Treaty of Rome which refers to co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. No noble Lord is better fitted than my noble friend to bring up that subject, as he pointed out. I was privileged to serve in the delegation which he led in the European Parliament many years ago.
There is co-operation between the European Community and the Council of Europe both in the form of access to publications and of periodic

1759
meetings between the Commission and the Council of Europe secretariat. However, in our view there is room for improvement in order to avoid duplication of activity. The Government are active in support of that aim.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about the parliamentary assembly. I am happy to give him the assurance that he sought of Her Majesty's Government's continued commitment to the Council of Europe.
I endorse the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the importance of the Council of Europe maintaining its high standard in relation to human rights and democracy. I shall have to write to my noble friend on his question about budgetary growth, giving him the details that he requested.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Rodney is my successor in the Council of Europe delegation. He too touched upon the need for efficiency and focus in the Council's activities. That issue was addressed by the Council of Ministers in May 1989 and the British Government strongly endorse the declaration issued on that occasion which called for efforts to improve the effectiveness of intergovernmental action.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, upon his appointment. I believe that this was his first occasion on the Front Bench. I welcome him. He brings very great international experience to bear from which I am sure we shall all benefit in the years to come. That was all too evident in the series of expert and testing questions with which he showered me. If he does not mind, I shall write to him on them.
I have mentioned some of the areas in which the Council of Europe is actively working to promote co-operation between European states. There are of course many others: health, social and economic affairs, education, culture and sport, legal affairs, youth matters, co-operation between local and regional authorities, and so on. In short, it is every area, excluding defence, which affects the basic conditions of life for 400 million Europeans.
Because of its experience and the respect in which it is held, the Council of Europe is well qualified to play a vital role in building tomorrow's Europe. The Council has proved its value, not just as an organisation serving the interests of all its members but as a beacon showing others the way to a more open and just society in Europe.

London Underground Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promoters of the London Underground 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 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.

Adelphi Estate Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promoters of the Adelphi Estate 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 morning 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 shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
  Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [H.L.]
    British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
      Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
        Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
          Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
            London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
              London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
                Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
                Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
                North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
                Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
                A Message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolutions of this House of 17th October, 23rd October and 25th October.
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
Courts and Legal Services Bill
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendments to the Commons amendments agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill
Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain Lords amendments agreed to, with certain other Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; the Commons reasons and amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order 48.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

  CIVIL LEGAL AID: ELIGIBILITY LIMITS
  CIVIL LEGAL AID: ELIGIBILITY LIMITS
  EMERGENCY TELEPHONES ON TRUNK ROADS
  EMERGENCY TELEPHONES ON TRUNK ROADS
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION
  WAR CRIMINALS: PROCEEDINGS IN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA
  WAR CRIMINALS: PROCEEDINGS IN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA
  BUCKLEY HALL YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION
  BUCKLEY HALL YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS: DAILY TOTALS JULY/OCTOBER 1990
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS: DAILY TOTALS JULY/OCTOBER 1990
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS AT 1st OCTOBER 1990: BREAKDOWN BY POLICE FORCE
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS AT 1st OCTOBER 1990: BREAKDOWN BY POLICE FORCE
  INDUSTRIAL SECTORS: ENCOURAGEMENT OF SUCCESS
  INDUSTRIAL SECTORS: ENCOURAGEMENT OF SUCCESS
  CAMBODIA: AID
  CAMBODIA: AID
  BRITISH-IRISH INTERPARLIAMENTARY BODY
  BRITISH-IRISH INTERPARLIAMENTARY BODY
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: PROPERTY UNDER REPAIR
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: PROPERTY UNDER REPAIR