Sitting of 26 April 1991

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

    St. Francis Primary School, Notting Hill
    9.36 am
    Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the governors, teachers, parents and neighbours of St. Francis primary school, Treadgold street, Notting Hill, in my constituency of Kensington. The petition states that the redevelopment of the school is a matter of great urgency because of the highly unsatisfactory conditions in which 325 children are being taught. The proposed redevelopment depends on the closure of Treadgold street, in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The petition has been signed by more than 2,000 people, which constitutes some 5 per cent. of my electorate in the constituency of Kensington.
    The petitioners pray
    that your honourable House requests the Right Hon. Secretary of State, Department of Transport to grant immediate permission for the closure of Treadgold street so that work on the redevelopment, the plans for which already have been approved by the Department of Education and Science and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, may begin without further delay.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Orders of the Day

    Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.38 am
    Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Although this is a private Member's Bill, I hope that the House will not think it boastful if I say that it is an important Bill. It will enable new rules to be set that will govern the way in which nearly 500,000 shipments of radioactive and nuclear material go by road in this country every year.
    It is a radical Bill in its way, for it gives the Department of Transport powers of entry and inspection and allows penalties to be exacted on those who break the rules when carrying highly dangerous radioactive material on our roads. The regulations that will be enabled by the Bill will set the safety standards for the nuclear and radioactive industries at the highest international levels. They will determine the parameters for nuclear tranport in the generation ahead—a generation which is likely to see the rapid growth in that industry, which is so important to modern life, whether providing nuclear fuel for power plants or cancer-searching radioisotopes to the hospitals. Within the power of the atom lies the certain source of our future energy needs. As we unlock it, we will gain in knowledge—an ally and not an enemy—but only if we are rigorous in controlling that power and in restraining the methods by which it is used, and in the case of the Bill, ensuring that when radioactive material is moved from one place to another it is secure.
    Although it is an important Bill, it has not been a controversial one. I am afraid that in this House we often muddle the two. We think that anything that does not kick up a political dust storm cannot be of real worth.
    The Bill slipped through to Third Reading with uncommon agility. The Second Reading was over and done with in six minutes flat. The Committee stage, I am afraid, took longer, but in eight minutes from start to finish no critics appeared and thus I bring the Bill to the Floor of the House unamended. In the incomprehensible way, to me at least, that these things work, this Bill, which was ninth in the list of private Member's Bills when it started, is now second and, with a fair wind, it looks like being the first private Member's Bill to reach the statute book this season. There has been good reason for that turn of speed because, by passing the Bill into law, Parliament is bringing Britain into line with its international commitments that were given as long ago as 1985. The deadline for meeting those commitments disgracefully ran out last year without any action having been taken by the United Kingdom, although all our major trading partners have by now taken the necessary steps to comply.
    Britain is a leading member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, which lays down standards for the world's radioactive and nuclear industries. That authority has long been concerned with the quality of the regulations that govern the

    1323
    movement of radioactive materials by road. After all, that is perhaps the moment of their greatest vulnerability. A fuel rod that will soon be surrounded by tonnes of concrete in a power station is on nothing more substantial than a truck when it is being delivered. A radioisotope, which is safe in the hands of a surgeon, has to be handled by a driver or a porter in a hospital.
    The International Atomic Energy Agency is concerned, first, because of the sheer number of shipments—about half a million in Britain every year. Some of those shipments are in large trucks trundling to nuclear power stations from the railhead. Sometimes small parts of radioactive material are almost chucked into the back of an engineer's van on the way to measuring the stress in, say, a North sea oil rig.
    The powers that the Department of Transport has to oversee such shipments need to be brought up to date because they date back to the last time that the House considered these matters, which was in 1947—a time when the nuclear industry was in its infancy and when there were probably no more than 100 shipments a year by road.
    That is one cause for concern, but there is a second. Whenever a shipment of radioactive material goes by boat across the channel, for example, or by air, as do tens of thousands of packets every year, due to the thriving market that Britain has built up in medical exports, the regulations are modern and effective because as soon as they travel outside this country they are governed by regulations set by international agencies. However, if one puts a dollop of radioactive material in the back of a road vehicle, by a curious loophole of our legislative history, the method of enforcing standards of safety and packaging for that material dates back to 1947. Hence the reason for the Bill.
    The International Atomic Energy Agency has requested that all its members have a central, competent authority for road transport to make and to enforce the rules. In Britain's case the Bill makes the Department of Transport that authority, which is why I welcome the Minister's presence this morning.
    The Bill does not set down the rules. It is an enabling Bill because it is not a matter for laymen like ourselves to write such rules. Besides, the needs and requirements will change constantly. The Bill enables the Secretary of State for Transport to set regulations, which will cover such aspects as the design and nature of containers for radioactive materials, their resistance to burning or crushing, how many small packets, when put together, can be transported safely—as the total radiation grows exponentially—and how such packets should be labelled.
    Regulations in such a highly expert and scientific area will be set after close discussion with the industry, and that is entirely right. It is worth pointing out at this stage that the nuclear and radioactive industries have been wholly behind the Bill. For the most part they already more than meet the highest standards and they understand the need to modernise the legislative framework within which they operate. That is something that the nuclear industry welcomes, not something which it fears. Why? Because without the Bill the Department of Transport is only able to make general regulations which fail to reflect the world standards in packaging, labelling and transport documentation. However, such standards are needed if we are
    1324
    to convince other countries that the United Kingdom applies the United Nations transport regulations of 1985 to its radioactive industry.
    Although this legislation would apply only to domestic road transport, it would also cover radioactive material intended for international transit. Therefore, by adopting the International Atomic Energy Agency's standards we shall bring ourselves into line with other countries which compete with the United Kingdom in world markets. Some of those countries have a reputation for using non-tariff barriers to protect their own markets. They say that they will not let in British supplies of medical radio isotopes or nuclear material because they are not packaged up to international scratch. That is an excuse which they can cling to until we pass the regulations for which provision is made in the Bill. We must be able to demonstrate that packages used to transport radioactive material nationally and internationally comply fully with standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the moment we cannot.
    In view of 1992, what is the position of other EC member countries? After all, they are now our major trading partners, and all the EC countries are members of the IAEA. As such, they are under the same obligations as the United Kingdom, and almost all of them have already adopted the international regulations that I am seeking to introduce by means of the Bill.
    The European agreement for transporting dangerous goods by road, to which all EC states are a party, came into effect on 1 January 1990, more than a year ago. In line with other international regulations, it uses the standards laid down in this enabling Bill as guidelines. The provisions of the Bill are aimed at ensuring that the regulations made under it fully reflect the International Atomic Energy Agency's philosophy of building safety into the packages used to transport radioactive materials. It is a philosophy which the agency and its member states have operated effectively for the past 30 years. In stark constrast to much of the criticism of the nuclear industry, we have had an extraordinarily strong record both in this country and in the western world of developing the industry along safe and reasonable lines.
    Clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to implement the Bill and to enforce any regulations made under it. Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State power to make a comprehensive set of regulations to cover all aspects of the transport by road of radioactive materials. In clause 3, further provisions set out the circumstances in which an inspector appointed under the Road Traffic Act 1988 could stop a vehicle transporting radioactive packages. An inspector could prohibit the transport of such packages or the use of a particular component in the packaging of nuclear material. Those powers are not available at present to the Department of Transport. However, other agencies that work in the field of nuclear material, such as Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the Department of the Environment, already have such powers. The Bill therefore gives the Department of Transport powers that it would otherwise not have. It closes a loophole.
    If an inspector believes that someone is failing to comply with the regulations, he will be able, under clause 4, to issue an enforcement notice. Such a notice will specify the failure and the steps that must be taken to remedy it. Again, that is something which other agencies have

    1325
    available to them. What is novel is that under the Bill the regulations apply for the first time to this very important industry.
    Clause 5 gives powers of entry and sets out the circumstances in which inspectors and examiners can enter vehicles and premises with or without consent. It also specifies when an inspector may seize evidence.
    Finally, clause 6 makes it an offence to contravene or to fail to comply with the regulations made under the Bill. The same clause also contains penalties for the committing of such offences. It will allow prosecution to be either by summons or by indictment, depending on the severity of the offence. Again, the general thrust is that the clause serves only to bring the Secretary of State's powers on the transport of nuclear material by road into line with those that are available in other areas of the nuclear industry.
    With those provisions, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that when he makes regulations they can be effectively enforced. Then we shall be sure that the increase in the transport of nuclear material for industry, medical use and engineering can be effectively controlled.
    It is a good Bill. It addresses an immediate and real need. It closes a loophole. It will set guidelines for a generation. Those guidelines will be the world's best practice. The Bill is so sensible and overdue that the Opposition have mounted no criticims of it, for which I am grateful. It is supported by the industry, by users and by the Government. It sets a new legislative benchmark for the movement of what are potentially the most hazardous materials known to man. It dusts off legislation that was last touched in 1947. It is necessary if we are to meet our international obligations. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.51 am
    Ms. Joan Walley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on bringing the Bill before the House. As it stands, the Bill is not controversial and, to the extent that it goes, we very much welcome it. However, there are wider considerations that it is appropriate to bring before the House on Third Reading.
    Today is the fifth anniversay of the Chernobyl disaster. Nearly all of us can remember exactly where we were five years ago today when we had that terrible rainstorm and realised that a good part of the contamination was spreading from Chernobyl all round the world and finding its way to parts of our country. It is right and proper, therefore, that today of all days, five years on, we should be dealing with a measure that concerns the transportation of radioactive substances. If ever the House needed a reminder of how important an issue this is, it need look no further than at what happened at Chernobyl.
    It is also important to point out that five years after Chernobyl there are still problems and that there will continue to be problems for thousands of years. They will affect the people who live in that part of the Soviet Union. There will continue to be problems over the safety requirements for the reactors that continue to function there. Moreover, there will continue to be problems over the transportation of radioactive material. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to do everything that can be done to impose the highest possible standards for the occasions when there is no alternative but for radioactive substances to be transported by one mode or another.
    1326
    Although I do not take issue with the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, I take issue with the Government. The Opposition believe that an integrated transport system is needed that will enable goods, whether or not they are dangerous, to be transported safely by different modes of transport. We believe that the highest possible safety standards should apply to all those modes and that such standards should apply to radioactive goods, just as they apply to the transport of all forms of dangerous goods.
    The Opposition are greatly concerned about the fact that although in this Session the Government have introduced five transport Bills and found sufficient parliamentary time to deal with issues that they consider to be the highest on their list of priorities, they have not found time to address this issue. They have introduced a measure to privatise the trust ports, which are likely to be sold off. Today we learnt that the hospital trust at Guy's is to shed 600 jobs. However, the Government have not found time to bring before the House a Bill that would deal comprehensively with the transportation of all dangerous goods by all modes of transport—ship, rail, road and air. We criticise the Government for their piecemeal approach. A major cornerstone of our policy is the integration of the transport of all dangerous goods and the making of detailed regulations to cover their transportation, including packaging, monitoring, enforcement and all the other issues that need to be covered if we are to ensure that when dangerous goods are transported the highest possible standards apply.
    Only yesterday I discussed with freight forwarders in the south-west region, including south Wales, their concern that regulations governing the movement of goods by road to Europe are incompatible with those that apply to the movement of goods by sea. Their great concern is that the convention governing the carriage of goods by road, imposed by most other European countries as a mandatory requirement, has a get-out clause in this country. There are big loopholes concerning the carriage of all sorts of dangerous goods. The Bill should be viewed within the framework which could exist, but which, because of lack of political priority, does not exist.
    The regulations governing the transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom implement International Atomic Energy Agency regulations, which are kept under continual review. Major revisions take place every 10 years and the most recent was in 1990. The point has already been made that it is disgraceful that the latest regulations were not implemented at the earliest opportunity and that the introduction of tighter regulations has been left to a private Member's Bill. I condemn the Government for that.
    Within the United Kingdom, different regulations apply to transport by the four modes of road, air, sea and rail. The Bill is designed, as we have heard, to update the legislation on the transportation of radioactive material by road and to bring it into line with the IAEA regulations. We welcome the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations and that inspectors or examiners are provided with the authority to impose prohibitions on the driving of a vehicle or on the transportation of a radioactive package. They will be able to serve enforcement notices if there is a failure to comply with the prohibitions. It is also important that powers of

    1327
    entry should be provided for inspectors or examiners and the Bill should be enforced by means of a series of penalties if offences are committed.
    We have one concern about the Bill which we could not raise during its earlier stages and which we might not have raised anyway, because we want the Bill to reach the statute book. Had a comprehensive Bill been introduced, we should have wanted the regulations to provide for prior notification of the movement of any radioactive substances. Local authorities, the emergency services and the nuclear-free zone movement feel very strongly about that. We believe that there are compelling reasons why the emergency services and local authorities should be made aware in advance of the passage through their areas of all radioactive, toxic and hazardous substances. It is impossible to draw up effective emergency plans if the emergency services are given no information until an accident occurs. I urge the Minister to give that some consideration when drawing up the regulations.
    More information about freight lorries carrying dangerous materials could prevent accidents, injury and loss of life. Two years ago there was an accident near Peterborough where a lorry carrying explosives caught fire. The fire brigade was called and, tragically, one firefighter died when the explosives detonated. The fire brigade had not been notified of the contents of the lorry and therefore had been unable to make contingency plans. I hope that the Minister will have regard to that important matter.
    Luckily, the contents of the lorry were not radioactive. It would have been much more devastating had the fire brigade been called to deal with an accident involving the release of radioactivity without being given prior warning.
    It has always been claimed that low-level radioactive substances make up the vast majority of freight transported by road and are not considered to be a great threat to safety and the environment. However, spent fuel rods for research make regular journeys by road from Harwell to Dounreay for reprocessing. A considerable quantity of such goods is transported by road.
    Up to 50 research reactors in 22 countries use the same type of fuel and may wish to do business with plants in Britain. Foreign business could eventually build up to £25 million a year. The transport methods and routes which could be used in that context are uncertain, but it is likely that more spent fuels would arrive by sea at Scrabster. However, large shipments from Berlin, Holland, Saxony and perhaps from Australia would have to come into larger ports and thereafter be transported by road.
    There would be a greater threat to the environment from the risk of an accident involving spent HEU fuel in transit. The International Atomic Energy Agency requires flasks for transporting spent fuel to be designed to survive the impact of a 9 m fall, which is equivalent to an impact speed of about 30 mph; being engulfed by fire for 30 minutes at a temperature of 800 deg. C; and immersion at a depth of 200 m for one hour. The independent consulting engineers Large and Associates consider those tests not particularly onerous.
    Last year there were several attempts to ship from Germany to Hull radioactive material which was to be sent to Dounreay by road. Only the refusal of dock workers in Rotterdam and Hull to handle the cargo prevented
    1328
    shipment in an unsafe vessel. The shipment was first attempted by a container ship. Then it was proposed that it should be carried by roll-on, roll-off ferry. Such an approach in shipping can be easily translated to all modes of transport, with industry taking the attitude that the flasks are so indestructible that it is unimportant how they are transported. However, nuclear explosions in the relatively controlled environment of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island caused disasters on a devastating scale. The risk of transporting weapon-grade radioactive substances are obvious causes for concern and are one reason why in the United States there is a moratorium on imports until proper environmental assessments have been made.
    Had there been a comprehensive Bill on the subject, we should have tabled an amendment to ensure that regulations apply equally to transshipments dealt with by the Ministry of Defence and by the Department of Transport. The road transportation of nuclear weapons which are not subject even to the most elementary regulations because the Ministry of Defence is exempt from them is another cause for concern.
    I do not know whether the Minister is aware of a report by the panel on the safety of nuclear weapons. On 18 December the United States House Armed Services Committee was informed by eminent physicists that flaws in past computer modelling can be indentified and that a major consequence of new modelling is the realisation that unintended nuclear detonation presents a greater risk than was previously estimated.
    I should refer to representations that have been made concerning the road transport of nuclear weapons. That issue is not covered by the Bill, but would have been in a comprehensive Bill. It is particularly important in the light of the American report on nuclear weapon safety which was highlighted in The Guardian earlier this week.
    Many local authorities, including that in Stoke-on-Trent, have made representations to the Department of Transport. They have considered the report of Large and Associates entitled: "Transportation of nuclear weapons through urban areas in the United Kingdom." That report was commissioned by the steering committee of nuclear-free zone local authorities, which are greatly concerned about possible disasters, including a major release of radioactivity from a nuclear warhead which could affect areas up to 40 km away and the consequences for the immediate population. If the Department of Transport has any concern about an integrated transport policy, it should consult the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence to come up with some emergency arrangements which, instead of leaving us ill prepared to deal with accidents, would enable us to take the necessary precautions.
    It is also possible that road accidents could involve unintentional detonation of weapons. The worst possible scenario would be a nuclear explosion, not just a limited leak or a radioactive cloud. The fact that at least two journeys involving radioactive freight are made every week gives rise to considerable concern. I relate those findings in the context of today's debate to emphasise the need for a totally integrated approach to the transportation of radioactive and hazardous substances.
    The Labour party supports freedom of information and open discussion about public safety issues. We believe that we can learn from the American experience of ensuring that information is publicly available instead of hidden behind a cloak of secrecy. Public safety can only benefit

    1329
    from increased openness and local authorities with responsibility for dealing with disasters should have the necessary information to enable them to deal with accidents involving the transportation of nuclear waste.
    We believe that environmental considerations should be paramount in any transport policy involving safety. Efforts should be made to minimise the amount of radioactive substances transported, instead of planning to move such substances from A to B along the safest route and allowing profits to be made.
    The introduction of inspectors is certainly a step in the right direction towards greater regulation and safety. However, those inspectors must not be policy administrators from the Department of Transport, but must have experience of dealing with road accidents and be experts in safety and dangerous materials. The Bill refers to the financial considerations. I have grave fears that not enough inspectors may be appointed. How many people does the Minister expect to be appointed to deal with those new regulations? If they are to be associated with the radioactive waste movement unit and inspectorate at the Department of Transport, it is essential that there are enough inspectors to enforce the regulations.
    I draw the Minister's attention to the question of spot checks. Back in June 1989, the Atomic Energy Authority was found guilty of allowing one of its vehicles to be used in an unroadworthy condition and was fined £1,600. It is really not on for such materials to be transported in vehicles that are not safe to be on the road. There are huge question marks over public safety.
    Let me gibe an even more recent example. In late February this year a load of spent fuel from India—part of a 30-year-old contract—was travelling by road from Felixstowe to Dounreay. At Dounreay, it was found to be contaminated and the contamination was traced back to Felixstowe, where a crane was dismantled and taken to Harlow for checks. Even though there is much secrecy surrounding the transportation of radioactive material, we know that there was contamination at Felixstowe. But as there was no legal obligation on the carrier to monitor en route, it was not discovered until the load reached Dounreay. The contamination involved will be a persistent problem for a 200-year period at least, given that caesium has a half life of 30 years. That is why we believe that the new regulations should include proper provision for spot checks so that a load can be monitored anywhere along its route.
    With the large-scale transportation of weapons and standard radioactive substances on our roads, people will rightly be concerned that the regulations are rigorously enforced. Where necessary, regulations should be strengthened to ensure maximum environmental and public safety. The Bill takes us one step nearer to that objective. It would have been much better had the provisions been incorporated in a comprehensive Bill dealing with all aspects of the transportation of dangerous goods and the various modes of transport used. Having said that, I do not wish to delay proceedings on the Bill, which is long overdue. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have made and that the Bill will soon reach the statute book.
    10.12 am
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: I join hon. Members in welcoming this important Bill and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on the thoroughly professional way in which he has carried it through the House. I hope that it will meet with equal success—and lack of delay—in the other place, and that it will reach the statute books very soon. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having been able to speak in support of the Bill on Second Reading, but he had only six minutes, and he seemed to be doing perfectly well without my intervention.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt defend himself, but I feel that I cannot let the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) go without comment. The hon. Lady demanded an integrated transport policy. Heaven preserve us from such a monstrosity. Fortunately, no Labour Government have ever managed to achieve such a thing. The Department of Transport is quite big enough. The idea of a huge department in Whitehall deciding where all the transshipments of every commodity are to go and how they will all match—and, of course, consulting the unions at every stage—fills me with horror.
    Ms. Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Currie: No. The hon. Lady has had half an hour; it is my go now.
    That is not the way to run a modern, complex, industrial and commercial society. It just does not work, and it is about time that the Labour party realised that and did with that policy what it has done with most of its others, which is to drop them in favour of more intelligent philosophies.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to the delay. I understand that the Bill was introduced in the last Session, but was delayed because of technical problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington therefore deserves even more credit for introducing it in this Session.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said that the emergency services should be advised every time there is to be a transshipment of dangerous material, particularly radioactive material. As I shall explain further in a moment, I have considerable interest in the transportation of radioactive material. A fair number of the 500,000 transports every year go through my constituency involve work conducted by my constituents. The thought that the emergency services must be notified on every single occasion fills me with horror. Must we really devise a system of telling the emergency services, setting up road blocks and God knows what? It is a preposterous proposal.
    Is the hon. Lady saying that Derbyshire county council should be advised every time Derbyshire royal infirmary requires a new isotope for its cancer treatment machine? How long would it take for the bureaucracy to deal with the request? What is my constituent with cancer to do in the meantime? Is he or she to wait until some stupid little bureaucrat in Matlock has decided whether the competent professional company that has produced the isotope is capable of transporting it safely through south Derbyshire and installing it safely at the hospital? The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous.
    Ms. Walley: Does not the hon. Lady think that there is any merit at all in the proposal? Does not she realise that we are dealing with radioactive substances, nuclear weapons and highly inflammable material, and unless the emergency services know what material is being transported they might deal with it in a wholly inappropriate way? Public safety is at stake and should be given the highest priority. It is possible to deal with the matter in a reasonable way.
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady is shifting her ground. That is not what the nuclear-free zone exercise involved. She now says that most nuclear material and most dangerous material does not fall into the relevant category. That is not what she said earlier, and she has not answered my question.
    Ms. Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Currie: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady again. It is about time that I had my say. The hon. Lady can sit and listen for a minute.
    Let me pursue the matter further. Like the hon. Lady's local council, Derbyshire county council is a member of the nuclear-free zones international committee, or whatever it is called. Some years ago, when it got involved in this silly activity, Derbyshire announced that no nuclear or radioactive material would be in use anywhere on its patch. That gave rise to guffaws of derision because it was plain—and the hon. Lady has shown this again today—that those who proposed such policies did not have the faintest idea how a modern society functions in the 1980s and 1990s.
    We have large amounts of nuclear material in Derbyshire, as is the case everywhere in the country. The quantities may not be huge, but nuclear materials are used in a large number of places. For a start, we have some of the finest hospitals in the country, which are outstanding in their treatment of cancer. We are immensely proud of them. I want them to function properly in the interests of the patients concerned. We have extremely strict rules to protect the staff who use the equipment. As a former Minister of Health, I am only too aware of how important such equipment can be, how strict the rules are and how good the training is. Thousands of people owe their lives to the availability of nuclear material for treatment.
    In my part of the world—not far from the hon. Lady's constituency—we have industry of the highest standard. Nuclear material is used to establish the quality and high standards that we need in modern engineering. We have some of the highest-tech industry in the world. We are world beaters. We have no fears about 1992 or a Japanese invasion. We can take on anyone and beat them. One reason for that is that we are not frightened of new technologies. We create, design, implement, install and monitor those technologies and we are certain that we know how to use them. The materials have to be transported.
    Most important of all, Derby is the heart of the nuclear industry in Britain in ways that are perhaps not generally appreciated. It is in the nature of the way in which the industry has developed in Derby that on the whole the industrialists have kept fairly quiet about it. The time is approaching, however, when we must recognise the quality of the work that is being done and its importance
    1332
    to the nation and the rest of the world. I am afraid that that will mean more transportation of materials in future, and that is why the Bill is so important.
    We manufacture nuclear power stations in Derby. A large number of businesses are involved in the manufacture, design and contracting of nuclear power stations which go all over the world. We also have a company of which we are immensely proud—Rolls-Royce and Associates. It was set up some 40 years ago when the Americans agreed under various defence contracts to transfer technology on the nuclear power pack for submarines from the United States to Britain. RR and A was then set up and it has been functioning since with not a whisper of criticism. Indeed, I suspect that many people do not even know that the firm is there, right in the heart of Derby. It employs over 1,000 people. It has probably the largest concentration of PhDs outside any university. We have nuclear physicists of the highest calibre in commercial industry. We are immensely proud of the work that they do.
    I visited Rolls-Royce and Associates not long ago. To say that I was immensely impressed is an understatement. My query to it was why the company did not talk more about the work that it did, for now it makes the nuclear power packs for not only submarines which carry nuclear weapons but many other submarines. It is now standard practice to equip most submarines with power packs that do not need renewing in the conventional way. They are nuclear power packs. They run silently and for many months without any need for maintenance. They are extremely safe. There is no problem in recruiting people to work on those submarines.
    It always struck me as ironic that much of Derby was represented for many years by that noted pacifist Philip Noel-Baker when meanwhile in the middle of the city we were manufacturing the most essential part of nuclear submarines. Perhaps it is not so ironic if one considers that the very existence of the nuclear deterrent and nuclear submarines have kept the peace for so long.
    I asked Rolls-Royce and Associates for its views on the Bill. I received a letter this week from Mr. Tony Jaggers, the company quality manager. He said:
    "we believe that the Bill is a responsible attempt at regulation. Compliance should only enhance the image of the nuclear industry."
    He was right about that. We need to take the industry a substantial step further. We need to lose our fear of the nuclear industry. We need to put on one side our feeling that radioactivity is a magic miasma against which we should have incantations and regulations and that we should cloak the industry in the bureaucratic blanket that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North suggested.
    That is why this legislation is so timely. We are updating legislation which goes back to 1948. If the Labour party had been so worried about the transport of radioactive materials, it had plenty of opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to update the regulations. It never took them. It is a credit to this Government that we have.
    It is about time that we started revising our ideas, especially about nuclear power. Let me describe my experiences. My constituency is in the Trent valley. We have been mining coal for a long time. Within sight of my home in south Derbyshire there are four coal-fired power stations. There are several more just over the hill. It is well known in my constituency that I bought a cottage in France, in the Loire valley. I like valleys. Not far from the

    1333
    cottage is the nuclear power station of St. Antoine. There are four nuclear power stations in the Loire valley. Therefore, as a housekeeper and a domestic person, I can make comparisons between life in the Trent and Loire valleys.
    The first and most obvious difference is that the air in the Loire valley is a lot cleaner than that in the Trent valley. I can go back to my house there and find that it is not dusty. The air is breathable. The plants in the garden do not have a rime of dust on them. Yet in south Derbyshire I and my constituents are for ever trying to keep our homes clean. There is a permanent film of dust in every house, in every garden and on every car. I can leave my car for a week in France and at the end of the week it will still be clean. If I leave it for three days in the car park at Derby station, it needs to go to the car wash.
    We have taken for granted and willingly accepted for too long the risks associated with non-nuclear power and all the dangers that go with it. Does anyone in Britain count the cost of our being so dependent on non-nuclear power? Does anyone work out the effect on the chests and hearts of my constituents and other people who live in areas where power stations endlessly pollute the atmosphere, even with all the effort—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Lady is saying to the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mrs. Currie: I am making a point which relates to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said and the importance of the Bill to the future development of our country. We have for so long taken it for granted that we cannot use nuclear power in this country or that it should be kept to a small proportion. Countries which do not take such a view. and therefore transport more nuclear material, do not have that problem.
    Mr. Richard Holt: Has my hon. Friend read the latest edition of Euratom in which it is announced that the Swedish Government, which had a policy of phasing out all nuclear power stations, have reversed that policy on a multi-party basis? Irrespective of the party in power, the Swedish Government will move towards nuclear power precisely because of the arguments that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that he is right. It is noticeable that the Swedish Government are changing their policies on many issues and perhaps moving into the modern capitalist world in several welcome ways. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    The Bill is much more important than the relatively short debates on it have shown. It will enable us to transport nuclear material more safely. If we need to revise all our ideas about the type of power that we shall use in future, we need to be sure that we can transport the materials safely. Of course, we can. But whenever people talk about nuclear power, they talk about the risks and the cost. The aim of the Bill is partly to reduce those risks.
    However no one has ever worked out the true costs associated with not using nuclear power. No one has worked out the costs of pollution and its effect on the lives of people living near non-nuclear power stations. No one has ever worked out the costs of cleaning up after coal mining. Planning applications have been made in my
    1334
    constituency for cleaning up many worked-out coal mine sites. The cost is horrendous. No one has worked out the costs of deaths in the coal mining industry.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned Chernobyl. It is entirely appropriate that we should think about such matters now, on the fifth anniversary of that dreadful disaster. She mentioned Three Mile island. She did not mention the two young men who died in the roof fall in a coal mine in my constituency not long ago. She did not mention the 24-year-old man who was pulled out after the accident minus his foot. The hon. Lady went on about unexpected explosions. She did not mention that most of the coal mines in her area and mine were subject to spontaneous combustion for many years. She did not mention that one of the results of that was an 18-month underground fire in the south Derbyshire and north-west Leicestershire coalfield. That caused a lot of fear and worry partly becauses it manifested itself to everyone in the neighbourhood. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) dug up their potatoes from their allotments ready roasted. That is what the coal industry does. My constituents have walked away from that industry without a backward glance.
    We have an old power industry in my area, the coal industry, which is facing decline. We also have a new industry, the nuclear power industry, which I am sure will take the place of the old one.
    In the years to come as, with the help of this Bill, material is transported by road through my constituency according to the highest possible standards—the Bill establishes standards which are world leaders—Rolls-Royce and Associates will not just put its nuclear power packs just into submarines but will adapt them for domestic and commercial use. I am happy to predict that the day will come when from the start we shall provide how equipment for nuclear power is to be transported, how it is to be inserted, perhaps buried in the ground, and how the disposal procedures are to operate so that many problems associated with the industry will no longer cause anxiety.
    We now have half a century of experience of using and transporting nuclear materials in this country and abroad. Naturally, there are risks. It is not possible to wrench energy from nature without some sort of risk. The Bill is an intelligent and sophisticated part of the world's efforts to reduce that risk, and I commend it and my hon. Friend's efforts.
    10.30 am
    Mr. John Townend: I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on having the good fortune to come so high in the ballot and on his choice of Bill. I am particularly pleased because I canvassed for him before he was elected at that great by-election victory in his constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present on Second Reading.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting his Bill so expeditiously through Committee. As he said, the Committee sitting started at 10.30 am and ended eight minutes later, at 22 minutes to 11 o'clock. An even greater achievement was that he managed to get the Bill through Committee unamended. That must be a tribute to his

    1335
    eloquence and good standing. As one who has always believed in financial rectitude, I am impressed that he did not draw the £200 that is available to Members who introduce a private Member's Bill. His career in this place will prosper. I should like to see him eventually moving with those attributes to the Treasury.
    All hon. Members will owe my hon. Friend a great debt on behalf of their constituents. The transport of radioactive materials is important and the general public are anxious that it should be carried out under maximum safety regulations. I understand that there is a large number of shipments a year and perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify how many. I noticed that a figure of 300,000 was mentioned in Committee, whereas 500,000 was given on Second Reading. That is a material difference and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could clarify the matter when he replies to the debate.
    The shipments range from nuclear waste to medical isotopes and sometimes go to ferries for export, to airports or to hospitals. My constituency is adjacent to the ferry terminals in Hull from where North Sea Ferries operates five ferries a day to Zeebrugge and Rotterdam. My home town of Hull, which used to be the country's third port but which declined year after year because of the national dock labour scheme until it was no longer in the first 10, is benefiting from this Government's wisdom in abolishing the National Dock Labour Board. As a result, traffic through the port is increasing rapidly.
    Some of the 300,000 or 500,000 shipments, whichever is the correct figure, will undoubtedly travel along roads in my constituency, so my constituents are particularly grateful for the Bill. They have considerable experience of vehicles carrying hazardous loads travelling on our local roads because we have a large chemicals plant near the ferry terminal, at Saltend, We also have North sea gas terminals and a certain amount of hazardous material is transported to them. Therefore, road safety in relation to hazardous loads is a high priority in their minds.
    Clearly radioactive materials are most hazardous loads. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South that people sometimes get carried away and go over the top when talking about nuclear waste. Therefore, my constituents believe that there should be strict controls and safety regulations.
    The present controls are derived from the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 and are now inadequate. The United Kingdom is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency which is centred in Vienna and is a specialist agency of the United Nations. As members of that important body, we are bound by its rules. As it has insisted that all its members should have more up-to-date regulations to control the transport of nuclear materials by road, my hon. Friend's Bill is opportune and appropriate.
    It has been mentioned that the Bill should have passed through the House last year. It would have done but for a technical hitch. Clearly it has the support of the Government. My hon. Friend has been public spirited in giving his slot high in the ballot over to a Bill which is of such public importance.
    As my hon. Friend said, it is an enabling Bill. It allows the Department of Transport as the competent authority
    1336
    to make regulations, which the Minister will be able to keep up to date, and to respond to further regulations issued by the IAEA in Vienna.
    Clause 2 sets out all the subjects to be covered by the regulations. My constituents will be particularly relieved that under clause 2(1)(a) the Secretary of State may make regulations
    "to prevent any injury to health, or any damage to property or to the environment, being caused by, or by an incident arising out of, the transport of radioactive material".
    I particularly support clause 2(2)(a) which concerns
    "the design of packaging for radioactive material and the manufacture and maintenance of packaging components"
    That is important because the public need to be assured that, if there is an accident involving a vehicle carrying radioactive materials, there is no possibility of that packaging being damaged to the extent that radioactive materials could leak from the vehicle and contaminate people or goods. The packaging therefore must comply with strict design specifications so that it can withstand any impact that it is likely to receive as a result of a serious road accident.
    Clause 2(2)(b) relates to clear labelling. That is also important, because, in the event of an accident, it is necessary for the emergency services to be aware of the problem that they may face. Given the nature of radioactive materials, it is equally important that their storage and handling, as well as their transportation, are strictly regulated.
    Clause 2(2)(c) relates to
    "the placarding of vehicles used to transport such packages"
    That is important for two reasons: to aid the emergency services—the police and fire service—in the event of an accident; and to reassure the public. The public are frightened of hazardous materials being carried in secret. It is therefore important that hazardous loads are clearly marked when transported.
    Clause 2(2)(d) relates to
    "the keeping of records and the furnishing of information".
    That is important not only for reasons of safety but for public confidence. It must be right that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made by the Secretary of State should be guilty of an offence—it could well be a serious one.
    Clause 3 relates to prohibitions and directions. It must be correct for an inspector or an examiner to have the right to prohibit the driving of a vehicle which has been used to carry radioactive materials or packages if either that vehicle or any radioactive package carried in it fails to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.
    It is right that clause 3(1)(b) should enable an inspector or examiner to prohibit the driving of a vehicle if
    "the vehicle, or any radioactive package which is or was being transported by it, has been involved in an accident".
    The inspector or an examiner has a similar right under clause 3(1)(c) if
    "any radioactive package which was being transported by the vehicle, or any radioactive material which was contained in such a package, has been lost or stolen"
    It is vital that such dangerous materials should be transported in properly designed packages. It is therefore important for an inspector to have the power available to him in clause 3(2) to prohibit the transport of any radioactive package that he believes has failed to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has spoken specifically about the design of the packaging and the safety of the vehicle, but are there any constraints in the Bill relating to the person who will drive that vehicle? If a person passed his heavy goods vehicle driving test 15 or 20 years ago—before he had his bronchitis, arthritis and his eyesight started to deteriorate—would he still be allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle transporting radioactive material? Are there no controls over such a person? If not, that is a weakness in the Bill which we should consider, even at this stage. We should ensure not only that the packaging and the vehicle are right, so that people are happy, but that the drivers are right. After all, most accidents occur as a result of human failure.
    Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point which I do not believe has been dealt with in the Bill. It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not on the Committee as he might have tabled a relevant amendment. No doubt when my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington replies to the debate he will he tell my hon. Friend whether he has considered that point and whether there are particular reasons why there is no specific clause on that matter in the Bill. There is no doubt that it is no good going to all the expense of introducing safeguards for the packaging and labelling of the radioactive materials and the placarding of the vehicles if there are no strict controls over those who can drive the vehicles. That matter should be considered.
    I want to make progress as I know that there is another important Bill before the House today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep going".] I am pleased that hon. Members find my speech so fascinating and want me to continue. I shall do my best to oblige.
    If an accident occurs, the first requirement is to ensure the safety of the public and for that reason clause 3(4) is essential. It is vital that the inspector should have the power to remove a vehicle to a safe place. Subsection (4) states:
    "Where an inspector or examiner imposes a prohibition under subsection (1) above, he may also by a direction in writing require the person in charge of the vehicle to remove it (and, if it is motor vehicle drawing a trailer, also to remove the trailer) to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction; and the prohibition shall not apply to the removal of the vehicle or trailer in accordance with the direction."
    That is an important power.
    I have one further question to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington which I hope he can clarify. Does the Bill apply to Scotland? I notice that Northern Ireland is mentioned and has been dealt with separately, but it is vital that the Bill should apply to Scotland. I know that we have the queer situation in this place where sometimes we have to produce separate Bills for the two countries.
    When one imposes regulations, one must also consider the possibility of their being breached. In a serious situation involving health and safety the penalties for a breach of the regulations should not be insignificant. Clause 6(2) provides:
    "Any person guilty of an offence under section 5(5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
    I am not sure what that level is, but I hope that that fine is substantial as it is important that the regulations are complied with because we need to keep public confidence in the transportation of radioactive material.
    1338
    Clause 6(3) states:
    "Any person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable—
    (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both;"
    That seems a reasonably stiff penalty. Subsection (3)(b) sets down the penalty on summary conviction as
    "a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months or to both"
    Subsection (4) provides:
    "The court by or before which any person is convicted of an offence under section 2(4) or 3(8) above in respect of any radioactive material may order the material to be destroyed or disposed of and any expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the destruction or disposal to be defrayed by that person."
    I was rather amused by clause 7, which reads:
    "Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of this Act shall be payable out of money provided by Parliament."
    I have not noticed whether that provision is in every Act, but it seems strange. Nobody would expect the Secretary of State to pay out of his own pocket the money spent as a consequence of the Act's provisions.
    I shall close by saying that I am convinced—
    Mr. Ron Davies: It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) put it on record that his real interest is not in this Bill but in the one that follows. The following Bill is an important animal welfare measure to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception. Will he explain why he did not attend the Second Reading debate, which involved only a six-minute speech, and why he did not attend the Committee where the proceedings were completed in eight minutes? Will he also explain why he has not tabled any amendments up to Third Reading but has now made the longest speech on the Bill? Will he confirm that he has no interest in the Bill but merely seeks to delay proceedings so that he can kill the animal welfare measure?
    Mr. Townend: The hon. Member is most presumptuous. He cannot have heard my speech. I apologised—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South—for not being able to be present for the Second Reading debate as I had constituency engagements. On Fridays most hon. Members have engagements.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the next important Bill. If he looks behind him, he will see that there is nobody there. Therefore, the Bill cannot be that important to the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have understood that, as busy roads from the ferry terminal and from the port of Hull run through my constituency, I have a legitimate constituency interest in this Bill. Because of the important chemical works and North sea gas terminals in my constituency, my constituents are more aware than those of most right hon. and hon. Members of the dangers of carrying hazardous materials.
    The hon. Gentleman is right: I have a great interest in the next Bill because my constituency has the largest concentration of pig farmers in the country. If that Bill is passed, many of them will go bankrupt, so I am also here for that Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman was wrong and presumptuous to say—or to insinuate—that I have no interest in this Bill or no right to speak on it. He went over

    1339
    the top when he spoke about attendance at the Committee. He knows as well as I do how rarely hon. Members who are not members of Committees attend those Committees.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The record is accurate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was listening to his speech at the Bar of the House and I followed his arguments carefully. I did not suggest that he had no right to speak on the Bill. I recognise and uphold that right. I was questioning his motives rather than his right. I am grateful that he has confirmed his objection and his wish to kill the animal welfare measure which follows the Bill.
    I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that he has an important constituency interest. I should have thought that his cause and the interests of his constituents would best be served by bringing the debate to a close so that we can proceed to Third Reading and hasten the Bill's passage into law.
    Mr. Townend: Again, the hon. Gentleman is presumptuous. If my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Spalding—
    Sir Richard Body: Not Spalding anymore.
    Mr. Townend: If my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) listens to my amendments and has a heart for the poor pig farmers in my constituency, he will accept them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not anticipate debates that may come later.
    Mr. Townend: I apologise, but, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) accused me of having said that I wished to kill the Bill. I did not say that. I am saying that, if the amendments were accepted, I should be happy to vote for the Bill because they would mean that our pig farmers would not be at a disadvantage compared with European pig farmers.
    It is important for my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to see that all hon. Members who vote, vote for the Bill. I shall give him the opportunity to see that by calling a Division. I am convinced that the Bill will be passed and I do not expect anybody to vote against it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. After a relatively short time in Parliament, he will have made a small piece of parliamentary history by having successfully introduced and steered the Fishburn Bill through the House.
    I strongly support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South about the importance of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that the industrial revival in France is very much based on cheap energy
    1340
    which comes mainly from nuclear power. As she said, as we advance into the nuclear age, the safe transportation of nuclear waste will become increasingly important. In a few years the people who do not realise it now will realise then what an important contribution the Bill will have made. There is no doubt that many people in this country have suffered from hydrocarbon fuels. We know the problems about coal mines which my hon. Friend mentioned.
    I shall not detain the House any longer as we have important business to do, but again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington.
    10.57 am
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): If I correctly detect the feeling in the House, it is that we should move as quickly as possible to conclude Third Reading.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on successfully steering the Bill to Third Reading and confirm the Government's full support for his efforts. It is an important Bill and, were it not for my hon. Friend's generosity in giving up his place in the private Members' ballot for this measure, we should not have been guaranteed that it would be on the statute book this Session.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) raised a number of issues. She explained to me that she must attend a constituency engagement—as I, too, must do shortly—so I shall write to her with the details of those issues. However, most of them were irrelevant to the core of the Bill. She was especially interested in the issue of inspectors. At the first stage, there will be approximately 10 inspectors and 215 traffic examiners. That is the correct level of enforcement to begin with, but it will be kept under review. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
    10.59 am
    Mr. Richard Holt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on introducing the Bill. However, he has done so on behalf of the Government. With respect, I must say that this is not a private Member's Bill; it is a piece of Government legislation. As it is a piece of Government legislation, we should be debating it not on a Friday morning, but properly in Government time. It should be introduced by a Minister and opposed by the Opposition and we should debate it in that context. Although it may have been slightly offensive to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made a contribution, we must put it on record that although we congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington on getting a Bill through the House of Commons, we believe that it is not a private Member's Bill, but Government legislation. Is it good or bad Government legislation?

    Guy's Hospital
    11 am
    Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Will a Health Minister make a statement to the House about the cut of 600 jobs at Guy's hospital? Will anyone take responsibility for that, or is the Government's attitude, "Guy's? It has opted out and is nothing to do with us any more"? Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, use your influence to bring a Minister to the House to answer for the shortage of funds that has led to the jobs being axed, or is it the case that now that Guy's has opted out, the only accountability is to the balance sheet, not to the patients or the local community? The Prime Minister is to have a health summit tomorrow. Scrapping the national health service changes must be at the top of his agenda.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful if you could tell the House whether you have been given any idea of the Government's response to the knowledge that they were given this morning that requests were being made for Ministers to come to the House to answer the complaints about the sudden announcement of the cuts at Guy's hospital, which is in my constituency.
    The case raises an issue for the first time. It is the first such announcement since self-governing hospital trusts came into operation on 1 April. The constitutional problem may be that Ministers are reluctant to come to the House because they are suddenly saying that they are no longer answerable for self-governing hospital trusts. If that is why the Secretary of State or his Ministers are not here—I understand that although the Secretary of State may not be in London, Ministers are in the Department today—it cannot be right.
    The argument for self-government is that the hospital is now directly accountable to the Government and that the local health authority has been cut out. The House needs an assurance that at the least on Monday if not today, because we must give the Government the opportunity to get their argument together, given that they will meet at Chequers tomorrow to discuss health service policy, the Secretary of State will come to the House to explain how it is possible for 600 jobs, one eighth of the work force, to go from the local hospital without a reduction in care for the community.
    I am often in the hospital——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order. He cannot go into the merits of the case, especially during private Members' time.
    Mr. Hughes: I will be brief. Ministers need to come to the House because the statement made on behalf of the hospital yesterday—not publicly, as there has been no communication with elected representatives and no alerting of local Members of Parliament—is that there will be no reduction in care. It has even been said that the cuts are being made to advance the care of the patients. That cannot be true. Someone must explain to the House how it is possible for employees of the public health service to make what is clearly a misleading statement from which many people are likely to suffer. If we can have an announcement today that there will be a statement on
    1342
    Monday, it will at least be possible to question the Secretary of State on what could be a matter of precedent affecting many people, many hospitals and many workers in the health service throughout England and Wales.
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: The self-governing trust to which hon. Members have referred is Guy's and Lewisham, so the cuts affect Lewisham hospital in my constituency. I have had no notice of the cuts and I have not been consulted. I wish to add to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) for a statement in the House so that we may question Ministers.
    In Lewisham, we face the closure of Sydenham children's hospital and the moving of its facilities to our site. Will that be placed in jeopardy? Will phase 2 of our hospital be placed in jeopardy? We cannot tell, but we are told that the cuts are across the board. A 10 per cent. cut in staff at Lewisham hospital would be extremely deleterious to our health services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, Ministers must be made responsible for the action. I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that Ministers come to the House either today or another day to answer for what will be, I am sure, a severe reduction in the health services available to my constituents.
    Mr. John Townend rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on the same point of order?
    Mr. Townend: Yes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Please speak very briefly because we are cutting into private Members' time.
    Mr. Townend: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These things happen all the time. One should not always accept the idea that because staff are cut, services will be cut. One might consider the catering side of hospitals—
    Ms. Ruddock: This is not a point of order.
    Mr. Townend: It is a point of order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me, I will hear it.
    Mr. Townend: It is quite unreasonable for the Opposition to demand on a Friday that a Minister should come to the House. There is no urgency in the matter. A Minister could easily make a statement next week. There is no urgency for a statement to be made before the weekend. Ministers are supposed to be running the country, so it would be inconvenient for them to come to the House today. The demand is unnecessary.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I recall that the trusts were established by delegated powers. As far as I can recall, there were no provisions in that delegated legislation for the removal of parliamentary accountability and the responsibility of Ministers to make statements to the House when there were such enormous, cataclysmic and catastrophic announcements of 600 redundancies at a given hospital. I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were making inquiries on behalf of the House, which is

    1343
    anxious to have a statement from the Government, it should be borne in mind that Ministers still have responsibility for the catastrophe.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no request for a statement on the matter, but no doubt what has been said will have been heard by members of the Government Front Bench. The hon. Members concerned will be able to seek other opportunities to raise the matter.

    Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
    Mr. Holt: I drove past Guy's hospital this morning and I was amazed by the amount of capital building work that is going on there. Having seen that and then having listened to remarks about 600 job cuts did not make sense to me. However, I should be told off by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I digressed for one minute from the Bill.
    I have already congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and I was making the point that the Bill was really Government legislation. As such, coming on a Friday, it interferes with genuine private Members' time. The Bill will not be subjected, as was the Bill concerning the Tees and Hartlepool port authority which I sponsored, to being thrown out on the capricious whim of a few Members of the other place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington drew attention to his constituency in relation to the transportation of atomic waste. I represent Teesside, where the chemical industry is at the heart of what we do. We have tremendous problems. We have the largest fire service in the country. Recently we have been involved in detailed and long talks over the marking of all the vehicles that come into Teesside from all round the world. In Cleveland, we used the British marking while everyone else used the European standard marking. The Government urged us to go over to the European model. We tried to convince the Minister that the signs used in this country, and widely accepted in this and some other countries, were better than European signs and that argument raged over the transportation of chemicals. Will we have the same arguments over the movement of atomic waste, raw materials, isotopes and so on? If so, we could find ourselves in an expensive bargaining game.
    It is all very well to have before us this type of Bill, either privately or supported by the Government, but I wonder how long it will be before the European legislature decides to impose its own rules, regulations and markings and whether we shall have to change all over again. In those circumstances, it might have been wise to leave the matter until the Europeans have determined the issue, in the same context as the movement of chemical and hazardous materials in the Teesside area.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington referred to people's perceptions and feelings about atomic waste and atomic power stations. On Teesside we have Hartlepool power station, which is producing electricity cheaply for distribution on the national grid. It is an excellent power station. I recall not long ago the people responsible for the welfare and well-being of the toughest youngsters in the Durham area—those who in old-fashioned terms would have been called borstal boys—taking a group on a visit to Hartlepool atomic power station.
    The tough lads and lassies were ushered into a bus in Durham and transported a few miles to Hartlepool. It was found, on arriving at the power station, that the youngsters would not leave the bus. Although only a few brick walls lay between the bus and the power station, they did not want to go in. It was as though they were near Chernobyl. Although they were told that they were at no risk, their perception was such—the same applies to many members of the public—they did not like the idea of being at the power station.

    1345
    Such is the aura surrounding atomic energy and we must remove that fear. One way to do that is through the type of measure that is before the House today. We must constantly examine and update legislation. Much has happened between 1947 and 1991. If we do not re-educate the public in this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, we shall fall behind our European competitors, particularly France, in the provision of cheap electricity.
    The British furniture industry, for which I speak in the House, recently had new legislation imposed on it for fire prevention which involved the use of new types of foam in upholstered furniture. The result is that, at great expense, all furniture manufacturers in Britain have installed new equipment and employed new production methods. We are now producing furniture which is safer than furniture produced anywhere else on the continent.
    Yet the European Parliament is about to introduce new regulations affecting furniture manufacturing. That will involve foam, chemicals and all other matters used in that industry, but the new European regulations will not be as strict as those that now exist in Britain. That puts the Minister in a dichotomy; does he uphold our stronger laws or accede to instructions from Brussels?
    If, having passed this Bill, the same happens over the movement of atomic waste, we shall find ourselves in a legislative maelstrom. Indeed, we might as well have stayed, legislatively, where we were in 1947. Have the changes that we have made over the years given us the best that we could have? Even at this stage of the Bill, I question whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, acting on behalf of the Government, or even the Government themselves, have thought through the whole question of the marking of vehicles.
    It is important to know what consideration the Government have given to controls that may be imposed on the drivers of the vehicles involved. For example, will there be an age limit and will drivers need medical examinations, including regular eye tests? It is all very well to say that a vehicle must have an MOT test every few years to ensure that its tyres, gears and so on are in good working order and that it has all the necessary equipment. But what about the human beings who drive the vehicles?
    Our experience on Teesside, which involves the movement of many chemical lorries, is that invariably accidents occur not through mechanical failure but through human error. Sometimes the roads are slippery, but all too often accidents occur through human error such as tiredness or lack of concentration, or because drivers have been listening to the radio or thinking about last night's football match or episode of "Eastenders". As a result of the multitude of matters that go through people's minds, accidents occur.
    When there is a chemical accident on Teesside, there is a major alert and all the emergency services immediately go into action. I fear that hellish travel and traffic problems also occur. Indeed, in a recent accident on the main roundabout on the A19, traffic was held up for many hours. That involved the spillage of only a small amount of toxic material, but we cannot afford to take chances with the movement of toxic, dangerous and nuclear material.
    We have a debt to the general public. That has led my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to introduce the Bill, although hon. Members will agree that we were not over-convinced by the Minister's contribution. Could we
    1346
    have been convinced by Government explanation, apology and enlightenment involving only one and a half minutes of explanation from the Minister?
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend feel that a covert deal has been done by the Minister? He did not give a proper reply to the debate or answer the questions that were put to him. Could that be because he is anxious to get on to the next debate, the Government having decided to back the Bill which will cause many problems for my pig farmers? I have been accused by the Opposition of manoeuvring. Does my hon. Friend think that this is a case of parliamentary manoeuvring?
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss that issue, but would he expect me to ascribe such motives to the Minister? Heaven forbid that a Minister would do anything that could be called gerrymandering—
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman mean filibustering rather than gerrymandering?
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which shows that he is more familiar than I am with the use of such words.
    Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend represents a constituency which contains many chemical works. Has he had problems on the roads over the transportation of hazardous loads and are his constituents as worried as mine about such matters and do they require reassurance? Is it likely that loads of nuclear waste will be transported through his constituency?
    Mr. Holt: That reminds me that I should put on record the fact that I am a director of a chemical company with production units on the river in Teesside. Therefore, I have much first-hand knowledge of the chemical industry and know what we must consider by way of environmental practices. Without a shadow of a doubt, my company's No. 1 priority is safety and I believe that to be true of ICI and all the other major chemical companies in Teesside. On my visits to various chemical companies, I have always made a point of meeting the transport manager and seeing the safety experts because there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, a widespread fear and concern that we are dealing with material that is liable to be volatile at any time. There is also a power station in the constituency.
    Sir Richard Body: Will my hon. Friend give hon. Members some guidance on what they should do in the forthcoming Division for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has said he will call and for which Tellers will be provided? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) vote against the Bill? Does he feel that the Bill goes far enough? Will he give us guidance on which way we should vote because, in view of what he said earlier, it seems that some of us should be persuaded to vote against the Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington presses it to a Division?
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will have to be patient. When one learns how this place works, one often finds that as more and more legislation progresses, hon. Members take more interest. There is so much legislation that they cannot always be fully aware of and involved in every detail.
    Mr. Ron Davies: If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between gerrymandering and filibustering, he should be reticent about giving advice on matters procedural to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body).
    Mr. Holt: I did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) any advice. I took on board the point of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), that it would have been presumptious for me to give advice to my hon. Friend who, I know, is interested in this debate. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend has too many power stations using atomic energy or many chemical works in his constituency. But I am grateful to him for being here.
    Sir Richard Body: The railway system in my constituency is being used for the transportation of these dangerous materials, which has caused great anxiety.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington is against the Bill and proposes to press for a Division. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaugh support my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington in his opposition to the Bill?
    Mr. Holt: I repeat that my hon. Friend must be patient. We shall all find out what I am going to do at the end of the debate, when I shall say which way I shall lead the House on Third Reading.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been some presumptuousness in the House today? My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will have to wait and see what happens at the end of the debate and see how I vote.
    Mr. Holt: We shall all have to wait and see how we vote. The important thing is to see how many people vote. We shall have to see whether the Government, as this is their Bill, have managed to persuade the payroll to materialise out of the woodwork and present themselves in the Lobby on a Friday, or whether this is genuinely a one-line Whip day, when the wishes of Back-Benchers prevail, not the Executive.
    I have a sneaking feeling, because I have not been contradicted in the suggestions that I have made three or four times, that this is Government legislation. As it is Government legislation, I feel reasonably confident that the Government will have done something in the background to bring in hon. Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston would like to ask all of them how they are going to vote, how they made up their minds how they were going to vote and which salient points of the debate they took on board? Perhaps they were influenced by a telephone call from the Whip telling them to be here and support the Government legislation on Friday morning. I doubt whether those people have listened to the arguments in the debate or made up their own minds. I freely admit that that is my practice on most Fridays when I vote. That is the way in which the vast majority of hon. Members make up their minds on many pieces of legislation on which they vote day in, day out, vote in, vote out because that is how this place operates. I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston which way I shall vote later.
    It is worth noting that, while people come out of the woodwork to speak on points of order on a London hospital, there are no Liberals or Labour Members
    1348
    present, except one Labour shadow spokesman, for this debate, which is about the movement of atomic material. When people come to my glorious constituency and drive along the road to Teeside they come across a sign saying "Nuclear Free Zone" put up by Labour-controlled Cleveland county council. That means that the nuclear power station at Hartlepool must be a figment of our imagination.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Bill. We are on Third Reading and the debate should be restricted to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Holt: I am talking about the tranportation by road of nuclear waste material. It will be transported by a lorry that has been tested, has proper tyres and has undergone an oil change. That lorry will be driven up the A19 and could be involved in an accident. When the driver comes across the "Nuclear Free Zone" sign will the lorry shudder to a stop as he puts on the brakes? Does the Bill tell the lorry driver what to do when he comes to that sign on his way to or from Hartlepool power station to take nuclear material in or out? The Bill does not. It states that the lorry must be in good order and the packaging must be right, but it does not say anything about the man or woman driving the vehicle—but it is a piece of Government legislation.
    Having enjoyed being a nuclear-free zone for so long under the loonies, the London borough of Brent has now done away with the nuclear-free zone signs. The last of the signs was recently installed in the civil museum in Brent to mark the passing of the loony left and the signs in that borough. Unfortunately, Cleveland is still controlled by the loony left Labour local authority, which has a right to determine the movement of nuclear material by road and train.
    My hon. Friend mentioned that trains, possibly with nuclear material on board, pass through his constituency. I wonder who knows which trains have nuclear material on board. Are there special signs? It appears that, in the Bill, the Government have omitted to mention anything relating to trains.
    Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend must have misheard me. I did not mention trains passing through my constituency. I was worried about the transportation by road of such waste in my constituency.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill clearly deals with transport by road and it would be out of order to refer to any other form of transport.
    Mr. Holt: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was drawn along that path by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston. I was seeking only to answer his point about trains carrying radioactive material passing through his constituency. Perhaps the fact that the Bill relates only to roads is one of its defects. It will be undermined by forthcoming European legislation, which will relate to all the transportation systems for such material. It may not be long before the Government have to return to the House with another Bill. Will that be on a Friday? Will they ask some hon. Member who is lucky enough to have come high in the ballot to adopt it as a private Member's Bill?
    I am not really knocking the fact that the Government behave in that way. On occasions, I am glad that

    1349
    Government Bills go through the private Member's Bill route on a Friday. I was here not many Fridays ago when the House debated another Government-inspired and sponsored Bill to provide for vending machines and television sets in betting shops. That came through the door—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Bill. It is my job to protect the business of the House and the hon. Gentleman must keep in order. He must relate his remarks directly to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Holt: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the whole of the debate and I am simply trying to discuss some points that have already been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South referred to her cottage in the Loire valley and said that the atomic power stations there did not create dust. She was in order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I stopped the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) at that point.
    Mr. Holt: Your memory is better than mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you did stop my hon. Friend. That was when I intervened to remind the House of what happened when the Swedish Government changed their policy on the use of atomic power stations.
    My hon. Friend for Kensington moved the Third Reading with alacrity and smoothness, but nowhere near that shown by my hon. Friend the Minister. The manner in which he responded and the fact that he added nothing to the reasons why the Bill is being dealt with in this way made me think that perhaps he had a heavy pressing engagement outside the House. Hon. Members who participate in debates on a Friday—including my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston—want to know why people vote in a particular way. Because my hon. Friend the Minister has left, he cannot intervene in my speech and answer some of my legitimate questions. What about other forms of transportation for atomic and dangerous materials? Will sufficient roads be built? Will roads be identified as priority routes on which the hazardous material must be transported? Will certain roads be banned for the transportation of such material? Can only specific vehicles be used to carry such material, or will any vehicle be permitted provided that the packaging, as set out in the Bill, is correct?
    Was not it discouraging to see on our television sets during the past few days that those who transport atomic warheads have been highly criticised by an independent body—not the Opposition; a body far more learned and thorough? That had Government support, as the Bill has Government support. I have a responsibility to my constituents to be absolutely sure, before I vote on proposed legislation, that it is in their best interests. I am not convinced that the Bill is in their best interests, especially in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. Of course, if I were to be polite, I would refer to his lack of speech. He did not answer any of the points made. He has gone and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who is waiting for the next debate—is holding the seat on the Treasury Bench. I doubt whether an Agriculture Minister would wish to intervene in a road transport debate.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically unfair. I urged my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to leave so that he could fulfil his important engagements. Before he did so, he gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) —who has also left to fulfil engagements—that he would write to her on any detailed points. This is a Third Reading debate and I feel that my hon. Friend's speech was more than adequate, especially as the Bill was exhaustively discussed during earlier stages.
    My hon. Friend the Minister would be pleased to write to my hon. Friend for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on any technical or detailed points. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Minister concluded his speech by saying that the Government support the Bill.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that the Minister responsible has left. That underlines my earlier point that Government legislation on a Friday is wrong, especially if Ministers have previous engagements that take them away in the middle of the debate when hon. Members are making their points. I do not make a slur on my hon. Friend; perhaps it is a problem with the way in which the Government organise the business of the House. I am not being personally critical; I am criticising the way in which the system works. I accept the assurance that my points about the roads in my constituency will receive a written reply. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a most courteous and diligent man, but that does not detract from my argument that Ministers should be in the Chamber to reply, not just to hold the seat.
    I return to the question of my constituency—its roads, the road patterns and the vehicles that will be carrying the hazardous material. We will not always know what the vehicles are carrying. We do not know what the markings regulations will be. Langbaurgh has been waiting since 1938 for bypass for the market town of Guisborough. If vehicles carrying hazardous waste have to go through Guisborough, until the bypass is built, my constituents will be worried. The vehicles will have to pass through a busy market town with markets on both sides of an old cobbled street, with a steep, sharp bend at one end. We have been waiting for the bypass and perhaps we should have one before such materials are allowed to travel through Cleveland in road vehicles, however well protected the materials and however young, fit and able are the drivers, or however good their eyesight.
    If the Minister were here, I would have mentioned to him the fact that Guisborough almost has a bypass. A few months ago a new stretch of dual carriageway spur road came along, stretching from one part of my constituency to the outskirts of Guisborough. A lovely roundabout was built and 20 ft of brand new roadway leads off it. One day that will be a bypass.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once more that we are talking about the transport by road of radioactive materials. We are not talking about road works.
    Mr. Holt: They cannot be transported by road if we have not got the roads, and I am trying to argue that case.

    1351
    To transport such materials through my constituency, as provided for in the Bill, roads need to be built and that bypass needs to be built.
    Perhaps that subject is on the fringe of being out of order, but it is a road—or to be precise it is not a road, because it has not been built yet, as is the case with the Brotton bypass, which we should have but which we do not have—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought for one moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to be very helpful. He virtually admitted that he was out of order. I ask for his co-operation to ensure that his remarks are in order.
    Mr. Holt: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was skirting close to the edge of the road and I am carrying no hazard warning signs; if I were, they would be out of order as far as the European Commission is concerned.
    This is a serious matter and perhaps I have treated it with a little levity. However, it is important that, when Parliament is asked to pass legislation, it is given all the information that it requires. I am not sure that we should be proud to say that in Committee we got rid of the Bill in six minutes or 12 minutes, or whatever the figure was, or that it had a thorough, detailed investigation there.
    On Third Reading we are not necessarily able to go into all the ramifications, but can only say whether we approve or disapprove and vote for or against the Bill. However, it remains incumbent upon us to probe and to look for answers from Ministers.
    If my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, the promoter of the Bill, were a member of the Government it would be different. I wish him well and I hope that he soon is, as his talents lie in that direction. However, at the moment he is not in a position to answer for the Government.
    Sir Richard Body: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his stamina, because he has succeeded in killing off the subsequent legislation for this afternoon, which is quite an achievement, given the paucity of matter for debate in the Bill. Is he aware that during his speech he has driven out of the Chamber everyone who came to the House concerned with the Bill other than its promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn)? That is a remarkable achievement for which he deserves to be doubly congratulated, because there is no one on either Front Bench who is concerned with the Bill—they have all gone. Everyone else has gone, because they are satisfied with the Bill. True my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is here. We are fascinated to discover whether he will support the Bill. He has said that he will call a Division, no doubt because he is against it, although everyone else seems to be in favour.
    Given all those facts, does not my hon. Friend consider that, having succeeded in killing off the subsequent legislation, we might now be spared too much detail about the necessary road works in his constituency and about some of the other matters that we have been hearing about for some time? Now that he has achieved his objective, could he not sum up his essential arguments as to why he objects to the Third Reading of this Bill?
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has given me one or two thoughts that had not occurred to
    1352
    me. That enables me to remind my hon. Friend that I have not driven anyone anywhere. My hon. Friend is still here. The hon. Member for Bridlington is still here; I have not driven him away.
    Miss Kate Hoey: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to go on for 45 minutes, talking like a five-year-old schoolboy, and for him deliberately to obstruct a Bill that many hon. Members have stayed here this morning to see brought into legislative effect—an animal welfare measure that many people in this country want? Is he not ashamed of himself? Would you order him to bring his remarks to a close?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as the hon. Gentleman is in order, he is entitled to address the House, but he is having quite a job keeping in order.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to answer some of the questions asked during this debate, questions which were obviously in order because they were not ruled out of order.
    May I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Holland upon Boston that he need not worry about my stamina because I was here for the entire 14 hours during which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), myself and one or two other hon. Members managed to talk, quite conclusively and within the rules of the House, about putting fluoride in water. I believe that that was the longest speech on record by any hon. Member and that it is recorded in the "Guinness Book of Records". I was here for the entire 14-hour debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that because I had forgotten about it.
    Allowing for interventions and points of order, and for giving way so generously on so many occasions, I do not think that I have spoken for long. If I have changed the direction of Parliament or have moved legislation in one way or another in such a short time, it is quite an achievement. Perhaps if I keep going for a little longer on the Bill, legislation may well be the better for it.
    However, I do not want to travel along those roads, even on a road Bill, if it causes you to bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to tell me that I am stretching the patience of the Chair and of the House. If you tell me that something is out of order, I respect that and come back to the subject as quickly as I can. I am a little tangential from time to time because my hon. Friend—but I see that he has gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston says things that tempt me on to subjects for which I do not even have a note. I had not anticipated that. Sometimes I have to reflect for a moment about interjections. Earlier my hon. Friend the Minister made a helpful interjection.
    I am concerned that there are fears for animal welfare. I did not know that there were any atomic animals as yet. Many people have views on the transportation of atomic materials and many people have expressed strong views in the past about anything to do with radioactive waste.
    Sometimes it is when a seemingly short, two-paragraph Bill is before us that important legislation is passed. It is incumbent on hon. Members with constituencies close to a power station where hazardous materials and toxic waste may be transported on the roads continually, day in and day out, night after night, seven days a week to consider the Bill. I wonder whether there is any reference in the Bill

    1353
    or whether the Government have given consideration to the possible hazardous mix between chemical and atomic materials. Will anyone ensure that a vehicle carrying a heavy load of toxic waste is not travelling at the same time as a vehicle carrying atomic waste from the power station? If they were nowhere near each other, there would be no danger whatsoever, but who will co-ordinate the transport? To the best of my knowledge, no one will do that.
    The Government have not thought about co-ordinating traffic movements. They seem to be living in never-never land. They believe that once one has written "fragile" on a label, the parcel will never be thrown around. If that is the case, the Government can never have used the Royal Mail. The same applies to lorries. They may carry markings, but will people always respect them? They will not. That is not the way that people drive vehicles.
    Why is not hazardous material given a police escort when it is transported? If it is so dangerous, why does the Bill not provide for it to have a police escort while it is being transported along our streets through the quiet of the night and at all other times? Legislation provides that a vehicle carrying a long steel girder or an old boat must have a police outrider, back and front. There is even legislation which provides that if one wants to carry a ladder over the end of a lorry a bit of rag must be tied round the end of it. Provided, however, the lorry is all right and the packaging is all right, nuclear material can be transported, and all is well.
    I wonder whether the chief constable of Cleveland will ever be informed, or his traffic superintendent? I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston will be informed when nuclear material is transported on trains going through Lincolnshire? I wonder whether anyone will be aware that hazardous material is being transported? We hear that there are 300,000 such journeys each year. Boy, that is going to tie up a bit of police time! How many inspectors will there have to be to ensure that anyone who is concerned with the transport of this dangerous material has got it right?
    I have asked a large number of questions relevant to the Bill and I have done so legitimately. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington can answer them. He is not a Government Minister and this is a Government Bill. Now I see that there is a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench. It must have been thought that this legislation would go through on the nod, that no one would be particularly interested in the movement of atomic waste. They must have thought that a little Bill of this nature, a private Member's Bill, would slip through. Well, slip through it might; but if it means that in future it will provide a legitimate excuse for those who might have an accident to say that they had done everything within the law, as laid down by Parliament, and that they did not have to inform the police, or to ensure that there were regular checks of the vehicle or regular driving tests for the drivers, it is perhaps just as well that a Back Bencher like me should have got up, kicked the Government in the backside and told them that they ought to have done their job properly. I do not believe that they have done their job properly.
    I believe that the Government have misled my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. He is an honest, decent guy. He introduced the Bill thinking that the Government were behind him, as I did when I introduced the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I honestly,
    1354
    genuinely and sincerely thought that the Government would support me. As I had the Prime Minister voting for the Bill in the Division Lobby, I felt secure in the knowledge that that Bill would reach the statute book. It did not.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now strayed into discussing another Bill. He must talk about this one.
    Mr. Holt: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one tries to compare Bills to show that all Bills are not the same, that they are different and that consequently they should be treated differently. I am just trying to point out to my hon. Friend that the Bill that we are considering seems to have the same pedigree as mine and that its fate is likely to be the same as mine, but for different reasons. My Bill was not inadequate. There was no reason why it should not have been passed. The House of Commons wanted it to go through and voted for it, just as it voted for my hon. Friend's Bill. No hon. Member put forward legitimate arguments against the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. It was left to a House of Lords Committee to sink it, without right of appeal. Its failure was more peremptory than what happened under Stalin in Russia.
    There have been occasions when I have wanted to speak but have been unable to do so. Today I did not really want to speak, but I was persuaded to do so.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: We know why: the hon. Gentleman will be named.
    Mr. Holt: I know that some hon. Members have just arrived; perhaps they could not get up this morning. Having arrived, perhaps they would have the courtesy to keep quiet while another hon. Member is on his feet. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way, I shall happily give way to him if he has anything to contribute to the debate on the transportation of nuclear hazardous waste. One of the hallmarks of the debate has been the lack of contribution, interest and knowledge on the part of the Opposition. To try to be rude during an hon. Member's speech does not add to the quality of the debate, but it highlights the deficiencies in the thinking of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). I do not believe that that enhances Parliament's role one little bit. Up to now we have enjoyed a reasonably good debate. The hon. Gentleman who has just come in has not heard the debate and does not know what it is all about, yet he feels that he can make a contribution to it.
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what I am talking about is the next debate on the Pig Husbandry Bill. We know what he is up to. I repeat what I said from a sedentary position—that he will be named.
    Mr. Holt: If the hon. Gentleman had been here even for one minute before he made his intervention and had listened to any of the debate, he would have found it difficult to sustain his criticism. No one else has sought to criticise my contribution. I have been asked to explain a few points and I have given way on a number of occasions. I did so because we on this side of the House normally act with a degree of courtesy and decency. We do not behave in the way that so-called Front-Bench spokesmen for the Opposition do.
    When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I did not hear one word about this Bill. Perhaps I ought not to have given

    1355
    way, but then you might have taken me to task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not giving way. However, the hon. Gentleman only wanted to talk about another Bill that is to follow this one. I am not aware of what he wants to talk about. If he wants to enlighten the House about his thinking, I am prepared to give way and allow him to tell us what it is about the road transportation of atomic waste and other atomic materials that is so vital and that has been missed out of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, or my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. But now all that we are getting is a turning of the back and a chat with someone in the second row. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is getting instructions about what he ought to have said when he intervened a few moments ago.
    It is not quite an hour since I rose to my feet, so I think that some hon. Members who are worried that the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill may not see the light of day must have missed what I said earlier about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton having spoken for 14 hours on a previous Bill. To be fair to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, he covered the entire Bench with notes to make sure that he did not forget anything, and indeed he had many strong arguments. After only one hour, I may well be concluding my speech.
    Mrs. Currie: I hope that my hon. Friend will not make a mistake about what happened. I was present when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made his speech. It was four hours, and not 14 hours, although it certainly felt like 14 hours. The main problem was that my hon. and learned Friend started speaking at about 4 o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. Holt: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I think that she will find that that speech lasted about 12 hours. I may have been exaggerating a little when I said that it was 14 hours. It did not start at 4 o'clock in the morning; it finished at 4 o'clock in the morning, having started at about 3.30 on the previous afternoon. I was in my usual place on that occasion, so I was sitting on the end of the Bench where my hon. and learned Friend had put his notes. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was sitting on the other side of the Chamber.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These reminiscences are very interesting. I realise that the hon. Gentleman was led astray by the hon. Lady, but I am sure that he will now direct his speech to the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Holt: Would I allow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South to lead me astray?
    Mrs. Currie: Yes.
    Mr. Holt: Of course I would, given half a chance. I hope that Hansard has not written down too much of that, or we shall both be in trouble when we go home!
    I had intended to speak for only a few moments, but an hour is not very long to draw attention to important matters affecting the roads in my constituency and the lorries travelling along them. However, I have had to give way to unnecessary points of order from Opposition Members. Points of order are usually the only
    1356
    contributions we hear from Liberal Members, who have been completely absent today. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wonders how I will vote on the Bill. I wonder how the Liberals will vote on it. They certainly have not made their position clear, but that does not surprise anyone.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to continue because I am in favour of getting the Pig Husbandry Bill before the House because it is such an important measure. I accept his acknowledgement and I hope that he will do all he can to allow that Bill to come before the House.
    Mr. Holt: I am not quite sure why my hon. Friend wants to steer me in that direction. My hon. Friend knows that my knowledge of Ealing is quite extensive, but I am not too sure whether there are any pig farms there. I wonder how many pig farmers my hon. Friend is representing today. If there are any in Ealing, perhaps he will let me know, because to the best of my knowledge there are none. My hon. Friend knows that I was born in the neighbouring constituency—
    Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this is a Third Reading debate? While we recognise that the hon. Gentleman has the absolute right to speak at whatever length he chooses, whatever his motives, surely on Third Reading he has to be precise and his remarks must be addressed to the motion. I do not wish to challenge any of your earlier rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has strayed wide of the mark. May I put it to you that, as this is a Third Reading debate, you have a responsibility to instruct the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would be reluctant to do that at this stage, but I hope that when hon. Members make interventions they ensure that they are directly relevant. The hon. Gentleman who has the floor is finding it difficult to keep in order. If interventions tempt him out of order, it makes it that much more difficult for the Chair to protect the later business of the House.
    Mr. Holt: I am not quite sure why the hon. Member for Caerphilly keeps interrupting while I am trying to wind up my speech. Every time I try to bring it to a conclusion somebody interrupts me.
    As I am getting a little dry, I wonder whether I could pause for a drop of water. Hon. Members will know that I have permission to stop for a drink of water because of my medical condition.
    On my way here I happened to be listening to the radio and I heard a gentleman talking about the society for plain English which is trying to get rid of gobbledegook. The Bill contains words and phrases which would lead the society for plain English to wonder what it meant. It refers to "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram". I thought that we were still the United Kingdon and I had not realised that we had become European to that extent. I do not remember when Parliament passed legislation saying that those who draft legislation were to do it in such a way that no one understood it, unless they were French.
    I hope that in the absence of a Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will tell those of us who are still English and who remember learning English weights and measures at school what "70 kilobecquerels per

    1357
    kilogram" means. Perhaps he can tell us how that information gets through to those who employ the lorry drivers and whether the lorry drivers will know whether they are within the law when they pick up their time sheets in the morning and go to the yard to collect their vehicles. Will they say, "Hang about, what does 70 kilobecquerels per kilogram mean?" How will they measure that? I do not think the Government have thought that through. I do not think that my hon. Friend has thought it through, and nor did he expect me to ask that question. Before we give the Bill a Third Reading, can somebody tell me in plain English what is meant by "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram"? That is in the legislation we are being asked to pass and we are still the United Kingdom Parliament.
    The Bill goes on to refer to "such lesser specific activity". I hope that the lorry drivers know what that is. I expect that they would probably be more inclined to want greater specific activity.
    Who will pay and train all the examiners who will be examining the vehicles? Where is the money resolution for the money that Parliament will have to vote so that those people can be trained to carry out the examinations that will be necessary? I hope that my hon. Friend has an answer to that.
    Mr. Fishburn: The money resolution has already been passed.
    Mr. Holt: So the money resolution was passed before anyone knew how much it would cost. If local government tried to get away with that, Ministers and shadow Ministers would be leaping around screaming, but it appears that the Government can behave in that way without anyone getting upset.
    One aspect of the Bill gives me cause for concern in my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on the Environment. The Bill refers to devices for cooling. One might have thought that the Bill would specify whether CFC coolants are to be used—or, indeed, contain an instruction that they should not be used. We now know that the release of CFCs into the atmosphere is the major cause of the ozone problem and global warming. To the best of my knowledge, however, we have not yet been able to find a commercially viable alternative to CFCs for use as coolants in vehicles and elsewhere.
    Mr. Don Dixon: This is disgraceful.
    Mr. Holt: Does the shadow deputy Chief Whip wish to intervene? I am more than willing to give way.
    Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's speech is an abuse. He is not making a Third Reading speech and he should have been brought to order on numerous occasions. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed him to digress in response to interventions from hon. Members who wish to talk out the next Bill. I ask you now to bring the hon. Gentleman to order and to tell him to make a Third Reading speech, as he should have been doing for some considerable time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave that matter to the Chair.
    Mr. Holt: I do not impugn Opposition Member's motives, and it is wrong that they should seek to impugn the motives of Conservative Members. I have always found that bullies like things when they are going their way, but are always the first to complain when things do
    1358
    not go their way. Fortunately, I do not have much to do with bullies. Bullies do not frighten me—so do not try it here—and I know that bullies will not frighten you either, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I stray out of order, you will give me that little haul on the reins—as you have already done several times—and I shall immediately return to order. I have been told that I am not making a Third Reading speech, but I have been asking legitimate questions and talking exclusively to the Bill. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, feel that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has any meaning, so be it. We have known for a long time that members of the Labour party do not like honest decent debate, and on this occasion they have shown their hand even more than usual.
    Before that rather rude interruption, I was talking about devices for cooling and CFCs. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington may or may not go through, and I sought to draw to his attention the fact that it is not good enough merely to refer to coolants. One must define what they are, especially as we are discussing the safe transportation of hazardous materials. That makes it incumbent on us to include a definition. New kinds of coolants may be used in future. The Bill seeks to put right the errors, wrongs and sins of legislation introduced in 1947. In 10 or 20 years the generic title "coolants" may include substances that may have a chemical input and may act as a catalyst in the event of a horrendous accident. We never know what accidents will entail until they happen. Almost all accidents are about people not being able to prepare themselves in time. If we glibly include the word "coolants" without defining it, in 10 or 20 years my successor—not the successor of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, because my hon. Friend is still a young man—will say, "Why did they do that when they had the opportunity of the Third Reading debate to discuss it? Why did they include the generic term 'coolants' without specifying chemical values?" I should have welcomed an explanation from the Minister of why the Government favoured the inclusion of those words. I am not sure whether the Government would know entirely what they meant by "thermal insulation" either.
    I have suggested that there are weaknesses, defects and problems relating to the Bill, even though it is a short Bill. Perhaps Opposition Members are so much in favour of atomic energy and the atomic industry that they want the Bill to go through without anyone debating it. I am sure that Labour activists throughout the country will ask why it was left to a Conservative to raise issues concerning nuclear power and public safety questions arising from the use and transportation of nuclear materials? Where are all those with CND badges? Where are all those who have opposed everything that has been done in respect of nuclear power for the past 50 years? Clearly they lack the staying power to come to the House on a Friday or the intellecutal power to understand the Bill. [Laughter.] Did I say something funny? Certainly there is a great lack.
    I am pleased about one thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that my speech had driven everyone out of the Chamber. That has proved to be false. There are four times as many hon. Members present now as were present when I rose to my feet a few moments ago. If I keep going for a few more hours—as I have suggested I just might—perhaps even more hon. Members will return to hear this debate on the important subject of radioactive materials.
    Sir Richard Body: I merely drew attention to the fact that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who introduced the Bill, all those concerned with it had left the Chamber. That is a remarkable achievement—especially as both Front-Bench spokesmen walked out. I do not think that that has ever happened before. It has certainly not happened in the 30 years that I have spent in the House. It is a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Holt: I had never expected such plaudits. In any case, it is not true. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) had walked out before I rose to speak. Only my hon. Friend the Minister, having heard a few words of my argument, realised that it was better to be somewhere else. Perhaps I should plead guilty in that respect. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, with his 30 years' standing, I would only say that I bet that some hon. Members who have left will wish that they had not. I bet that by the time that the matter has been analysed, some people will wish that they had not been here at all. They may well have come here today anticipating that we would reach the Young Persons (Alcohol Abuse) Etc. Bill, which is item 6 on the Order Paper. That was the Bill in which I was really interested. I expected that the sponsors of that Bill would be present. However, I do not think that we will reach item 6.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I am a latecomer to the debate. Not only do I have an interest in the Pig Husbandry Bill, on which I hope to speak as several amendments have been tabled by me and other hon. Members, but I have a keen interest in the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. Throughout my time in the House of Commons I have been approached by constituents who were fearful about safety issues. They had good reason.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate again the Pig Husbandry Bill. It has been raised many times already this morning. On that subject, we are moving rapidly towards tedious repetition.
    Mr. Holt: I hope that you do not accuse me of tedious repetition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not the first to refer to the Pig Husbandry Bill; it was the hon. Member for Jarrow. The second person was my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, the third was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and the fourth was my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Indeed, Hansard will show that, far from being repetitious on the Pig Husbandry Bill, I have made little reference to it. I may have strayed gently on one occasion in response to promptings from the Opposition Front Bench. But I do not want to upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by talking about the Pig Husbandry Bill.
    In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, let me point out that I have a great deal to say on the Pig Husbandry Bill, which may exercise the House for a little longer than I am likely to exercise the House on the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill.
    I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has arrived in the
    1360
    Chamber. We are discussing a Bill which affects Northern Ireland. That is unusual. We do not normally have legislation in one tranche.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend refers to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Does my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) agree that it is exceptionally good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster in the Chamber today because Northern Ireland is specifically excluded from the Pig Husbandry Bill? He is having to wait a very long time to express his views on that important Bill.
    Mr. Holt: I had not realised that the Pig Husbandry Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. That highlights the nonsenses of the way in which we legislate in this establishment. A Bill about the transport of radioactive materal by road includes Northern Ireland, so that we do not need a separate piece of legislation, but the Pig Husbandry Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. We shall need two or three pieces of legislation to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. How will the poor people of Northern Ireland suffer as a consequence of the House failing to do its duty? However, I shall not be tempted to go into that matter, despite my hon. Friend's intervention. It would be wrong of me to do so and I want to stick to the Bill before the House.
    I notice that the Bill provides in clause 5(2):
    "If a justice of the peace, on sworn information in writing or, in Scotland, on evidence of oath".
    Scotland is mentioned in the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friends wonder why the Bill mentions Scotland only on page 5 in clause 5(2). Why does it not mention Northern Ireland specifically? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington wants his legislaiton to be fair to the United Kingdom as a whole. Why does not the Bill simply say, "a justice of the peace" or "a justice of the peace in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales"? Why have the parliamentary draftsmen brought Scotland into the Bill separately?
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster for being here and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for pointing out that the Pig Husbandry Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, who has a great fondness for Scotland, will want to explain why Scotland is mentioned but not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is just as much an integral part of the United Kingdom as anywhere else, although sometimes legislation may not apply to it.
    It worries me that the southern Irish Government have no nuclear waste disposal facilities of their own. They haul any waste which they need to dispose of over the border into Northern Ireland and from there it goes on to the mainland.
    Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As there is no reference to Northern Ireland in the Bill, surely the hon. Gentleman is out of order in mentioning it in this Third Reading debate. I ask you again to insist that the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close. He is clearly out of order, and he has been so for most of the one and a half hours during which he has spoken. I urge you to make sure that he complies with the rules of the House and brings his comments to a close.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will leave the matter to the Chair. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I have stopped him on many occasions when he has been out of order. However, when he is discussing what is in the Bill, he is in order and the House must hear him.
    Mrs. Currie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the Bill mentions Northern Ireland. Therefore, I wonder why it highlights Scotland in clause 5(2). I am sure that the matter is no different in Scotland. I should have thought that it was the same. It seems that the Bill contains unnecessary wording.
    It is perhaps not always obvious to members of the Opposition Front Bench that when one is debating it is not always possible to confine one's remarks entirely to the wording of the Bill. One must always draw from outside for comparisons. One could not examine the Bill in full if one did not do so. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection against the unwarranted attacks from the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition seem obsessed with putting the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill on the statute book. I would bet a few pennies to a pound that that is not in line with what the Labour party conference would want them to do. However, Opposition Members are not standing in front of their party conference, and nor will they be doing so for a while. [Interruption.] I am being barracked by my own side. That is the ultimate cruelty and irony.
    Clause 6 deals with offences committed by a body corporate and penalties. I am not sure exactly who would carry the can. If the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority or Nirex engaged the services of someone in Northern Ireland to transport nuclear waste and, for whatever reason, the vehicle failed to match up to the specifications, would the chairman be charged? Although I accept that ultimate responsibility lies in that direction, it stretches the point too far to suggest that the body corporate should carry the can for 300,000 movements by road per year. The fat-cat lawyers would get even fatter and cattier. There would be more and more legislation as more and more offences were committed, more and more people were taken to court and more and more defences were introduced. The Bill will be just like all the other legislation that we pass here—sometimes for the good of the people, but always for the good of lawyers. This legislation will be in that mould.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington can tell me whether it is a good idea for the chairman of Nirex to have to go to gaol for two years if somebody breaks this legislation. I wonder whether he has discussed the matter with the chairman and whether the chairman has agreed that it would be a good idea for him to have that responsibility. We all know how capricious juries can be, but it would be strange to find the chairman guilty.
    I wonder how this Bill lines up with European legislation on the subject and similar national legislation about the transport of radioactive material by rail and air. Neither of those two measures is before us, so perhaps this legislation is a little premature. Perhaps the Government should have introduced a comprehensive Bill covering all transportation of such materials.
    1362
    I am convinced that there are flaws in the Bill even now and I have highlighted some of them. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he can give a full, thorough and lengthy response to my points. I want to support him and to be convinced. More important, my constituents want to be convinced that this simple, nine-clause Bill would be good for the country, for Parliament, for the nuclear industry, for the road transport industry and for them.
    Other hon. Members must speak for their constituents, but I believe that my constituents will find certain aspects of the Bill incomprehensible, not least "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram". Perhaps they all understand that. They are such jolly nice people. I do not and I am sure that Opposition Front-Bench Members do not, because I have already given them three opportunities to intervene to put me right and tell me where my education went wrong.
    I wonder whether my hon. Friend has thought through what the legislation means by "placarding of vehicles". What is the legal definition of "placarding"?
    Sir Richard Body: I cannot hear.
    Mr. Holt: I was just saying that I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, when he drafted the Bill—it is his Bill, not the Government's Bill, as we all know—looked up the thesaurus to find out the exact meaning of "placarding". I wonder what the legal definition is. Perhaps my hon. Friend, the lawyer at the back here, can tell me how many days in court he will spend and how many hundreds of pounds he will be able to make from defining what "placarding" is.
    Mr. John Butterfill: I should point out that I am not a lawyer but a chartered surveyor
    Mr. Holt: I realised that my hon. Friend was one of the wealthy fraternity, but I had not realised that he was in that special wealthy category. I apologise if I demeaned him by calling him a lawyer. I apologise to any lawyers who are present, too.
    Perhaps, even as a chartered surveyor, my hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston, can tell me when they vote—
    Sir Richard Body: I am only a poor pigman. I am not a lawyer.
    Mr. Holt: Surely that is a contradiction in terms. I have never met a poor pigman, but I have met a few rich ones. I have met some, however, who were getting poorer and if certain legislation were passed some pigmen would certainly be much poorer.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Order.
    Mr. Holt: For a moment I thought that I was being called to order, but I realise that the voice came from the Opposition Front Bench.
    Sir Richard Body: Is there any evidence of pigmen getting poorer? I have been unable to get any such information from friends and colleagues. Is that true?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman's questions do not relate to the Third Reading.
    Mr. Holt: I was having some difficulty understanding where poorness and placarding came together. Presumably my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston, who lives on the outskirts of London, has never

    1363
    been up to North Yorkshire. If he visited that area and met some of the genuine farmers he might find out about the problems that are liable to be experienced if a certain piece of legislation is passed. It would be out of order, however, to mention that now and my hon. Friend should stop tempting me to do so. If he does, I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will haul me back.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that I have already hauled the hon. Gentleman back to the Third Reading.
    Mr. Holt: Yes, I accept that, but I was just saying that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Boston with Holland who was out of order. I was merely trying to correct that by saying that I could not relate what my hon. Friend said about—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House understands the situation. May we get back to the Third Reading?
    Mr. Holt: I realise that you took the Chair a few moments ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you had been here earlier you would have noted the great difficulties encountered by some Oppositions Members in trying to follow any of the argument. They are truly incapable of reading such a Bill. I have tried to spell out the Bill simply so that the three Labour party Members present will understand.
    Before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston I was talking about placarding. It is clear that my hon. Friend does not want me to make progress so that we can move on to something else, or he would not keep on interrupting. The same goes for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
    What is the legal definition of placarding in accordance with the Bill? Is it the same as that in the thesaurus? What does it mean? Imagine how my constituents will react when they realise that they must implement the law as it is contained in the Bill. Haulage contractors will say that it is all very well for me to pass the Bill, but that they must tell their drivers what placarding means. Does anyone know? Does it mean that people will be stopped on the outskirts of Teesside on the A19 by a policeman because he is not sure whether those vehicles carry legal placarding?
    We are supposed to be talking about the movement of radioactive material, which is a serious subject. I believe that the Government have tried to slip something through the House on this serious matter. The Opposition are incapable of properly opposing anything and they did not think about the Bill. They did not register the Bill and allowed it to go through without delay, as is clear when one considers the length of time the Bill took to complete its Committee stage—12 minutes. The Opposition's scrutiny of legislation of this nature amounted to 12 minutes. I wonder how they will explain that to all the Labour party executive committees up and down the country? As they have nearly all been reselected perhaps the official Opposition will be all right.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Holt: If it is on this issue, I shall do so gladly.
    Mr. Davies: It is clear what we would say to any Members of the Labour party who might questions our actions on the Bill. It is a private Member's Bill and it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Opposition to involve themselves, in a party political sense, in such private legislation.
    Mr. Holt: I hope that I hear those words again the next time that we introduce a Bill on abortion. I recall that last time things were different when we discussed such a private Member's Bill on a Friday.
    The hon. Member who has his hand over his mouth has tried to intervene four or five times. I am not sure whether he is trying to catch my eye or trying—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) were trying to catch the hon. Gentleman's eye, he would rise to show clearly that he wished to intervene.
    Mr. Holt: I wish that that was so. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would rise, because he has now sat for some time making noises behind his hand. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you should ask the Serjeant at Arms to send for the nursing sister.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Is is worth putting it on record that the hon. Member involved is the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. We were discussing the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, on matters of private legislation, the Labour party took a party line and he used the example of the abortion legislation which the House discussed recently. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the principle that I outlined applied to that legislation as well as to all other legislation. So that the record is clear, my hon. Friend and I went into different Lobbies when we voted on the previous legislation.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps now that that matter has been cleared up the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will make progress with his Third Reading speech.
    Mr. Holt: I am sensitive to what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about radioactive material which can be volatile. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the official Opposition did not have a view, but that does not stop individual members of the Opposition holding views. Or do they all have to wait, like sheep and goats, until they are told what to do by their Front-Bench spokesmen? Are they allowed to speak or to intervene only on days when they have been told what to speak on? I thought that at least some members of the Labour party were concerned about radioactive material, its use, its transportation and its dangers and about this legislation. However, their absence today and their lack of contribution in Committee shows that despite the many years of posturing by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Opposition and others, they are not, at the end of the day, especially interested. If they were, they would have been here and would be supporting me in force. It would not have been a short debate of a few hours —it could have continued for days. But the Opposition are not here in force because they are not interested in radioactive material or in the Third Reading.
    Until I was interrupted, I was talking about the regulation on placarding of vehicles. I have received no

    1365
    information fore either my hon. Friend who sponsored the Bill on behalf of the Government or from the stand-in Minister—who is here in place of the Minister who should be here—about what placarding means. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said from a sedentary position, it means a cardboard cut-out, I wonder what type of cardboard cut-out—of a policeman, of a co-driver or of a fireman? The legislation does not tell us.
    Unfortunately, as you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister had to depart and now I see that the sponsor of the Bill has also had to leave. Who will answer at the end of our short debate? Not only hon. Members, but especially people outside the House want to know what is meant. The Bill refers to
    "the preparation, labelling, consignment, handling, transport, storage …and …placarding of vehicles."
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has returned. When he makes his winding-up speech, he will no doubt give me a clear explanation about what he meant by "placarding". I want to know why he included the word in the Bill because it seems to be an unnecessary piece of verbiage. I cannot recall any other road transport legislation for radioactive material. Perhaps the word comes from the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 which the Bill seeks to amend. Placarding may have been in vogue in 1948, but today it is no longer so.
    Sir Richard Body: Has my hon. Friend picked up a piece of paper containing notes for his speech which he discarded some time ago? I thought that we had already heard about placarding once. Will my hon. Friend pick up another piece of paper and give us a fresh point about the Bill?
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no pieces of paper:, all that I have is the Bill. I have drawn everything from the Bill. If I did not, you Madam Deputy Speaker, would pull me up and say that I was out of order. I have stuck religiously to the Bill.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me.
    Sir Richard Body: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh will refresh his memory. My memory tells me that we heard all about placarding about 45 minutes ago. Shall we have in the next 45 minutes a repetition of all that we heard in the previous 45 minutes? It was all very good the first time round, but the second time round, it may lose its force.
    Judges used to say to young barristers that good points do not need too much repetition. If my hon. Friend's point is good, we can take it in and leave it at that. However, if it is made two or three times, it will not be as effective.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that lesson in debating. My school was probably not quite as grand. At my school, I was told that if one had a point, one should make it, make it and make it, so that people would eventually understand it. If one makes the point only once and then wanders off esoterically into something else—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, our procedures in the House do not allow such repetition. I know that in the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman has repeated himself on a number of occasions. I do not want to call him to order just yet, but I must point out that he is trying the patience
    1366
    of the House. Unless he can now be more pertinent in this Third Reading debate, I am afraid that I may have to use the powers given to me by the House.
    Mr. Holt: That is quite a threat. To some extent, it is a threat to free speech. Unless I strayed way out of order, I should find it difficult to accept a ruling from the Chair which forced me to sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The loud-mouthed yobboes and bullies of the Opposition may be trying to bully you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they certainly will not bully me.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Do not hold your breath on that one.
    Mr. Holt: For about an hour, Opposition Members have been trying to coerce, bully and silence me because that is the way in which the Labour party reacts. If Labour Members do not like an argument, and if it is too strong and salient for them—
    Mr. Dixon: It is beginning to smell.
    Mr. Holt: Labour Members do not seek to out-debate or to use an intellectual argument [Interruption.] They use the yobbo tendency and shout and scream, as they are now. I do not want to go down the yah-boo tendency route of the Labour party. We are not here to do that. We are here to debate the Bill and I was looking forward to a contribution from any Labour Member explaining, among other things, how the Labour party intends to square its view on the Bill with its supporters throughout the country—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that that is not the point in question on the Third Reading. I am sure that he will now oblige me by debating what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Holt: It is clear from the Bill that vehicles will travel on roads carrying radioactive material. Those vehicles will go through areas which are claimed to be nuclear-free zones. Those areas have been designated nuclear free by the Labour party. As the Labour Front-Bench spokesman on the subject is not in his place, I had hoped that a Labour Member would explain how the Opposition square this legislation with the nuclear-free zone concept and how they will vote on the issue at the end of the debate. After all, Labour Members will have to square their view on this with their supporters in my constituency and in Cleveland as a whole, where we have a nuclear power station and a nuclear-free zone.
    Do Labour Members believe that certain roads should be proscribed while others should be allowed for such vehicles? The fact that the Bill would permit the transportation of radioactive material on any road anywhere is a weakness. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, or preferably the Minister, would explain how the Bill would be amended to ensure that its defects were put right. I am surprised that the Labour party has not made its views on that clear.
    The transportation of radioactive material is not something for kiddies on Saturday afternoons. We are discussing serious business. If this material is to be transported properly, it must travel in good vehicles on good roads. The Bill does not stipulate what types of roads will be used and whether some roads, such as narrow country lanes, will be banned.

    1367
    Generally speaking, drivers take the shortest and quickest route, which may not be the most convenient and safest. If safety is paramount and is what this exercise is all about, drivers should be told the routes that may be used. The police and emergency services should know those routes, after they have been approved by fire and police chiefs. In other words, when speaking of the vehicles, we should also consider the roads on which they will travel, or the legislation will be defective.
    Many of us have a problem that is commonly faced in Parliament with measures such as this. I approve of what is in the Bill and have no desire to stop its progress. The trouble is that it does not go far enough and it is weak and defective in certain areas. Those weaknesses allow for dangers which need our attention. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will say that he is aware of those weaknesses and is anxious for them to be corrected. I had hoped that a Minister would confirm that and say that further legislation would be introduced to make up for the deficiencies, including transportation by rail, sea, air and canals.
    I fear that the Bill will lead people into believing that they live in a fool's paradise. It will be like the nuclear-free zone sign. People believe that once they have passed the sign, they are safe. That is the biggest piece of hogwash of all time. People may equally believe that once the Bill is passed, they are safe. It could be misleading and give people a false sense of security. I want the Bill to be passed, but I want a promise that there will be further legislation. I want someone to tell me that the fears that I have expressed are well founded. If they are not, I want someone to tell me that I have got it wrong. With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, although he is the Bill's sponsor, is in a position to do that because he was not given a sufficiently good brief by the Government.
    I do not suppose that those questions have been asked, probed or looked into. If they have, the Minister responsible should have been here to answer them. It is all very well to say that we came along with a nice piece of legislation, the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, full stop, and we can now go home because it will be dead safe on the roads and the Bill ensures that the packaging is right. It might be, but as yet we have had no answers about whether the driver will be tested or the roads proscribed.
    However, we are told that there will be inspectors and examiners, who will be trained using public money. We have already been told that that money has been allocated. But to what end will those officials inspect and examine and what will they be inspecting and examining—the packaging, the vehicles or, more particularly, the humans who are to drive the vehicles? Without that knowledge, there is something missing. That does not mean that the Bill is wrong—it is not. It is a good Bill, but it is weak and needs attention. It cannot and should not be allowed to rest as it stands. I shall not vote against it or urge my colleagues to do so. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington intends to call a Division at the end of the debate—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is
    1368
    shaking his head to show that he has changed his mind. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) been at him again?
    Mr. John Townend: I just want to debate pigs now.
    Mr. Holt: I have been speaking for not quite two hours, which is not very long.
    The Bill intends to put right errors and omissions in the legislation passed in 1947. On that basis, it could be more than 34 years before there is further legislation, although I hope that it will not be that long before a Minister answers the questions that I have posed or before we have further legislation to cover some of my worries.
    Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston may tell me off for repeating myself, we should know what placard to use and what the Government's intentions are in relation to testing the humans involved. We need a definition for roads—are roads and lanes the same thing? Will the vehicles be allowed to go down lanes? None of those issues is properly explained and there are many weaknesses.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has done well in getting the Bill this far. I know the frustration of proceeding with a private Bill, only to have it rejected. I steered mine through fives votes in the House and lost it on only one vote in the Lords. It was lost on a technicality; their Lordships said that my private Bill was premature because a Government Bill was coming along behind it. The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill is a hybrid of a Government Bill proposed via the private Members' route. It would be good if a proper Government Bill were introduced by a Minister so that legitimate questions and fears could be assuaged. But as things stand now, that is not what we have. It is almost an introductory Bill. It is as though the Government said, "There is something wrong, and has been for 30 years, and we must put it right with an introductory Bill. If anyone says anything about it, we shall simply say that it is being introduced through the private Members' route." That is not the right way to do it.
    I apologise if I have spoken for a little time, but I thought it necessary to point out to the Government and others that this place is not to be taken for granted. It is a serious debating Chamber and serious issues must be treated seriously. However much levity one might introduce into one's speech, there is always a serious message. My message is that for the people of Cleveland, the Bill has not gone far enough. The Government should get their act together and introduce a proper Bill dealing with the whole area of the transportation of radioactive material. Whether or not people like it, it will be a major issue in coming years. More and more radioactive material will be used to create power and for medical purposes.
    In 1947, people could no more envisage what would happen today than we can envisage what will happen in 34 years' time. The problem is that once we pass legislation, it lies for ever in front of us. Every now and then, somebody refers to an Act in 1612 or 1802 or whatever. We could be equally guilty of passing legislation that could fall into that category. I do not think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would wish to preside over that. I do not think that my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate would wish to be parties to that. Of course, I do not know that the Minister feels.

    1369
    I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that it was a good try and if there is a vote I shall support Third Reading. However, the Bill has deficiencies and I have enjoyed having the opportunity to highlight them. I thank my hon. Friend and the House for their patience.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Pig Husbandry Bill
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    1.2 pm
    Sir Richard Body: I beg to move, That the order for consideration of the Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.
    I owe you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House an explanation for this action. I also owe it to the many thousands of people who have supported the Bill, not least the pig farmers who have campaigned for a long time for changes in the law because of the disrepute into which certain types of pig farmers have brought that sector of the industry.
    This week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published regulations on pig husbandry.
    During the past day or so, I have had the opportunity to read the draft, and I could find no differences of any consequence between those regulations and my Bill. Indeed, the regulations are largely the same as my Bill, almost word for word, in all its important parts. I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for what they have done—it is quite notable.
    My right hon. Friend's action has put this country ahead of the remainder of the European Community. So often, we hear that Britain is lagging behind, and are told that we must wait for the men in Brussels to take the initiative while we drag our feet. In this instance, we are doing the opposite, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government.
    There is no doubt that the majority of pig farmers entirely support what the Government are doing in these regulations. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has given ample time for consultation. Views have been expressed, and I am delighted that the Minister has paid good heed to the representations that have been made.
    Moreover, I heard this week from DG6—only some of us know about that—which is a powerful body of people in Brussels, the department of the Commission which is concerned, among other things, with animal welfare.
    Dr. Jansen, who is, I understand the chief veterinary officer of the Commission in Brussels has welcomed the regulations wholeheartedly and has said that if they go through, the European Commission will go ahead and approve draft regulations that will extend throughout the Community. That means that this country will have set the pace in animal welfare and it will probably be the first time that we have done so or that the Community has done anything about animal welfare.
    Also, the Commission proposes to produce quickly draft regulations that are in line with the Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill, which has already passed through this House and which I introduced earlier in this Session. That Bill will soon be before the other place.
    In matters of animal welfare, we shall certainly be ahead of the Community in two respects, and that is something worth recording.
    In a letter that is coming to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dr. Jansen has said that as soon as the regulations are enforced, his position will be strengthened

    1371
    and he will be able to put forward draft regulations. Let us hope that the Community will then follow our example. There is no reason why it should not.
    Dr. Jansen and officials in the Commission take that view because there was a full conference in Brussels on the subject late last year. They reached the conclusion that there was no necessity for the practice of sow stalls and tethers, which have existed in this country for about 28 years. The practice originally came from Sweden and certain other countries are beginning to introduce it, but only on a limited scale. Therefore, the Commission hopes that the draft regulations will put a stop to any further introduction, in any part of the Community, of the close confinement of sows.
    I had hoped that we would have some time for debate on the Bill because there are important issues to be discussed, but I recognise that certain hon. Members have made it perfectly plain that they did not wish it to be debated.
    I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) here because she has expressed her views on animal welfare on other occasions, and they are not unknown to a number of people. From what I have heard from farmers in the midlands, they do not altogether share her views.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), with his usual gusto and good humour, has done his bit for those of his constituents who now have huge herds of 1,000 sows and sometimes more.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am not sure how my hon. Friend knows what my views are on animal welfare. In the eight years I have been in the House, I have never spoken on the subject.
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It must be the only one!
    Mrs. Currie: As for the views on animal welfare held by farmers in the midlands, if there is an opportunity this morning I intend to express the views of farmers in my constituency on the animal welfare issues that are raised in the Bill.
    Sir Richard Body: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not inclined to entice me to repeat what has been said by a number of people who have overheard her comments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Her views on the subject are known.
    Mrs. Currie: They cannot be.
    Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend can huff and puff, if she wishes—
    Mr. Sedgemore: She is a whinger.
    Sir Richard Body: —but her views on the subject are known.
    Mrs. Currie: They are not.
    Sir Richard Body: It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that she has not expressed her views in the House—I agree about that—but she has expressed them right enough.
    Mrs. Currie: I have not.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Dick knows.
    Sir Richard Body: She has expressed them, but I do not intend to repeat them.
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend does not know what they are.
    Sir Richard Body: Indeed I do.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a motion before us for debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep to it. Then we shall have fewer interventions from a sedentary position from all parts of the House.
    Sir Richard Body: I could invite the House to take a tour around my constituency and consider all the road schemes that may or may not be pushed through. We listened to all that for about an hour, but I shall not do that. I intend to stick to the point, but it ought to be recorded that a few hon. Members tried to prevent any debate on the Bill. I had hoped that we might debate it.
    I am not concerned about the Bill going through; as I have already said, the regulations are on the way and will be approved. We shall then have all that the Bill would have done, not only in this country but throughout the European Community, for the reasons that I have just given. The battle has been won. However, I had hoped that we might have a reasonably short debate on two points, the first being the European issue with which I have dealt. The European Commission is anxious to proceed along the lines of the Bill. I had also hoped that there might be an opportunity to rebut spurious scientific evidence about the 35-day period. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington would have quoted a few scientists. I had hoped to have the opportunity to show that that evidence is mistaken and that for every scientist that my hon. Friend could produce, there are many others who would say exactly the opposite.
    Pig farmers overwhelmingly take a different view from that upheld by the small band of scientists who support the close confinement of sows throughout virtually the whole of their lives. I had hoped that it would be possible to explain that neither the Bill nor the regulations need prohibit the segregation of sows. All that the Bill and the regulations do is to prevent them from being so segregated and confined that they cannot move around.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us are here today to support the Bill that he saw through its Committee stage and that we are deeply disappointed that two hon. Members have sabotaged the Bill? Such a procedure is perfectly within the Standing Orders of the House. Nevertheless, it is deeply regrettable, as the Bill received its Second Reading after a clear majority of 118 hon. Members had voted for closure.
    Sir Richard Body: Three hon. Members were involved and one or two others were going to come along later to help to sabotage it. However, it was a futile exercise because we shall achieve the aims of the Bill. Unfortunately, those aims will not be achieved in an Act of Parliament, and will not be debated in detail, as we had hoped. Had hon. Members raised scientific and practical points, their concerns could have been met.
    The great majority of pig farmers who do not have 1,000-sow herds are in favour of the Bill and of cleaning up pig farming.
    Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend really does not know east riding where there are pig farms of all sizes. I have not had one letter from a pig farmer opposing my stand on the Bill. I have had 100 per cent. support in opposing the Bill. I challenge my hon. Friend to come to east Yorkshire and address a meeting of my pig farmers. He will find out that he is wrong and that he does not have the support of pig farmers. Some of them are in the Strangers' Gallery. He is misleading the House. I am sorry that he is withdrawing his Bill without hearing the debate because we have the facts—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) was misleading the House? If that is the case, will he now withdraw that remark?
    Mr. Townend: I apologise. I will rephrase that remark. My hon. Friend made an incorrect statement when he said that the majority of pig farmers supported the Bill. I challenge him to have a referendum with the pig farmers on that. I have a file full of letters which all—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep the debate in good order. The hon. Gentleman asked for an intervention. I shall try to call him later, but if he has finished his intervention I would be obliged if he would allow the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill to speak.
    Sir Richard Body: I might be out of order if I remind the House that the only reason why I was selected by my constituency some 25 years ago was that I spoke with authority about pigs. The only reason why I chose to speak about pigs at my selection conference was that it was the one subject that I knew a bit about and I thought that I could stand up for myself on that issue.
    My hon. Friend might be right about meadow units. I accept that, but they are not representative of farming or the great majority of pig farmers. I have been in the pig business for a long time and I have been to east riding four or five times to speak to audiences of pig farmers. I must say that on the last occasion I went there, they did not seem much like the majority of pig farmers elsewhere. They all arrived in Mercedes and other large cars. They did not seem to know much about pigs, but they knew all about computers and management. Some years ago a farmer in my constituency gave up pig farming. I asked him what he was going to do next and he said that he planned to concentrate on vegetables, mainly cauliflowers. I said, "That will be a tremendous difference", and he said, "No, it is all marketing. The same principles of marketing apply to pigs as to cauliflowers." That constituent had the same attitude to animal welfare as some of the farmers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the attitude of the pig farmers of east riding towards his Bill, the public will not stand for those practices any longer? The public buy the pork that comes from the pig farmers of east riding and elsewhere and they are the principal impetus behind the worthy Bill that the hon. Gentleman is promoting.
    Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but it goes a bit further than that. The House has been discussing the matter for a long time. As long ago as 1981, the Select Committee on Agriculture spent a long
    1374
    time hearing all the arguments before producing a report that was against the use of sow stalls and tethering except under certain conditions—the kind of conditions embodied in the Bill and draft regulations. When the House supported the report in 1982, there was not a dissenting voice.
    Ten years ago, there were no 1,000-sow units. Huge factory farms did not exist. They were about to appear and we thought that we should jump on them then. Unfortunately, however, we did not, and the result is that we now have some units with 3,000 sows. One man who telephoned me at the weekend has 10,000 sows on a huge mega-farm—if one can call them farms. That is almost unbelievable. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but it is not only public opinion that is against the practice; the House condemned the system through its Select Committee and in a debate on the subject as long ago as 1982.
    We are making progress. We are virtually there. The regulations are on the way and, as I said, the Commission has given the assurance that it, too, will be taking action. The House can be pleased with what has been achieved. It would seem that three hon. Members—perhaps one or two more—wish to sabotage our attempts. I am afraid that, in future, they will find that rather more difficult because of the Community. I am no supporter of the way in which the Common Market operates, but we must face the fact that, in future, many of our laws will be made not by this House but in Brussels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes; the legislation on this subject and on slaughterhouses will be made elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that this country is leading in Europe. We are ahead of the other countries, and they are following. That is an achievement, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done.
    1.22 pm
    Mr. Ron Davies: In supporting the motion, I wish first to express my great sadness that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has been forced to move it. This is a sad day because the House is sending a signal to the country and to the European Community that the British Parliament will allow itself to be sabotaged—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—and will allow vested financial interests to stand in the way of minor improvements in animal welfare.
    I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. I fully acknowledge the support that he has received from the Minister for the principle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are two honourable exceptions in the present-day Tory party. We have seen this morning that the Tory party is prepared to sacrifice minimal improvements in animal welfare for very marginal economic benefits. I recognise that other Conservative Members who have sponsored or supported the Bill are also exceptions, but we have seen the true face of the modern Tory party in the tactics that we witnessed this morning. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)——
    Mr. Don Dixon: The bookie's runner.
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend refers to the hon. Gentleman as a bookie's runner. I would not put a bet on with the hon. Gentleman and I certainly would not fancy

    1375
    him running. His tactics this morning showed neither courage nor integrity. He abused the procedures of the House. He did not wish to challenge the Bill that would now have been before us, choosing instead to subvert the procedures of the House to prevent the House from discussing and deciding on the matter. His actions were both undemocratic and anti-democratic. He would have done himself more service if he had been prepared to oppose the measure openly and frankly.
    The debate and the Bill deal with a cause that has inspired millions of people. By his actions this morning, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh has brought disrepute to himself, the House of Commons and the Tory party. He was not alone. He was aided by those waiting in the wings. he was preceded by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who spoke for 18 minutes, and the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who spoke for 27 minutes. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) was waiting in the wings, as was the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They are all signatories to the amendments.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: I will give way to the hon. Lady, because I have named her. However, first I wish to finish my specific point.
    The amendments were not designed to improve the Bill or to allow us to debate its benefits or economic consequences. They were tabled for the express purpose of allowing those hon. Members to kill the Bill this morning.
    Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I signed the amendments to the Pig Husbandry Bill. He is wrong and I ask him to withdraw that.
    Mr. Davies: The record will show clearly that I accused the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South of speaking for 18 minutes. When I referred to the amendments, I specifically referred to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West and the hon. Member——
    Miss Emma Nicholson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Chair to confirm that I did not have my name down to speak in the previous debate, that my name was not involved in any amendment and that it is a figment of Opposition Members' imagination that I was waiting in the wings to speak in the previous debate.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Let us cool the debate. These are matters for debate and I hope to call the hon. Lady shortly.
    Mr. Davies: I do not wish to cool the debate. I am particularly angry this morning because I have seen the practices—
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: I shall answer the point that the hon. Lady raised in a moment.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to give way?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member at the Dispatch Box said a moment ago that he was willing to give way in his own time. I am sure that he will do so.
    Mr. Davies: Of course, I will. Faced with a lady who wishes to intervene and a lady in the Chair, I have no option but to give way. The charge against the hon. Lady is that she is a signatory to the amendment tabled for debate this morning. I refer her to the amendments—
    Miss Emma Nicholson rose——
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady must restrain herself. She was not present while we listened for two hours to the most tedious speech from her hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who is a partner in her crime. I, who have been listening for two hours, take it amiss that she has been in the Chamber for only five minutes and wishes immediately to intervene. She is a party to the crime of this morning's hijack of the proceedings. She wants her hon. Friends to be allowed to give it, so she must take it for a moment.
    Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: No, the hon. Gentleman should sit down. My point is that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West is a signatory to the amendments—
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: For goodness sake, for the fourth time——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must restrain herself. The hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box said that he would give way when he had finished his point. Will she please restrain herself until he gives way to her?
    Mr. Davies: My point is that the amendments were tabled for the express purpose of killing the Bill. The hon. Lady is a signatory to the amendments. If she wishes to justify that, or withdraw her name from the amendments, I willingly give way to her.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman is withdrawing from his earlier statement, when he said that I was a partner in crime and was waiting in the wings to speak in the earlier debate. Does he agree that that was incorrect? My name was not down to speak in the earlier debate. I came here to speak on the Pig Husbandry Bill. The hon. Gentleman is taking my name in vain. Indeed, he is turning out to be a classic Labour male chauvinist pig or, might I suggest, a real sorry bore.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to her view. The record will show that my point is clear and that it was clear when I made it initially. We have had one debate already this morning. It was deliberately prolonged by the hon. Members whom I have named precisely to ensure that inadequate time remained for this debate.
    Miss Emma Nicholson rose—
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady must restrain herself. I know that she is getting excited, but she must—
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: No. The hon. Lady must understand that when a Member is addressing the House he has a right to finish a sentence without these constant interruptions.
    The hon. Lady is a party to this morning's attempt to kill the Bill. Her name is on the list of amendments. I am fully aware that she intended to come to the House to speak to the amendments to the Pig Husbandry Bill. All Labour Members know that the purpose or the amendments is to kill the Bill, as the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made clear.
    Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. There will be further opportunities for him to speak.
    Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Davies: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because he was present for the Second Reading of the Bill. He has been in constant contact with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston and has shown himself to be supportive throughout all the proceedings of the Bill in this House, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). If any of them wishes me to give way to them, I shall certainly do so because I know that they are concerned about improvement in animal welfare standards.
    Mr. Mullin: My constituents and I care strongly about this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those responsible for this morning's sabotage and the vested interests that put them up to it do not derive any advantage from what happened? Indeed, on the contrary, does he agree that it is important that they derive a serious disadvantage and understand that their actions this morning will be to the detriment of the vested interests that they represent? I realise that my hon. Friend is about to say that a Labour Government will certainly support such a measure in the European Community and, if necessary, through legislation. Does he agree that when the issue returns to the House we should think in terms of reducing the phasing-out period from 10 to the original five years? That would signal to the vested interests that the more they carry on with this sabotage, the harder it will get for them.
    Mr. Davies: That is a powerful argument and I shall return to it in a moment.
    I pay full credit to the Minister who will introduce regulations which will give effect to the particular purposes of the Bill. I have told him privately and will now do so in public that we shall do all we can to facilitate the passage of that legislation.
    The present difficulty arises because this is a private Member's Bill and it would be inappropriate for the party to arrange any whipping or attempt to make a party political response to the Bill. All my hon. Friends who have supported the measure have done so as private Members. It is noteworthy that when the closure was forced on Second Reading, every Labour Member who voted, supported the Bill. It is true that the Labour party is absolutely committed to not only this welfare measure but others. I give full credit also to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who represents the Liberal Democrats, who share our objectives in this matter. It is true that thus far we have been acting as private Members and that when the matter is introduced as a Government
    1378
    measure, we shall give it our full support. Inasmuch as this private Member's Bill has been wrecked, I undertake that when we have a Labour Government, as I am confident we shall in the not-too-distant future, we shall review these measures.
    The hon. Member for Langbaurgh spoke for two hours this morning, but he has not had the courtesy to remain for this debate. However, he achieved one thing this morning: an incoming Labour Government will review the regulations. The attempt to hijack and sabotage the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston may have been successful, but that action may rebound on those hon. Members responsible. They will not be allowed to profit from their infamy.
    On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston had the support of many of my hon. Friends and his colleagues when he sought to move the closure. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. Those hon. Members who killed the Bill this morning did not have the courage, integrity or the troops to call a Division against the Second Reading. They let the Bill go in the knowledge that they would attempt to subvert the will of Parliament at a later stage.
    The hon. Member for Holland with Boston had the full support of the Government. They wanted the Bill to be amended to bring it into line with their objectives. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that we had a constructive debate in Committee when we explored the relevant issues. A number of amendments were accepted with near-unanimity which took account of the representations made, the need for the Bill and the Government's reservations. There was unanimity about attaining those objectives.
    We improved the Bill and it came back to the House for what we hoped would be a formal Report stage and Third Reading. Little did we know that those hon. Members to whom I have referred would set about their task of tabling wrecking amendments with the purpose of killing the Bill.
    Those hon. Members have succeeded in killing the Bill and I suppose that that is a credit to their parliamentary tactics, but it is a discredit to them as members of the human race. They have done a personal disservice to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, who is a respected member of their party because of his support for animal welfare. Although the hon. Gentleman is a man of integrity and commitment to the cause of animal welfare, it is clear that he does not have many friends in the present Tory party. Those hon. Members, by wrecking the Bill, have done a disservice to the cause of animal welfare as the British House of Commons has been shown incapable of accepting even a minor measure that would result in minor improvements in animal welfare.
    How will such actions strengthen the arm of the Minister, committed as he is to argue for animal welfare in the European Community? The Minister may argue at the EC that Britain wants to enforce the highest standards and to improve animal welfare. How will he defend his case when those who do not want to adopt the supposedly traditional British standards of animal welfare turn to him and say, "Yes Minister, but what happened to the Pig Husbandry Bill?"
    Where is the great British commitment to animal welfare when financial vested interests were used to hijack the British House of Commons.
    Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that most hon. Members will be disappointed that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has not succeeded. I must defend the integrity, however, of my parliamentary colleagues. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) alleged that they are acting for vested interests, but I am sure that they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents. I am quite sure that if they had an interest in such matters they would have declared it.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me because I am sure that those hon. Members would, or will, declare their interests. I hope that they will have an opportunity to respond during the debate.
    Mr. Davies: I am not suggesting for one moment that those hon. Members who killed the Bill will receive any personal gain from doing so. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is wrong if he thinks that I made such an assertion. If I had done so I would have referred to the declaration of interests and I would have specified my charges. I have made no personal accusations, but vested interests have wrecked the Bill. Some of those vested interests represent the pig farmers whom the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned earlier and whom he considers with such disapproval. Those farmers might be the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Mr. Butterfill rose——
    Mr. Davies: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman raised a phoney point of order and he should give me the courtesy of his attention when I reply to it. I suggested that they had deliberately inspired hon. Members to kill the Bill. They did so because they did not wish to be involved in the capital expenditure that would be necessary to bring about the improvements. They believed, wrongly, that they would suffer a small financial disadvantage if the Bill were passed. That is why the Bill has been killed and that is why I make the charge. The Bill is about improvements in welfare standards and it has been killed because it would marginally infringe on the financial interests of those who would be affected. That is my charge and I do not withdraw it. I am glad, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you ruled that my charge was valid. I believe that the hon. Members who have killed the Bill have done a disservice to their constituents by their actions and they have demeaned the House and themselves.
    The Bill was a small but important measure. It would have brought about minor improvements in welfare and in dry stalls by preventing a practice that has been widely recognised as cruel, unnecessary and unacceptable. The Bill was important not merely because it would have prevented the practice of using stalls and tethers, but because it would have been a message that the House was prepared to legislate and to demonstrate a commitment to be at least a first step in matters of animal welfare. That is why the defeat of the Bill saddens me.
    The Bill was not presented as the personal whim or crusade of one individual. It had the support of everyone who has studied the practice of sow husbandry.
    Sir Richard Body indicated assent.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston agrees. It was widely supported on Second Reading when hon. Member after hon. Member testified to the strength of public feeling. Hundreds of letters were written and more than 100 hon. Members took it on themselves to come to the Second Reading debate to commit themselves to the cause of the Bill. There was not only support from those of us who are public representatives, but specific and specialist support from others who had considered the Bill. The veterinary profession was almost united—the hon. Member for Holland with Boston will challenge me if I am wrong about that—in advocating the Bill. Academics who have studied husbandry have supported the Bill, as did the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming—whose Bill it was—and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which was established to advise the Government on animal welfare and the European Commission. The Government support the principles behind the Bill even if they do not support the precise form in which it has been drafted.
    Although the Bill has received broad support, it has been destroyed by the vested interests to which I referred, ostensibly to further economic interests. I believe that hon. Members who have spoken so far and who believe that they have served the financial cause of their pig-producing constituents have done them a disservice, not only for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) but for another reason: I believe that the British pig industry will be disadvantaged because consumers will begin to show a preference. The hon. Member for Bridlington may mock, but I look forward to a proper system of food labelling so that our constituents, when they do their weekly shopping, will be able to express support through their purchasing power for non-intensive systems and for systems that rear animals in conditions which they consider acceptable. The hon. Members to whom I refer therefore, have done their constituents a disservice in the financial sense.
    One benefit of the Bill has been a proper debate about the impact on sow and pig rearing of the stall and tether system. All the evidence from the academics and veterinarians who have studied the matter is that the alternative systems which the Bill would encourage are more efficient pig producers than the stall and tether system. The alternative systems give a greater opportunity for breeding at a marginally faster rate. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that litter sizes and the growth of piglets are superior under the alternative systems.
    Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman mentioned academics and veterinarians. Does he agree that stockmen share their view? Just over a year ago, I took part in the launch of the National Herdspersons Society to try to raise the standard of stockmanship. Members of that organisation are wholly in favour of raising standards and of ending the sow stall system because it has driven out of farming so many good stockmen. They say that one cannot be a good pigman unless one likes pigs, any more than one cannot be a good shepherd unless one likes sheep. They say that one cannot support and condone the system of sow stalls on its present scale if one has any feeling for or wish to work with pigs. That view has been repeated many times by professional stockmen for many years. It was emphasised to the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1981. The prediction was made on behalf of the stockmen

    1381
    that good stock men would get out of the pig industry if the sow stall system continued. We have had to learn that lesson.
    Mr. Davies:: The hon. Gentleman is correct in the matters to which he has drawn our attention, as he is in so many other matters relating to farming.
    The express concern of the hon. Members who have killed the Bill was that Britain would be out of step with Europe and that British interests would be jeopardised. I do not believe that. There is now clear evidence—the Minister may wish to address the point—that the Commission would have accepted the standards in the Bill and that it would have ensured that the standards were adopted throughout Europe. The cause of animal welfare in Europe has been weakened by the decision this morning.
    There is some consolation in our debate. At the end of the day, victory will go to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. He has ensured that we have had a full debate, that the public are aware of the issues, that the public have had the opportunity to express their concern and that the wide range of specialist and scientific opinion to which I referred has been given the opportunity to present its case to the House. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that his hon. Friend has ensured that when the Minister tables the regulations, stalls and tethers will be phased out. Those of us of all parties who are prepared to argue the case for animal welfare will have to acknowledge our debt to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. I pay full tribute to him.
    I understand that the Government have put the regulations out to consultation in almost final form. I have not yet had a chance to look at the proposed regulations in detail, but I understand that they will give full effect, if in a different way, to the proposals in the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on that. The regulations will have our full support when they come before the House and we will do whatever is necessary to facilitate their passage through the House.
    The hon. Members who have attempted to kill the Bill this morning will not be allowed to profit from what they have done. One of the earliest acts of an incoming Labour Government's Ministry of Food and Farming will be to review all farm welfare measures. We shall then look, as a matter of Government policy, at whether the regulations now being tabled should be continued.
    1.50 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I shall be brief to enable other hon. Members to take part in the discussion, and I hope that I can restore some of the harmony and consensus that existed on Second Reading and largely in Committee.
    I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has had to withdraw his Bill, and I understand why he has taken that step. There was a great deal of consensus in Committee. All the issues were widely explored, particularly the vexed question of when the end of the phasing out period should be. Amendments were proposed to bring the date forward and to bring it in line with the Government's position. It is remarkable that hon. Members on both sides with deeply held views on
    1382
    animal welfare concluded that the phase-out period which is now in my hon. Friend's Bill, and which will be the same in our regulations, was an appropriate time.
    I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for his kind words and, at the outset, I wish to put on record firmly that the Government agree with the objectives of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we take, and will continue to take, the matter of pig welfare seriously. On every occasion I have spoken about the Bill I have said that the Government would rather the objectives of the Bill were achieved by way of regulations made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. The House will be aware that the Bill, as amended in Committee, contains a number of tortuous formulae which are necessary only because we are working with primary legislation.
    I also made it clear that we would have preferred our regulations in the first place, but, because the Bill was considerably amended in Committee, it would have had the support of the Government. We welcome it and could have lived with it. I would also have told the House today, had we dealt with the amendments, that the Government could not have accepted any of them as tabled and would have wished the Bill to have passed as it stood. But I shall not go into any of those details now. I suspect that we shall cover them when we debate the regulations, which will be laid and be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure.
    As we have no Bill, we can have regulations instead, and I intend that that shall happen. Those regulations can be introduced quickly and relatively easily, and they will have exactly the same effect as the Bill. Officials in my Department are maintaining a draft version which mirrors the progress of the Bill. The latest version was issued for brief comment on Tuesday of this week, with a short period given for further comments to be made. We kept that measure ticking over because we believe that regulations could be better than the Bill.
    We wanted a fall-back position in case this eventuality, as happened today, occurred. We gave a commitment that the Government intended to introduce regulations if the Bill fell. It now seems that the Bill will fall, so we intend to introduce the regulations.
    I should give a slight warning. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston quoted the support of the Commission. I understand that although the Commission has not put a block on the regulations, the deadline for notifying the EC has not yet expired. We have until 6 May, and it is possible that there will be objections to them. If the Commission is giving us the green light, that is excellent news. If we get the Commission fully on our side, while that is good news and will allow our regulations to proceed unhindered, it will not mean that all other EC countries will fall in line pdq.
    We will have a tough fight on our hands to persuade other EC countries, with the full support of the Commission if we have it, that they should follow the British lead on animal welfare. I can assure the House that when our regulations are in place—if the House agrees to them—we shall press most strongly in Brussels and other EC countries for similar legislation to apply there so that we are not at a competitive disadvantage and animals in those other countries are not at a welfare disadvantage.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that the will of the House had been frustrated today. May I say on the Government's behalf that the will of the House will

    1383
    not be frustrated today. Many hon. Members agreed with the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston and the Government would agree with it if it were amended. The regulations, which we have put out for consultation, mirror that. I give a clear undertaking that we intend to proceed with those regulations and, barring any hiccup from the Commission or our parliamentary procedure, they could and should be law by the summer.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is little debating time left. I hope to call all hon. Members. If they apply common sense and speak briefly, I may be able to do so.
    1.57 pm
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I shall speak for the fewest possible moments because I know the keen interest of other hon. Members to ensure that their voices are heard.
    I warmly welcome the Government's adoption of measures identical to those proposed in the Bill. I read carefully everything that was said on Second Reading, for which I was present, and in Committee. I supported the Bill and its principle on Second Reading. My views on it are on the record. I asked the sponsor no fewer than five times if I could be on the Committee so that I could make some other points. He was unable to hear me in that context, which is the sole reason why I put down my name to speak today. I was glad to put my name with those of other hon. Members in support of the amendments. They are important amendments which should have been heard in Committee, and if I had been fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee I would have spoken to them then.
    I am a lifetime supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The deputy chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA was, at my instigation, the only speaker at a meeting of the constituency farm council of Torridge and Devon, West more than a year ago when we discussed other aspects of intensive farming.
    I proposed the Slaughter of Deer Bill which, I am sorry to say, was blocked by members of Her Majesty's Opposition. It was a private Member's Bill and I accept that it was not blocked by Front-Bench spokesmen; Members of both major Opposition parties blocked it, for which I am sorry. I have a track record of speaking on animal welfare matters in the House and have put forward my own Bill.
    I am glad that the Minister spoke so strongly in favour of the principles and practice of the Bill. I am also glad that he will now have time to consider the points made in the amendments. We shall perhaps have another opportunity to discuss those points with him. I welcome that and look forward immensely to working with him.
    1.58 pm
    Mr. John Townend: I have no vested interest in the pig industry. I see that the "Oxford English Dictionary" defines someone with a vested interest as someone with a personal interest in the state of affairs with an expectation of gain.
    1384
    I am sad that the Bill has been withdrawn. If my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) had not withdrawn it, we could have had a debate of an hour and a half and I would have had an opportunity to propose the amendments in my name. They were not wrecking amendments; I did not intend to wreck the Bill and I made an offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston to withdraw my opposition if he would accept my amendment dealing with the 35 days issue. We proposed that amendment on the basis of welfare as well as economics. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I am sorry that I will not have the opportunity to make those points.
    My other main amendment would have prevented the Bill from coming into operation until there was equivalent legislation in other Community countries. I was saddened to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said. When my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that he wished to withdraw the Bill, I thought that there would be rejoicing in east Yorkshire tonight. The pig farmers realise that their livelihoods are at risk. I tell Labour Members that as a rural Member of Parliament, it is my job to represent my constituents—just as it is the job of mining or textile Members of Parliament to represent their constituents.
    There has been a clear change of Government policy——
    Sir Richard Body rose——
    Mr. Townend: With respect, other hon. Members wish to speak and my hon. Friend has had a good crack today. I have been waiting all day to speak. I was prepared to speak for three hours and I would have talked out the Bill because it would undermine the British pig industry.
    In March 1989, the former Minister said in a Ministry document:
    "It is clear that any legislation should be on a Community-wide basis."
    The major objection of the pig industry is that, when moving towards a single market, the Bill would not allow them to compete on a level playing field. The Government now intend to impose regulations that will make their position very difficult.
    On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the Bill would disadvantage British trade, so I do not foresee objections from other EEC countries. He also said that the Bill had to be enacted within five years, or we would be flooded with pigmeat produced under the system that we had banned. That is likely to happen at the end of eight years because the revenue differential will be the same.
    The Minister also said that the new proposals would increase running costs because
    "they must have a higher quality of animal husbandry and better qualified pig men. The level of the additional costs will depend on the type of system used and the value of additional inputs."—[Official Report, 25 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 617.]
    We expect the Labour party not to back British industry, but we expect the Conservative party to defend British industry and British agriculture. The Minister says that he will attempt to obtain EC regulations. I do not think that there is a cat in hell's chance of that. Some 90 per cent. of pig breeding in Denmark is under the dry sow system, as is 80 per cent. in Holland and more than half in Belgium, France and Germany, and the system is expanding rapidly in Spain. In Holland, it would be practically impossible to move to loose houses because it does not have the straw.

    1385
    European Governments back their farmers for political and national reasons. If we legislate as the Government suggest, our pig farmers will be at a disadvantage. Can the House imagine other Common Market countries introducing legislation to lessen the advantage to their farmers? Can the House imagine the French introducing legislation that would place further burdens on their farmers while giving our farmers an advantage? It is inconceivable.
    I know that we are up against it, but we shall continue the battle. Whatever regulations the Government may introduce, if they are imposed on our industry and not on our competitors, we will oppose them. There has already been one example of that on veal calf crates. They have been abolished in Britain, so when the calves are born they go to Holland, where they are fattened in the very crates that are illegal in this country and the veal then comes back to Britain.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that British farmers had lost an opportunity. Does he really believe that if the Bill had been passed and the cost of our pigmeat increased, the ordinary punter in the supermarket would be prepared to pay a premium for British bacon over Danish bacon? Labour Members do not live in the real world. It is difficult enough to try to sell British bacon in competition against the long tradition, heavy marketing and high quality of Danish bacon and we have made a lot of progress. However, if one attempts to appeal to a niche market—to sell to the sort of people who will make that decision—one will condemn oneself to a small part—10 or 15 per cent.—of the market.
    There is a deficiency of £6 billion a year on our food account—larger than that for cars. The Government are introducing an initiative to reduce that deficiency and to increase exports of food products and decrease imports. Considering our balance of payments problems in the past 18 months, we certainly need to do that.
    How can one expect our food industry to increase exports if it cannot compete on a level basis? When my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston talks about pig farmers in my constituency, he does not know what he is talking about. They vary from the smallest to the largest pig farmers. We have the largest concentration of pigs, and we are the major producers of pork in the country.
    The reason why British bacon has been gaining market share is the quality and price of the bacon produced by those farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston wants to go back 25 years to the old farmer in his muddy boots. He does not think that they should have desks or computers. Why have they come to meetings in nice cars? Because they are successful. One thing that the former Prime Minister did for this country was to show that we have to be successful if we are to survive. When I hear all this claptrap I think that it is a criticism of successful farmers who are able to produce more. For years the Government have been calling on farmers to produce more and to reduce imports. If they have been successful and have invested the money, they will have made profits. Therefore, they have a right to a good car, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has a good car out of his parliamentary allowance.
    I am ashamed of what has been going on and of the way in which pig farmers have been treated. I shall fight and fight again to make the Government change their mind.
    2.6 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The arguments used by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) did not do pig farmers a good service. I probably represent a level of pig production comparable to that which he represents. In the past few weeks, I have sat down with large-scale pig farmers and their advisers in my constituency and I am well aware that they are concerned about welfare.
    If there has been a full debate on the Bill today I would have been prepared to engage in that constructive debate and to ensure that their concerns were taken into account as we move into the transitional phase. That is legitimate, as the Government have said that they will introduce regulations and I think that farmers' worries need to be considered. However, I do not in any way withdraw my support for the Bill.
    One of the reasons why I support the Bill is my belief that public opinion is demanding this change of our farmers, and it does farmers no good to have representatives such as the hon. Member for Bridlington telling them that he is not interested in what the British public want or what Parliament wishes as regards animal welfare demands. Essentially, that is what the debate is about and that is what we should have been debating this morning.
    I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will introduce their own regulations in a similar format. I hope that the Minister will not regard this as a discourtesy, as it is not intended as such, but I think that his position has become clearer, and was put in more forthright way, than it was on Second Reading. Our debates on the Bill have helped to crystallise his Department's thinking and to raise the standard of the debate within the European Community.
    We have to accept that there is a north-south divide within the European Community on animal welfare matters. The hon. Member for Bridlington simply says that because of that divide we have to accept that the argument must be lost. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he does not intend to lose that argument, but will take it to the heart of the European Commission and make Britain the member that will lead the demand for improved animal welfare standards—a demand which ultimately has to penetrate the entire market. In due course, I believe that these matters will even become of greater concern outside the United Kingdom.
    I hope that the Government accept that there are those involved in the industry who accept that there should he change but who say that if change must come, their ability to adapt, the time scale, the costs involved and the necessary research should all be taken fully into account. The Minister will be aware of the concern about pigs in large-scale units. However, things can happen to free-range pigs, too. They suffer from udder biting and from broken backs and legs during the lactation period. I am sure that those points would have been made in support of the amendments of the hon. Member for Bridlington, had he moved them. I should not have supported the amendments, but I would have pressed those arguments. The leading pig research unit in Scotland is in my constituency. It has said that if change is to come about—it accepts that it is the will of Government that it should come about—it will need to find ways to separate the pecking order out very early on to avoid such incidents.
    Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I could reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we intend to continue with a lot of research into this and other matters relating to alternative welfare systems for pigs during the phase-out period, to the end of 1998, and that we shall probably continue with research beyond that date.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, which was all that I was looking for in the context of this short debate.
    The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has done a great service by introducing the Bill. It is a matter of great regret that he has been forced to withdraw it, although I accept that he did so in the context of regulations that are to be applied in any case. It is never satisfactory when Bills are frustrated by procedural means rather than by an honest exchange in debate and a vote on the issue, for that is when the will of Parliament determines what is to happen rather than tactical procedures. It will anger many people in the country who lobbied hard and believed that they had won the day on the Bill. The only saving grace is that the Government have had the integrity to honour the provisions of the Bill. Provided that they continue to do so, those people may be satisfied and mollified. Frankly, though they will not think much of Parliament. I could not defend Parliament's behaviour to them and I would not attempt to do so.
    2.11 pm
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: I, too, am sorry that the Bill is being withdrawn. I wanted to speak on behalf of my constituents. I took part in an earlier debate this morning on an issue that affected my constituents. My name is also down to speak in the debate on the Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill because I have an interest in that. I take amiss some of the remarks that were made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), and also the uncharacteristically ungracious remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) as I came into the Chamber.
    My interest has always been human welfare. Part of that has to be the provision of clean, cheap, safe food. That includes the welfare of people who work with animals. Animal welfare is of great importance. If my postbag is anything to go by, I suspect that some of those who write to me on animal welfare issues—whales, dogs or whatever—are frequently more agitated about those matters than those who write to me about human welfare issues.
    The problem is that some of the animal rights proposals, which might have formed part of the Bill and might still yet form part of the regulations, are anthropomorphic. They assume that animals have the same feelings and needs as we have. They tend to forget the brutality that some species show to each other, expecially at certain times in the reproductive cycle. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to that point, and it is one to which I should like to return.
    I ought to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who introduced the Bill, that any pig farmer who supports the Bill's provisions does not need the Bill. He could introduce new rearing methods all by himself. There is no law that says that he cannot introduce different methods. He can indulge in whatever form of husbandry he is happiest with and that he feels his stock is happiest with.
    1388
    There is a substantial pig farm in my constituency. I am well acquainted with Mr. John Robinson, the manager of Midland Pig Farms. I have visited the establishment on a number of occasions. It is expanding. There has been a substantial amount of investment in it, and it produces some of the finest quality meat to be found anywhere in Europe. I am very pleased that it is there. The farm does not use girths or tethers, but it does use stalls for breeding sows. The boars have plenty of room. The fattening sheds are large and comfortable. The gilts run outside. Clearly, therefore, there is a technical reason why the sows are in stalls. There is plenty of room for them not to be in stalls. That is not the problem. I understand that the main purpose of the stalls is simply to prevent the sows from rolling on the piglets, which is what would happen naturally. No doubt the animal rights people would have a fit about the death of baby pigs, and that would be the cost of changing the system.
    The hon. Member for Gordon was correct in saying that there are other problems in breeding sows when put with other sows. The pig farmers in my constituency tell me that the animals fight and go in for unpleasant habits like vulva biting and general bullying. I was told that sows are not very sociable and that a sow's worst enemy is another sow. I was advised that losses of sows under the system being proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston could be as much as 70 per cent. higher than in stalls—for example, in loose housing or cubicle housing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take those issues on board. If that is right—I can think of no reason why my constituents should tell me a lie—and if losses under the system proposed by the new legislation are 70 per cent. higher—and by losses I understand deaths of animals—what has happened to animal welfare? I stand here as an ordinary Back Bencher asking where is animal welfare if the changes intended to promote it result in the deaths of more animals and changing the system results in more cruelty.
    I take on board the points that have been made about making sure that the changes proceed at the same speed throughout Europe. I am always pleased when Britain leads Europe and when we are able to show that our standards are higher than those in the rest of Europe and encourage the rest of our European neighbours to follow suit, but it is worth remembering that in Spain large numbers of stalls are being put in. We know that, because the stalls are being manufactured in Britain. We may well find ourselves importing meat produced in other countries when we have introduced regulations that restrict our own farmers.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has seen fit to withdraw his Bill, but we look forward to what the Minister and the Government propose in future.
    2.16 pm
    Mr. Roger Gale: I shall be brief, as I hope that we shall salvage something from the wreckage of this morning and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will be able to introduce a measure that will be of great benefit to his and my constituents.
    I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) found it necessary to make the Bill a partisan matter. I have the honour to be the

    1389
    vice-chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. The chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) is not known for her socialist leanings, but that group stoically and consistently has given support to the measure brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). It is not a partisan matter; it is an all-party matter and the all-party animal welfare group counts among its numbers large numbers of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
    I am particularly sad that my hon. Friend has found it necessary to withdraw the Bill this morning, not because we have lost the measure—we have not, and I hope that the public will understand, because of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister, that the measure will go forward—but because the wrong message may go out from the House to Europe. It is our proud boast in the House of Commons and in the country that we blaze a trail in animal welfare matters and that we have not been afraid to go before the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament and to say that we will not tolerate unpleasant practices that do no service to the health and welfare of the animals that we seek to protect. That is why many of us gave our forceful support to the Pig Husbandry Bill and to the measures being put forward to implement the minimum values rule on the exportation of live animals, particulary equines. Many people in the House and the country feel extremely strongly about that. It would be a tragedy if a message went out to the European Commission, the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament that suggested for one minute that we were going soft on any of these issues.
    Despite what has happened this morning, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go to the Council of Ministers and the Commission and say, with all the force that he can muster, that the United Kingdom will continue to blaze a trail in Europe on animal welfare matters. I hope that he will be neither ashamed nor afraid to say that long and loud and that we will never tolerate practices that do not coincide with animal welfare.
    2.20 pm
    Mr. William Hague: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will recall from the Second Reading debate that my principal concern about the Bill was that it might introduce unfair competition. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the initiatives that may come out of directorate general 6. That is most encouraging. If there were real determination in the European Commission and across the Community to tackle the issue as one Community, we would all happily accept and support any initiative that resulted. But some of us are still a bit sceptical—as the House heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)—whether such unity of action will be forthcoming, and my hon. Friend the Minister urged caution in that respect. It is easy to get the Commission to talk about things. It is much harder to get it to agree on them and enforce them throughout the Community. Certainly what we have heard from Italian Ministers and other Italian sources in the past couple of weeks has not in any way suggested that it will be easy to achieve European Community agreement on these matters.
    1390
    We look to my hon. Friend the Minister to press the matter in Europe before he introduces regulations in place of the Bill. We look to him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, to blaze a trail and say that if we are to take action, we expect the European Community to fall into line and adopt the same procedures—otherwise, as the Minister implied, British farmers will be at a competitive disadvantage.
    It is because some of us were, and remain, worried about that, that we tabled reasonable amendments to the Bill which would have been considered had my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston not sought to withdraw it. We have every right to resent the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who accused us of tabling wrecking amendments. The hon. Gentleman also spoke disparagingly of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on the grounds that he left the Chamber when he had finished speaking. The hon. Gentleman has now done exactly the same himself. The hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friends and me of representing vested interests and of committing a crime by tabling amendments in an attempt to defend our constituents' interests. We are meant to defend our constituents' interests; that is one of the reasons why we come to the House. I hope that if, in a few years' time, the hon. Gentleman tables amendments to legislation that threatens businesses in his constituency, he will not be accused of committing a crime or of representing vested interests just because he is attempting to alleviate matters. The hon. Gentleman's speech was foolish and intemperate and, following it, he has sunk in stature as an Opposition spokesman. He must have been taking too many lessons from the Leader of the Opposition, who often displays a similarly intemperate and ineffective manner. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had remained to hear my remarks. He will have to read them instead.
    My hon. Friend the Minister should press as hard as he can in Europe for a common European agreement. I urge him also to meet again those of us who are concerned about the effects of the regulations to discuss whether there are other ways in which they can be improved. It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of fair competition—a level playing field, to use the cliché that we hear so often in agriculture debates these days.
    There is a serious danger for the pig industry in Britain. It has not had any special support. It has not relied on subsidies. It has had to cope with a free market in recent years and it has done so without the support of the taxpayer. The industry would be asked to compete with one had tied behind its back if the regulations were passed without European Commission agreement on them. We would probably see more pigmeat imported into Britain, produced by the very system to which people have objected—the stall and tether system.
    I am sceptical about the argument that the consumer will lead the way by looking for meat that is produced in a better way. We are short of evidence about that. Price still dominates, so the importance of European agreement is high. If we did not have European agreement, we would once again have shot ourselves in the foot. We always seem to be more keen—rightly so—than our European Community partners on enforcing regulations.
    The Minister has already reassured the House, but I want him to take away from the debate the message from many of us that we look to him to press the matter with the utmost vigour in the European Commission and the

    1391
    Council of Ministers. I hope that he will also pay attention to the misgivings that many of us have—they were the reasons behind one of our amendments, although it was not a wrecking amendment. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Caerphilly back in the Chamber. I have been talking about him in his absence and now he has come back to listen to the rest of what I have to say. I remind him that our amendments were not wrecking amendments. They were designed to improve the legislation in the interests of our constituents.
    One amendment dealt with the first 35 days after weaning. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of that amendment and listen again to the arguments. The first 35 days are a particularly important time in the 165-day cycle of the sow. The greatest problems of stock management and welfare arise in the first 35 days after weaning, if one does not have either a good stockman —my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston knows a great deal about good stockmanship—or a stall system. It is in the first 35 days that the stockman's skills are most often required. One needs ease of access to the sow, easy identification of the sow and calm conditions in which to look after the sow. A good stockman can provide those things, but the skills are in short supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston gave good reasons why they are in short supply. But the fact is that they are in short supply and that is the position with which we must deal. Perhaps we do not disagree on that.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the arguments about the vulnerable time in the cycle of the sow. Certainly, that is the point about which pig farmers in my constituency are more worried than anything else.
    1392
    Their opinion is that enormous damage would he done to the industry if the measure were adopted in this country but not in other European Community countries, and that the greatest damage would be due to the implications for the first 35-day period. The condition of sows in that period varies greatly. They often require individual attention. They have lost their strength from the milk that has been drawn out of them in previous weeks and they need to be looked after individually. It is also important——
    Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have the Minister for Health here. This morning 600 job cuts were announced at Guy's hospital. Now this afternoon we hear that 300 more jobs are to go at the Bradford hospital trust. The Government are standing by doing nothing while their business managers are cutting the national health service. The Minister is here; will she come to the Dispatch Box?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady makes her point at 2.30 pm, I shall deal with it then.
    Mr. Hague: It is also important that people understand that during that 35 days serious injuries can often occur. Sows bully and become aggressive towards each other as they try to establish a social hierarchy. That is another reason why particular attention must be paid to the first 35-day period. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend listens to that argument.
    Normally towards the end of that 35-day period farmers carry out a pregnancy test, for which they require sows to be still. They use what appears to be head-bone apparatus—
    It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    Hospitals (Job Losses)
    Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I raised a point of order calling for a Minister in the Department of Health to come to the House to take responsibility for and explain the cut of 600 jobs at Guy's hospital trust. The Minister was not available. We now have a Minister present. We have had further news that 300 jobs are to go in Bradford as a result of the setting up of a hospital trust. The Government are standing by and Ministers are failing to take responsibility while their business managers butcher the health service. Are we prepared to let this go on, or will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, use your influence to bring the Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer our points?
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I represent one of the Bradford constituencies and both St. Luke's and the Bradford royal infirmary treat my constituents. The announcement that 300 jobs are to go is a real blow to the people of Bradford. I urge you to support our request for the Minister for Health to make a statement because this is a serious and important matter. Just as we predicted, £7 million is being cut from the national health service budget through the trust in Bradford. The trust has nothing to do with the NHS. It represents the enemies within the NHS, and it is time that we had a statement.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These matters are raised in the House of Commons because they are relevant to people outside. The House of Commons should debate the matter. The Government who introduced the legislation on opting out, which has already resulted in 900 job losses at two hospitals, have a duty to explain why this has happened. Furthermore——
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have listened carefully to the three points of order, all of which are related. As the House knows, on Fridays statements are made at 11 o'clock.
    Mr. Skinner: There was none.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Allow me to finish. I know full well that no Minister has informed Mr. Speaker that he or she wishes to make a statement today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Order. If the Minister for Health wishes to raise a point of order, of course I shall hear it.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important to make it clear that the whole philosophy behind the reforms in the health service is——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has not given permission for a debate on this matter. If the Minister wishes to raise a point of order with me, I must listen to it.
    Ms. Harman: Further to that point of order——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot make a statement on which she will take questions. Is she raising a point of order?
    Mrs. Bottomley indicated dissent.
    Ms. Harman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy speaker. Could the Minister, further to this point of order, please say that she will make a statement to the House on Monday about the cuts in services under the hospital trusts?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must pursue these points of order on Monday when we resume our next parliamentary business.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you and your colleagues do something about the fact that the Government have abused our proceedings today? At 8.30 am I alerted the Minister's office to the fact that I intended to raise in the House today the cuts at Guy's hospital and that the matter should be dealt with. I was told that two Ministers in the Department of Health were available in London throughout the morning.
    Subsequently, we debated the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. Although it is technically a private Member's Bill, we know that it is supported by the Government and that they sought a private Member to introduce it. There was a speech of two and a half hours on that Bill and, although it did not prevent the passage of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, it stopped the Pig Husbandry Bill being debated to a conclusion. In all probability, that Bill would have had the support of the House. All that time we did not hear a word nor receive a visit from a health Minister.
    It is not good enough for the Minister for Health to come to the House now simply to say, if she was minded to do so, that the Government have no responsibility. I am sure that the hon. Lady intended to say that the whole idea behind the health service reforms is that Ministers will not answer for independent, self-governing trusts. That is unacceptable.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that I can help the House. Mr. Speaker has ruled that it will not be too late for him to hear applications on this matter on Monday. The matter must now be left to our next parliamentary day—Monday next.

    Private Members' Bills

      REGISTERED HOMES (AMENDMENT) BILL
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
      Read the Third time, and passed.

      BUILDING CONVERSION AND ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

      MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

      YOUNG PERSONS (ALCOHOL ABUSE) ETC. BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Second Reading what day?
      Mr. Don Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

      ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her perogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.

      LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

      FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

      MENTAL HEALTH (DETENTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
      Read a Second time.
      Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

      ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

      HARE COURSING BILL
      Read a Second time.
      Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

      RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME (LONDON) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

      TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
      Mr. Don Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

      PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
      Mr. Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

      COAL IMPORTS BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
      Mr. Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

      HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

      SMOKE DETECTORS BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Mr. James Arbuthnot: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must tell him that, although I have no power to prevent him from doing so, Mr. Speaker has made it clear on many occasions that he very much disapproves of the House taking a Committee stage without notice. I hope that that has been noted.

      1397
      Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
      Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That, at the sitting on Tuesday 30th April, the Motions in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates 1991–92 (Class VIII, Vote 14) (Community charge and rate rebate grants, emergency assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc. England), (Class XVm Vote 22) Rate rebate grants, transitional relief and community charge reduction grants, Scotland) and (Class XVI, Vote 11) (Rate rebate grants and community charge reduction grants, Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put successively the Questions necessary to dispose of them—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That, at the sitting on Wednesday 1st May, if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Broadcasting, &c., have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motions which he may have selected—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      Hospitals (Job Losses)
      Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you accept an application under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity on the cuts in the national health service?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: As I have told the hon. Lady and the House, Mr. Speaker will consider the matter on Monday morning. I advise the hon. Lady to make an application to him then.

    Antarctica
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Health rose to her feet and said a few words, but declined to continue. Will you inform Mr. Speaker that a Minister was here but, on the advice of another Minister, decided to keep her mouth shut instead of being accountable to Parliament. The Minister was attempting to contribute. Perhaps that will help Mr. Speaker to make up his mind to accept an application for a debate.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker is aware of what takes place in the Chamber. Hon. Members are now taking time from the Adjournment debate. I hope that they understand their responsibility in making points of order at this stage.
    Mr. Simon Hughes rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with all the points of order relating to that.
    Mr. Roger Gale rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?
    Mr. Gale: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It must be a matter for the record that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was a travesty. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health was prepared to speak, but you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ruled her out of order.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to say that I shall block all Government business until we have a statement about Guy's hospital.
    2.43 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The subject that I am raising is of great importance both to what goes on in the House and to the views of millions of people around the country. More significantly, we are at the apex of a decision about the future of one of the world's last great wilderness areas—the Antarctic.
    The British Government's role in the discussions about the future of the Antarctic is not only less than helpful, but positively dangerous for the protection of a fragile ecosystem whose destruction would have enormous consequences for the whole world. We have an opportunity to make a decision that the great wilderness area should be declared a wilderness park for the benefit of all humankind. In doing so, we could show our concern to preserve the wilderness area. Alternatively, we can go down the road of smash, grab and destroy, to which the minerals exploration charter, which the British Government are pursuing, would lead us.
    The Antarctic has fascinated many people over many centuries. One of the greatest poems in English, "The Ancient Mariner" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, describes the voyage of Captain Cook in which he discovered for

    1399
    Europeans much of the Antarctic. Coleridge gives a brilliant description of the fragile ecosystem in the Antarctic. He writes
    "And ice, mast-high, came floating by,
    As green as emerald."
    That is an evocative description of a beautiful and wild place.
    Tragically, Captain Cook, although a wonderful ecologist who sought to preserve the ecosystems that he discovered and whose writings sought to preserve what he recognised, was killed because of a misunderstanding in the Pacific. Unfortunately, his discovery of channels into the Antarctic led to the destruction of many of the sea mammals there. It led to the whaling industry, which came mainly from Britain. The carnage of the whales of the Antarctic followed and the subsequent damage to the water ecosystem was incalculable. Some of the damage has been repaired by the growth of fish stocks but the whale is still, tragically, a seriously endangered species. The world is at last waking up to the wondrous nature of the whale and to the need to preserve it. However, we must recognise that in our destruction of the whale population, we are destroying one of the largest and most intelligent mammals on this planet. If we continue that destruction, it will lead to the whale's extinction. There is a lesson for us in our treatment of the whale and especially of the huge blue whale. If we allow that treatment to continue, we shall contribute to the destruction of the whole continent of Antarctica.
    The history of the Antarctic reveals the acquisitive nature of mankind, which has gone to the area to take from it and to destroy it. However, some have sought to recognise the beauty of Antarctica and to preserve it. Others have sought to exploit it for the potential mineral wealth beneath it. We must recognise that much of the scientific work there has been valuable. Joe Farman's discovery with the British Antarctic Survey of the existence of the hole in the ozone layer was possible only because scientific research was being undertaken in the Antarctic. I stress that it was scientific and not commercial research. Similarly the discovery through drilling into the ice cap of the levels of impurity in the world's atmosphere 100 years ago, 500 years ago and 1,000 years ago was possible only because the Antarctic is an area of peace and of scientific discovery and because it is not an area of commercial exploitation—yet.
    We should recognise that if we do not protect what is there, we are destroying not only an ecosystem, but the possibility of discovering more of the damage that human activity has already done to the world's environment—the air and the seas. We shall pollute and destroy for ever something that is incredibly beautiful and incredibly fragile. Antarctica is a dry place and a fragile ecosystem which is easily destroyed.
    A fuel oil spill from a survey ship that was minor by world standards did enormous damage in the Antarctic. Damage has been caused through the construction of runways and bases and the bad management of some of the bases has also caused great damage. We should think of the consequences of the Exxon Valdez disaster, which was terrible for Alaska. We should think of the damage caused to the Gulf by the oil spills, which continue. If we
    1400
    translate that to the coldest part of the world, we find that there is less natural biodegradable action by the sea to resurrect what was there.
    The Antarctic is a fragile place. That concern about the fragility of its environment led to expeditions and explorations and finally to the 1959 treaty, which was a remarkable document for its time. That treaty was signed at the height of the cold war by many nations which recognised the Antarctic as a place of peace, of scientific exploration and of the free movement and publication of all information discovered there.
    But there have been ominous movements in recent years, leading up to the minerals convention of 1988. Those ominous movements saw the Antarctic not as a place of scientific research—a place to be preserved for its wonder and beauty for future generations—but as a place from which minerals could be exploited.
    The British Government led the way in promoting the minerals convention and put through the House the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, which included some fundamental changes in policy towards the Antarctic. I will explain two of those changes. For the first time, it was said that the exploration of minerals in the Antarctic could take place for commercial purposes and that the information gained from the exploration, being of commercial value, should be in the ownership of the mineral or oil company. Once we allow the exploration of potential mineral resources, as sure as night follows day, those who have invested millions in that exploration will want to exploit those resources.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the commitment and knowledge that he showed during the passage of that measure. I assure him that there is a fundamental divide between the Front Benches on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made it clear in Madrid on the eve of the conference that the Labour party agreed that this last wilderness should be a world park and that the next Labour Government would not be in any way bound by what the British Government decided at the Madrid conference. It is crystal clear that the position of the Government—what can only be described as a messy compromise—is unsustainable and has been fatally holed by the move by Japan announced earlier this week.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines the importance that the Opposition parties place on Antarctica. We believe that an incoming Labour Government would support the idea of a world wilderness park and would not allow the headlong rush, which the British and American Governments seem keen to pursue, in favour of the minerials convention and the environmental destruction that will result.
    When the Antarctic Minerals Act first appeared in the House from the other place, little interest was shown in it, either in Parliament or outside. I strongly compliment the work of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace in promoting discussion and understanding about the issue, resulting in the avalanche of letters that hon. Members have received. As a result, the Antarctic is, and will remain, a major issue and a crucial decision must now be taken.
    The British Government's role in all this resulted in support for the CRAMRA initiative—the convention and the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities.

    1401
    When we promoted the idea of a world park in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the 1989 measure was debated, the Government said that the world park idea had little support and that its creation was not possible. They thought that the only way to protect the Antarctic was by the minerals convention.
    I do not accept that. No one nation should seek to grab parts of the Antarctic for itself. An examination of the map of the area reveals that an amazing series of conflicting territorial demands are being made. Chile claims one bit, Argentina another, while another part is claimed by both. The United States claims some, as does Britain, and the list goes on. Virtually every piece of land that forms the Antarctic is claimed by some country.
    We cannot allow the idea of territorial claims to get in the way of what must be done to protect the area. Nor can we hand the future of the Antarctic over to the world's oil and mineral companies. It must be settled on an international basis, and the only way to do that is to accept that it is a zone of peace, of non-military activity and of scientific research, so long as all the results of that research are published. Once we allow the idea of commercial ownership of the results of research to enter into the matter, we face serious problems.
    At the conference in Vina del Mar in Chile last year, the British Government pursued their idea of a minerals convention, for which there was some support and some opposition. Thankfully, that conference did not decide to support the minerals convention or mineral exploration. Instead, its delegates deferred decision for an environmental assessment, largely promoted by the then Government of Chile, to the Madrid conference which is now taking place.
    Matters have changed dramatically at the Madrid conference. Far from being alone and isolated, as New Zealand and Australia were to begin with in their support of world park, their proposal has now come much more into the mainstream of discussion. New Zealand and Australia fully support the idea of a world park, as do a number of other countries, including France. That is important because the power of those countries in support of that idea are considerable.
    A large majority of countries have basically supported the notion of a world park or, at least, a long moratorium on mining activities. That majority includes the Soviet Union, which now appears, in the words of President Gorbachev, to support the idea of the protection and preservation of the continent rather than its destruction and exploitation. Among those countries which apparently have the least concern for the environment of the Antarctic are Britain and the United States. It is important that the British Government put on record today their exact intention and what they are doing at the Madrid conference.
    The case for a world park is overwhelming. If we turn our backs on the idea of a world park, we shall get mineral exploration, with companies rushing in in Klondike-like competition—perhaps not this year or next year, but in five or 10 years' time. Those companies will be more concerned about what they can get out of the ground of the Antarctic than about protection of the fish stocks, the atmosphere and the land on which they are working. First and foremost at stake for those companies will be commercial interests, and scientific research will take second place. Research into the effects of the pollution of the air over centuries is not of commercial interest,
    1402
    whereas the exploration of oil, coal, manganese, tin and other minerals is. Therefore, there will be a gradual twist and the destruction will continue for a long time.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is not there a risk of military conflict arising if there are disagreements about the claims made under the minerals convention?
    Mr. Corbyn: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point because, while the 1959 treaty debars military activity and the deployment of forces in the Antarctic, it is unclear who could give the authority for mineral exploration. Clearly, national Governments would want to support what they would perceive to be the interests of nationally owned or nationally recognised oil and mineral exploration companies. Then the potential danger of military action in the Antarctic, which my right hon. Friend rightly exposed, becomes a much more serious threat.
    My case is perfectly simple and is, I believe, strongly and widely supported by millions of people around the country. The executive director of Greenpeace, Lord Melchett, sent a letter to a Foreign Office Minister this week stating:
    "In your letter to MPs on 25 March 1991, you said: 'We now believe that consensus may be achieved through a moratorum on mineral prospecting and exploitation activities and we intend to promote this with our Treaty partners.'In fact, in Madrid, your representative said in his opening statement to the meeting, that the UK Government's preferred position was to see the minerals regime, CRAMRA, enter speedily into force, that the Government believe an unqualified ban on mining is irrational, and that you are upset at the rejection by other nations of the minerals regime."
    The letter concludes:
    "Further, if you are genuinely interested in consensus, I challenge you to say that you welcome the Japanese change of heart, and their statement that: It is important that all the Consultative Parties undertake strenuous efforts to reach consensus on the regulation of mineral resources activities at the Madrid meeting. Based on this consideration, the delegation of Japan is now in favour of a prohibition of mineral resource activities … (for) an indefinite period."
    Millions in this country and many more around the world see that as a decision of great importance, because we are saying that we can no longer look on every corner of the world as a place to exploit for minerals. Instead, we should look to stop, protect and learn from what is there. People see the Madrid conference as a possibility of the world turning a corner on environmental and ecological issues. The Government are among those who are obstructing the wishes of millions of people to preserve Antarctica as a wilderness park for future generations. I hope that the opportunity provided by this debate will persuade the Government to say that they, like the Japanese, have had a change of heart and will now support the concept of a world wilderness park in Antarctica.
    3 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on raising this subject, about which he knows a great deal, at this timely moment. As he said, the meeting in Madrid that is considering these matters will continue until 30 April. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move rather fast, as I wish to put the Government's position on the records before I sit down.
    The future of Antarctica is a matter of considerable and justifiable public concern, with which the Government are in full accord. The meeting in Madrid will be an important

    1403
    stage in developing a consensus for the protection of Antarctica. I emphasise the word "consensus" because there can be no way forward without consensus. It is from that premise that our policy on Antarctica stems.
    Our exploration and scientific work in the area is second to none. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have been involved in that part of the world for many years. Britain was first involved this century in 1908, and we were prominent in the drafting of the Antarctic treaty, which came into force in 1961, and to which the hon. Gentleman paid tribute. That treaty forms the heart of the Antarctic treaty system that manages, by consensus, all Antarctic affairs. It developed as a mechanism to deal with the escalating quarrels about the exercise of sovereignty in the Antarctic following the second world war. Its achievements have been substantial. Geo-strategic and sovereignty considerations together with super-power rivalry, were all factors that the treaty system had to encompass and tame.
    Mr. Corbyn rose——
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to intervene again.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Government now give an undertaking to release to the Public Record Office all Cabinet discussion documents relating to mineral exploration and military activities in the Antarctic, rather than hiding behind the 50-year rule, as they are now doing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman takes me by surprise. I cannot give such an undertaking—indeed, it would not be possible to do so in an Adjournment debate.
    Later, the treaty also had to weather the conflicts that emerged in the north-south domain with proposals that would allow the continent to be exploited. For 30 years, it has proved itself effective in fulfilling its objectives. As an example of long-term international co-operation and collaboration, it is unparalled. For that reason, the maintenance of the Antarctic treaty system is the cornerstone of British policy in Antarctica.
    For much of the treaty's 30-year existence, public interest in Antarctica has been limited, while a good deal of valuable work has been carried out by scientists, especially in the conservation of marine resources. The hon. Gentleman touched on that. We both know that the situation has changed dramatically. Public opinion is now seized of the importance for the whole world of Antarctica. Much of that attention is due to the excellent scientific work of the British Antarctic Survey. We know that the existence of the hole in the ozone layer was first brought to the attention of the world by that survey. Britain has long foreseen the need for environmental protection in Antarctica.
    Although the environmental provisions in the existing Antarctic treaty system are far reaching, we believe that they need further strengthening to bring them into line with what we now know about environmental protection. We also recognise that a number of threats to Antarctica need to be dealt with as a priority. That includes not only mineral activity, although that aspect has now taken the limelight and is the focus of public attention. Debates on a ban on mineral activities failed to lead to agreement amongst Antarctic treaty consultative parties, and so later
    1404
    we were one of the prime movers in proposing a convention on minerals to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    In supporting the minerals convention, we argued against those who wished to retain the right to mine unilaterally and insisted that there were strict environmental safeguards. That was the purpose of our being involved in proposing the convention.
    Six years later as the hon. Gentleman said, the convention was adopted by consensus after hard negotiation. We considered it to be a breakthrough. The convention was signed by 19 countries, including the United Kingdom, and would have prohibited the exploration and development of mining in Antarctica, unless agreed by all parties. In effect, it would have been an indefinite ban on mining, since any member could have vetoed indefinitely any application to mine.
    However, it is now recognised that we are in a different position and we wish to pursue consensus. By imposing a legal framework to deal with any application for mineral activity that might be approved, those 19 countries which had signed the convention believed that the door had been opened just enough to encourage countries that might consider mineral exploration at some time in the future to abide by the rules. The signatories believed that a simple no to any mineral activity permanently would be in danger of being ignored completely, leading to an unregulated free-for-all. However, we now accept that there will not be a consensus on the basis of that convention and, as we wish to seek consensus, we are prepared to consider other ideas. As the hon. Gentleman said, just one year later, a number of countries, following Australia and France, announced that they would not sign.
    For that reason, we moved quickly to call a meeting to discuss comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment. The first session of meetings on this subject was held initially in Chile last November. The second is the current meeting in Madrid.
    At the meeting in Chile, we proposed an environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty, which was to form a broad framework on environmental protection, to be supplemented by annexes dealing with individual topics. This was to deal with the most immediate problems. Our environmental protocol approach was the one which found favour with the majority of the delegations. For it is of gravest concern to us and to them that significant progress should be made on the threats from marine pollution, tourism and waste disposal. The hon. Gentleman mentioned damage to that delicate environment caused by oil pollution, and I entirely endorse what he said.
    The British Antarctic Survey is also involved in an extensive clean-up of British bases—no mean feat when wastes accumulated over many years, in the days when everyone was less environmentally aware. Little publicity is given to the efforts of the British Antarctic Survey in cleaning up Antarctica, but on this question also Britain's record is second to none. When compared with all those immediate threats of pollution to the Antarctic environment, the threat from mineral activity begins to take on a less immediate perspective.
    The exploitation of minerals, if it is ever to take place, is for the far future, for no one knows whether there are any viable mineral deposits in Antarctica. No one knows whether they can mine, no one has the technology and no one has yet shown any inclination to do so. We always

    1405
    recognised that the discovery of abundant minerals in Antarctica would have a profound effect on the operation of the Antarctic treaty. Those countries that now demand a permanent ban on mining, but one supported by no legal safety net in the event of its collapse, are threatening the Antarctic treaty system. It is this weakening of that system that we fear most.
    In the Antarctic treaty debates, various proposals have been made. Our concern is to ensure that the Antarctic treaty system deals with the mineral question before minerals are discovered. The way to do that, it seems to us, is to reach agreement that minerals activity can be carried out only if that would be compatible with the preservation of the Antarctic environment. Once we reach agreement on that, we can relax. Until we do so, we should have a prohibition on mineral activity. Let there be no doubt about that. At the meeting in Madrid, our delegation is promoting our proposal for a renewable ban, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) in his letter to all Members of Parliament on 25 March.
    The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned the word "park", which was also mentioned in public recently by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is still an ill-defined concept. We do not know quite what is being proposed. No one at the Madrid conference has raised it. It is not a matter for discussion. If concrete proposals were ever put forward, we should examine them, but while they are vague, we must be sceptical. For example, would a marine park prevent our legitimate continuing scientific work in the Antarctic environment? Such a concept would be
    1406
    unacceptable, if it were to include that. We do not know. The hon. Gentleman nods, but, with great respect, we have not had the details.
    Mr. Anderson: No one has a closely defined position, but what is clear is that it would prevent mining operations. Do not the Government accept that their position has been wholly undermined as, kicking and screaming, they move from compromise to compromise? The Government's position, as they approach Madrid, has now been undermined by the switch in Japanese policy.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question because I must finish my remarks. However, he ought to look at the Japanese proposals most carefully before he draws complete and clear-sighted conclusions from them.
    Our position does not, we believe, create expectations of the inevitability of mining in the future. Rather, it recognises that it may indeed be a possibility and that we should have a plan to cope with it. That is realism rather than fanciful idealism. Common sense tells us that this must be right.
    Our objective is most certainly the protection of the Antarctic environment. In order to achieve it, we must ensure that the Antarctic treaty parties return to consensus as soon as possible. It is no use proceeding unilaterally. That is our objective. Our delegation at Madrid is working to achieve that precise consensus. I hope that the House will support it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners in Police Cells
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on prisoners in police cells in Greater Manchester and surrounding areas; what is the number of convicted and remand prisoners held in cells and the number of places available in prisons, which are not available due to industrial action; and when it is expected police cells will be free of such prisoners.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 25 April there were 444 prisoners in police cells as a result of the loss of accommodation at Manchester prison following the disturbance last year. Prison Service management is giving priority to the resolution of this problem, but is constrained by the availability of accommodation and by the policy of the Prison Officers' Association not to accept into local prisons and remand centres inmates from outside the catchment areas of those establishments. Of the 444, 101 are adult remand prisoners, and this element of the population can be removed from police cells when further refurbished accommodation in Manchester becomes available this summer.

  I have been especially concerned at the numbers of young men on remand held in police cells. There were 55 on 25 April. The principal difficulty in respect of such inmates is the limited capacity of Hindley remand centre. Prison Service management has been working to transfer some young men awaiting trial to Stoke Heath remand centre to create space for those on remand. The Stoke Heath branch of the Prison Officers' Association was initially unwilling to agree that the establishment should accept prisoners awaiting trial, but I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that management has reached agreement with the union branch and that trial prisoners should begin to be transferred from 7 May. This means that young men on remand should be cleared from police cells over the next few weeks.

  Prison Service management is seeking to transfer convicted inmates in police cells to training prison accommodation. While most of the training prison estate is being operated at a very high level of occupancy, new accommodation is available at Full Sutton—192 places—and Acklington—152 places. This accommodation could be used to relieve other northern establishments so as to provide space within the prison system both for adult sentenced inmates, of whom there were 149 in police cells on 25 April, and for convicted persons awaiting sentence, of whom there were 98 in police cells. I very much regret that the local POA branches at these establishments have so far refused to allow this accommodation to be used. As a result, convicted prisoners are being held unnecessarily in
  560
  police cells. If these places could be brought into use, and the spaces created at northern local prisons, the use of police cells could be substantially reduced immediately.

  My right hon. Friend and I are most grateful to the Greater Manchester police and to other police forces for the way that they have coped with the burden placed on them by the Prison Service's recourse to police cells. Prison Service management remains committed to removing that burden in the shortest possible time.

  Public Servants (Death)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions apply to the disclosure of the method of murder or suicide by police officers or other public servants before an inquest or court case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Apart from the sub judice rule, there are no legal restrictions on the amount of information about a homicide or suicide which police officers or other public servants can disclose, but they will not want to publicise details which may be of potential use in an investigation and as evidence against a suspect. It is for the courts to decide on the actual cause of death.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Chris Smith
  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 the percentage of(a) police personnel and (b) police financial resources that are devoted in the Metropolitan area overall to (i) foot patrols, (ii) traffic regulation, (iii) parking regulation and (iv) diplomatic, royal and VIP protection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the available information is as follows. Fourteen per cent. of available police man-days are devoted to foot patrols, including home beats and other street duties, 3·3 per cent. to protection duties and 3·5 per cent. to traffic and parking regulation combined.

  Twenty-six per cent. of Metropolitan Police current expenditure is devoted to patrol, which includes officers engaged on foot patrols, home beats, vehicle patrols, and dog handlers and mounted branch officers engaged on local patrol, 6·6 per cent. to traffic and parking regulation combined, which includes the work of the traffic warden service, and 3·4 per cent. to protection duties.

  Isle of Man (Human Rights)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what indications he has given to the authorities in the Isle of Man of the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the steps to be taken by the Isle of Man to honour its obligations under the European convention of human rights in relation to the liberties of lesbians and gay men.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have made clear to the Isle of Man authorities that, in order to enable the United Kingdom to conform with its obligations under the convention, the island's legislation on homosexuality should be amended; that it is desirable that the Isle of Man should itself amend the legislation; but that, if necessary, the United Kingdom will legislate on the island's behalf.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths that have occured in 1990 of persons detained in prison department establishments, stating, in each case, the age and sex of the inmates 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

  Deaths of inmates in Her Majesty's prison service custody in 1990

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status

  Cause of death

  Inquest verdict

  Location at time of death1

  6 January

  Durham

  20

  M

  S

  Hanging2

  Not yet held

  OL(SH)

  6 January

  Bristol

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  10 January

  Lincoln

  46

  M

  R

  Suffocation

  Open

  PH(SI)

  14 January

  Winchester

  69

  M

  R

  Angina

  Natural

  PH(SI)

  22 January

  Liverpool

  47

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  PH(SI)

  25 January

  Manchester

  37

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  10 February

  Reading

  35

  M

  S

  Brain haemorrhage

  Natural

  OH

  14 February

  Winchester

  19

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  OL(SH)

  21 February

  Camp Hill

  24

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  22 February

  Bedford

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SH)

  28 February

  Hindley

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OH

  2 March

  Brixton

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  PH(SI)

  2 March

  Manchester

  37

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SH)

  3 March

  Pentonville

  34

  M

  R

  Asphyxiation

  Misadventure

  OL(SI)

  14 March

  Wakefield

  56

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  Yard

  16 March

  Durham

  27

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  23 March

  Bristol

  31

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG(SI)

  29 March

  Coldingley

  24

  M

  S

  Unknown

  Accidental

  —3

  3 April

  Swansea

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG(OP)(SH)

  7 April

  Dartmoor

  27

  M

  S

  Fire

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  8 April

  Highpoint

  59

  M

  S

  Asphyxia

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  8 April

  Stocken

  35

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  11 April

  Wandsworth

  31

  M

  S

  Undetermined

  Open

  Recess

  15 April

  Wakefield

  49

  M

  S

  Heart failure

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  19 April

  Channings Wood

  61

  M

  S

  Carcinomatosis

  Natural

  OH

  23 April

  Wayland

  50

  M

  S

  Heart failure

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  26 April

  Wandworth

  27

  M

  R

  Meningitis

  Natural

  PH(SI)

  9 May

  Wellingborough

  54

  M

  S

  Heart failure

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  11 May

  Wakefield

  58

  M

  S

  Carcinoma bronchus

  Natural

  OH

  18 May

  Exeter

  31

  M

  R

  Coronary sclerosis

  Natural

  OL(SH)

  19 May

  Wormwood Scrubs

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Misadventure

  OL(SH)

  19 May

  Ashwell

  61

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Natural

  OH

  20 May

  Acklington

  26

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  28 May

  Cardiff

  70

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Natural

  OH

  4 June

  Durham

  35

  F

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  20 June

  Liverpool

  54

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Natural

  OH

  22 June

  The Verne

  40

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  25 June

  Hindley

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG(GOAD)(SI)

  25 June

  Hindley

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide in circumstances aggravated by lack of care

  SEG(GOAD)(SI)

  26 June

  Bedford

  27

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH(SI)

  7 July

  Wakefield

  52

  M

  S

  Cerebral oedema

  Open

  OH

  13 July

  Swansea

  15

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  OH4

  18 July

  Long Lartin

  27

  M

  S

  Stab wound

  Not yet held

  OH

  20 July

  Wandsworth

  29

  M

  S

  Pneumonia

  Natural

  OH

  21 July

  Parkhurst

  55

  M

  S

  Lung cancer

  Natural

  OH

  25 July

  Lewes

  32

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  SEG(OP)(SI)

  29 July

  Standford Hill

  25

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  30 July

  Parkhurst

  43

  M

  S

  Drug overdose

  Accidental death

  SU(SI)

  1 August

  Parkhurst

  42

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  PH(SI)

  5 August

  Winchester

  41

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide in circumstances aggravated by lack of care

  OL(SI)

  12 August

  Wakefield

  31

  M

  S

  Unknown

  Natural

  OH

  562
  occurred there or in an outside hospital and for where the death occurred within the prison whether the inmate was segregated either on 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. None of the inmates located in the prison hospital at the time of death was segregated under rule 43 of the prison rules.
  563

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status

  Cause of death

  Inquest verdict

  Location at time of death1

  12 August

  Leeds

  17

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  OH5

  15August

  Bristol

  23

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  SEG(OP)(SI)

  17 August

  Pentonville

  43

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide while balance of mind disturbed

  PH(SI)

  1 September

  Wandsworth

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide while balance of mind disturbed

  PH(SI)

  5 September

  Birmingham

  35

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL(SI)

  7 September

  Brixton

  38

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Accidental

  OH4

  14 September

  North Sea Camp

  37

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  —6

  15 September

  Oxford

  23

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  16 September

  Brixton

  39

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Accidental

  OH

  21 September

  Lewes

  30

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Accidental

  SEG(OP)(SI)

  24 September

  Channings Wood

  50

  M

  S

  Cerebral oedema

  Misadventure

  —7

  28 September

  Liverpool

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  28 September

  Wormwood Scrubs

  36

  M

  S

  Coronary thrombosis

  Natural

  OL(SI)

  29 September

  Hull

  20

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OH4

  4 October

  Grendon

  39

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH(SI)

  12 October

  Brixton

  29

  M

  R

  Cerebral oedema

  Suicide

  OH

  13 October

  Liverpool

  27

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OH5

  13 October

  Wakefield

  36

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  19 October

  The Verne

  38

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  SEG(GOAD)(SI)

  20 October

  Wandsworth

  51

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Natural

  OH

  26 October

  Glen Parva

  15

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  OL(SI)

  26 October

  Wakefield

  44

  M

  S

  Pneumonia

  Natural

  PH(SI)

  4 November

  Liverpool

  28

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  PH(SI)

  11 November

  Durham

  29

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(SI)

  13 November

  Wakefield

  59

  M

  S

  Astrocytoma

  Natural

  OH

  13 November

  Reading

  34

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OL(SH)

  16 November

  Frankland

  35

  M

  S

  Drug misuse

  Accidental

  OL(SI)

  19 November

  Lincoln

  52

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Recess

  19 November

  Maidstone

  56

  M

  S

  Shooting

  Not yet held

  —3

  27 November

  Stocken

  60

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OH

  1 December

  Wymott

  45

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  OH3

  3 December

  Brixton

  28

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide in circumstances brought about by lack of care

  PH(SI)

  13 December

  Liverpool

  68

  M

  S

  Heart disease

  Not yet held

  OH

  16 December

  Haverigg

  69

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  OL(SH)

  24 December

  Manchester

  38

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  OL(SI)

  29 December

  Canterbury

  52

  M

  R

  Induced heart failure

  Not yet held

  OL(SI)

  31 December

  Portland

  19

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  SEG(GOAD)

  31 December

  Brixton

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  —5

  1 Key to location:

  OL—Ordinary location within the establishment.

  PH—Located in the prison hospital (including F wing at Brixton).

  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).

  SU—Located in special unit for management of very disruptive prisoners.

  OH—Outside hospital.

  SH—Shared cell or room.

  SI—Single cell or room.

  2 Another inmate has been convicted of murder.

  3 Inmate died while on home leave or temporary release

  4 The inmate was found hanging in a single cell; death occurred in an outside hospital.

  5 The inmate was found hanging in a shared cell; death occurred in an outside hospital.

  6 Inmate died after absconding.

  7 Inmate died while trying to escape.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed 564
  on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The deputy commissioner tells me that the complement and the staff in post in the press and public relations office of the Metropolitan police on 1 April in each year are as shown in the table.
  565

  Year

  Complement

  Strength

  1979

  71

  58

  1980

  70

  55

  1981

  69

  70

  1982

  67

  63

  1983

  59

  64

  1984

  61

  76

  1985

  63

  74

  1986

  58

  72

  1987

  58

  72

  1988

  60

  83

  1989

  87

  82

  1990

  91

  94

  1991

  92

  92

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The table below shows the staff in post on 1 April in the Home Office public relations branch, which includes a press office and a publicity section, for each year from 1979 to 1991. The figures combine members of the information officer grades and administrative and support staff.

  Year

  Numbers

  1979

  35

  1980

  39

  1981

  38

  1982

  33

  1983

  32

  1984

  32

  1985

  39

  1986

  34

  1987

  41

  1988

  36

  1989

  43

  1990

  50

  1991

  49

  Merseyside Probation Committee
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Merseyside probation committee budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Merseyside probation committee has proposed a budget increase in 1991–92 of 12·8 per cent. I have received request for a determination of its proposed budget from the Metropolitan boroughs of Sefton and St. Helens. Clearly the probation committee and the boroughs need to know the final budget as soon as possible in order to manage expenditure properly this financial year. Full consideration must, however, be given to the objections raised by the boroughs and to the committee's detailed response. The determination will be announced as soon as possible.

  Family Conciliation Services
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department provides to national or local family conciliation services; what plans he has to increase such funding to take account of planned legislative changes in divorce and child support procedures; and if he will make a statement.
  566
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  We do not fund any national or local family conciliation services apart from in-court conciliation work done by probation services. We have no plans to fund any other such services.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest suicide of a prisoner in Armley gaol; what preventive measures were taken in screening prisoners; and how many recommendations to the chief inspector of prisons relating to Armley have been implemented.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The circumstances relating to this very sad death will be fully and openly investigated at the coroner's inquest. It would not be right for me to comment until the jury has reached its verdict on the cause of death.

  The hon. Member will be aware, from the statement which my right hon. Friend made on publication of the report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons into Leeds prison last year, that the Government are fully committed to improving conditions in the prison. The task is a substantial one but much has already been achieved. Overcrowding has been considerably reduced and the treble occupancy of cells ended. Levels of out-of-cell activity for prisoners have improved. The length of family visits to prisoners has sharply increased; it is now common for unconvicted prisoners to enjoy regular visits of 45 minutes or longer. Meanwhile, a major redevelopment programme is under way, which will see the building of two new wings and a new hospital, kitchen and sports hall by 1992, and in due course the refurbishment of the whole establishment, including the provision of integral sanitation. The new establishment opening this year at Moorland, near Doncaster, will provide considerable relief for Leeds. In particular, it will offer more suitable accommodation for all the young unconvicted prisoners currently held at Leeds and Hull prisons.

  Asylum
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to increase resources for dealing with claims for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In view of the growth in the number of asylum claims which have been made in the course of the past two years, I intend to increase over the next 12 months the number of staff in the asylum and special cases division of the Home Office from 120 to over 500. This will allow for the quicker recognition of genuine refugees and the refusal of applications from those with no valid claim. Additional resources are also being made available for interviewing and for removing rejected applicants who fail to leave voluntarily. In addition, the Government plan substantially to increase their contribution to the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, which provides advice and counselling to asylum seekers.

ENVIRONMENT

  Spray Irrigation
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the quantities of water used by spray irrigation of golf courses in England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  Either the local water company or the National Rivers Authority is responsible for such monitoring, depending on the source of supply. The chairman of the NRA will write to my hon. Friend.

  Toxic Waste (Wath upon Dearne)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether contact is maintained between his Department and the relevant local authorities and public agencies in regard to the problems prescribed by the large number of drums of toxic waste held in Wath upon Dearne.

  Mr. Baldry
  Waste at Wath recycling has been safely drummed and stored in accordance with the requirements of the local waste disposal authority and relevant Government inspectorates. The site is regularly inspected by the waste disposal authority. There are no immediate problems requiring further steps by any of those concerned.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any evidence that metal drums used for the containing or oil of chemical material are likely to be subject to such changes as allow leakage at the point of the top cover or at the lip; and if such leakage is likely to occur where toxic wastes are contained, as at Wath upon Dearne, near Rotherham, at a site know to Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no such evidence.

  West Midlands Police Authority
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the West Midlands police authority regarding its standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Key
  Representations were received from the West Midlands police authority, during the period of consultation on the proposed revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92, about the adequacy of its provisional standard spending assessment in relation to its proposed budget from 1991–92. These representations were fully taken into account before final decisions were taken for 1991–92.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the formula he uses for determining the standard spending assessment of the West Midlands police authority.

  Mr. Key
  The formula is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report which was debated and approved by the House of Commons on 29 January 1991. Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recently released report prepared jointly by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency on radioactive waste disposal.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government welcome the report recently published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, entitled "Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Can Long-Term Safety be Evaluated?". It concludes that safety assessment methods are available today to evaluate adequately the potential long-term radiological impacts of a carefully designed radioactive waste disposal system on humans and the environment. I will place copies of the report in the Library shortly.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what emergency preparations are in hand in the event of the Soviet sarcophagus at the damaged Chernobyl reactor collapsing and releasing radioactive dust into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Baldry
  The national response plan for handling the consequences for the United Kingdom of overseas nuclear accidents sets out the arrangements which would be activated if we were notified of an accident involving a significant release of radioactivity to the environment, or if the RIMNET monitoring system detected radioactivity arriving in this country. These arrangements are set out in the booklet "The National Response Plan and Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET)—Phase I", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what offers of technical assistance have been(a) sought from and (b) made by his Department to the Soviet atomic energy authorities in the clean-up and long-term management of radioactive waste arising from the Chernobyl accident in April 1986.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the Soviet Union has not requested any assistance from the United Kingdom Government in respect of these matters. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any such requests.

  Minerals Industry
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the results of the work undertaken by Groundwork on the minerals industry and the environment.

  Mr. Yeo
  The study contains six recommendations. The most important of these is that each company should establish a system of environmental management as an integral part of its organisation. This would include publishing a corporate environmental policy statement, regular monitoring of performance and a periodic
  569
  environmental audit. The report also recommends training, production of design manuals and codes of practice, and promotion of the importance of the industry and its environmental achievements. The role of the trade associations in achieving these aims is emphasised.

  We fully endorse the recommendations, particularly the emphasis on self-regulation. Minerals are an important national resource and it is essential that the country has a continual and adequate supply. But as we said in the Environment White Paper this has to be balanced against amenity and other environmental considerations. Although the industry has made major steps in raising standards there is scope for more to be done. We believe the Groundwork report has identified a number of positive and beneficial initiatives which are to be commended to the industry. It is our intention to discuss with industry how this can be done and I look forward to their continuing support and co-operation.

  As an immediate follow-up to the study the Department is to fund an initial pilot study by Groundwork to encourage the improvement of the environmental performance of the minerals industry with the aim of formulating an industry wide initiative. The project forms part of the Department's geological and minerals planning research programme and is planned to start this summer.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the chairman of the London Green Belt council concerning his predecessor's assurance that land covered by the London and Home Counties Green Belt Act 1938 is inalienable; and if he will make a statement setting out his present policy with regard to proposals by local authorities to dispose of properties acquiried under the Act.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: The chairman of the London Green Belt council wrote on 18 November 1990 and 5 January and 6 February 1991, receiving replies from my officials. The Government remain committed to ensuring that land held under the 1938 Act continues to fulfil green belt objectives. In considering any applications for consent to disposal under section 5 of the 1938 Act, one of the factors which my right hon. Friend will take into account is whether retention of the land in public ownership is necessary or desirable as a means of securing those objectives. Right to buy considerations arise only in respect of dwellings occupied by secure tenants; the same considerations would not be relevant to proposals to dispose of open land.

TRANSPORT

  A65
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the western section of the A65 road between Kirkby Lonsdale and the M6.

  Mr. Chope
  There are two schemes in the road programme for this section of the A65. These are the Hornsbarrow diversion and the Moss Side to Lupton improvement.
  570
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of road accidents, together with the numbers of injuries and deaths, on the western stretch of the A65 road between Kirkby Lonsdale and the M6 for each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The following table shows the details of personal injury road accidents on the section of the A65 from the west and of Kirkby Lonsdale to the M6 motorway.

  Casualties

  Year

  Personal injury road accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1986

  6

  0

  3

  8

  11

  1987

  6

  0

  3

  3

  6

  1988

  9

  0

  3

  10

  13

  1989

  13

  0

  3

  16

  19

  1990

  8

  0

  3

  9

  12

  Totals

  42

  0

  15

  46

  61

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the volume of carcinogenic substances emitted on a yearly basis by the average motor car; and if he will take steps to monitor the future pattern of such emissions.

  Mr. Chope
  Estimates of the emissions of benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—the substances in question—vary greatly. Recent work by the university of East Anglia for the Department of Transport suggests that about 11,000 tonnes of benzene and 40 tonnes of PAHs are emitted each year from road transport. The estimates are too general to allow the figures to be calculated for the average motor car, as a substantial portion of the emissions comes from trucks and buses.

  The amount of benzene and PAHs emitted by new petrol-engined cars will be greatly reduced when catalysts become standard fitment at the end of 1992. The EC directive that will provide for this will also require the control of evaporative emissions from cars, restricting another way that benzene escapes to the atmosphere.

  Diesel engines fitted to trucks and buses are the primary source of PAHs from road traffic, and the tight new standards for these engines agreed in the Community last month address this area.

  Part of the Department of Transport's research effort is directed at producing better estimates of these emissions. The Department of Environment is also stepping up its monitoring of the atmospheric concentrations of hydrocarbons, including benzene.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about EC plans to standardise speed limits within the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1989, the Commission proposed a directive harmonising goods vehicle and coach speed limits in the EC. This has yet to be considered by the Council of Ministers.

  HGV Speed Limiters
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about EC plans for heavy goods vehicle speed limiter legislation.

  Mr. Chope
  The European Commission has proposed a technical standard for speed limiters, based on a standard agreed in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Under the Commission proposal, member states could not refuse to register a vehicle on the grounds that it was fitted with a speed limiter conforming to the standard, but there has been no Commission proposal for mandatory fitment.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to fit speed limiters to heavy goods vehicles on a retrospective basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We have consulted about a proposal to require speed limiters to be fitted to new heavy goods vehicles of more than 7·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight. We also invited views about fitting speed limiters to vehicles already on the road. These views are being considered and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr.McLoughlin
  The number of staff employed in the press and public relations office of the Department of Transport on 1 April 1989, 1990 and 1991 is as follows:

  Staff in post

  Complement

  1 April 1991

  17

  18

  1 April 1990

  17

  18

  1 April 1989

  17

  not known

  Before 1989, these staff formed part of the common services of this Department and the Department of the Environment and separate figures are not readily available.

DEFENCE

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities have been made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As yet we have received no formal request from the St. John Ambulance Brigade about this appeal. Should such a request be received, we will consider the extent of the support we might offer.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 358, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, from which countries the three personnel came.
  572
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Canada, Germany and the United States of America.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of service personnel and civilians employed on press and public relations work in the MOD in the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 is as follows:

  Years

  Numbers employed

  Complement

  1982–83

  222·0

  n/a

  1983–84

  290·0

  n/a

  1984–85

  282·5

  n/a

  1985–86

  249·5

  n/a

  1986–87

  215·0

  217

  1987–88

  206·0

  217

  1988–89

  213·0

  217

  1989–90

  212·0

  221

  1990–91

  221·0

  221

  The estimate for 1991–92 is similar to 1990–91.

  Figures for 1979–80, 1980–81 and 1981–82 are not available. The numbers given for 1983–84 onwards include all service personnel and civilians in complemented PR and PR support posts in London and commands and districts at home and overseas: the 1982–83 figure was riot prepared on this comprehensive basis.

  Chieftain Tanks (Replacement)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the suitability of German manufactured tanks as a replacement for Chieftain tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department is making a full assessment of the suitability of the German Leopard 2 (Improved) tank as equipment for our future main battle tank fleet.

  MOD Civilian Guard
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now able to make a statement about the formation of a new Ministry of Defence civilian guard service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has decided to establish a new Ministry of Defence civilian guard service in Great Britain on 1 April 1992. Its headquarters and training staff will form before that date. It is our proposal that the new guard service, which will be formed from the Department's various existing civilian guard forces, comprising guarding, patrolling and watching grades, together with new entrants, will have a common uniform, common professional standards, common pay and conditions of service, a common staffing structure and common centralised training. The guard service will contribute fully to the mix of service, Ministry of Defence Police and civilian guard forces dedicated to the security of the Department. The guards' new pay scales and conditions of service will be appropriate to the work which they will be required to do.
  573
  While commanding officers and heads of establishment will remain responsible for the command and control of the guards at their units, the professional management of the guard service as a whole will be the responsibility of the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, with a professional head of guard service reporting to him. Training will be provided at the MDP Police Training school and the Royal Military Police training centre by MDP, service and civilian instructors. Professional standards and entry qualifications will be set by the chief constable and monitored by his regional staff, who will be based in the regions and answerable to the head of guard service. There is no present intention that any members of the guard service should be armed. Consultations about the new arrangements are proceeding with the trade unions concerned. It is the Government's intention that the new guard service should build on the excellent work done by our present guards; and that it should become the fully professional, well-trained and well-equipped service that the high terrorist threat requires.

  Over-the-Horizon Radar
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any developments in his plan to conduct a trial of a relocatable over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I announced on 30 March 1990, at columns 328–9 that we had decided in principle to undertake, in collaboration with the United States, a trial of the potential value of a relocatable over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom. Following my right hon. Friend's statement on Options for Change on 25 July 1990 at columns 470–88, we have been reviewing our equipment plans and have decided not to proceed with this project.

HEALTH

  Dentures
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average amount paid by patients for the provision of dentures under the national health service and (b) the amount paid to dentists for the laboratory content of their fee for the provision of dentures in the categories (i) complete acrylic dentures, (ii) one to three tooth partial acrylic dentures, (iii) four to eight tooth partial dentures, (iv) nine to 13 tooth partial acrylic dentures, (v) one to three tooth partial chrome cobalt dentures, (vi) four to eight tooth partial chrome cobalt dentures and (viii) complete chrome cobalt dentures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available on the average amount paid by patients for the provision of dentures under the national health service. The table shows the amounts which are attributed to dental laboratory costs in the fees paid to dentists for the national health service treatments listed in the current scale of fees which came into effect on 1 October 1990.
  574

  Dentures in synthetic resin

  (including all necessary backing and tagging)

  £

  Full upper and full lower dentures

  47·00

  Partial denture bearing:

  One, two or three teeth

  18·44

  Four to eight teeth

  27·04

  Nine or more teeth

  33·98

  Metal based dentures

  (excluding backing)

  £

  Plate design partial denture bearing:

  One, two or three teeth

  64·58

  Four to eight teeth

  73·68

  Nine to twelve teeth

  74·98

  Skeleton design partial denture with single connecting bar bearing:

  One, two or three teeth

  65·47

  Four to ten teeth

  72·97

  Skeleton design partial denture with multiple connecting bars bearing:

  One, two or three teeth

  70·11

  Four to ten teeth

  77·40

  Full upper or full lower denture in chrome cobalt or stainless steel

  57·24

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used by his Department for the control of the quality of dentures provided under the national health service by dentists and dental laboratories.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Dentures should be made of first quality material and to the highest standards of dental laboratory practice. The Department supports the activities of the certification authority for dental laboratories and suppliers and also distributes to dentists in the NHS information to assist them in selecting the most suitable materials.

  The Department approves brand name products on the basis of their compliance with national and international standards and funds a number of projects concerned with the quality of dental laboratory work.

  The clinician is responsible for quality of work used on the patient. This work is monitored by the Dental Practice Board through the dental reference service.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the new cases of oral cancer reported each year can be held to arise from the wearing of dentures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are not aware of any evidence which would establish a positive correlation between oral cancer and the wearing of dentures.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the pathological conditions, of which 50 per cent. of denture wearers have shown evidence, have been malignant or pre-malignant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We know of no scientifically based epidemiological survey or report which suggests that 50 per cent. of denture wearers in England suffer from pathological conditions or the oral mucosa.
  575
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of complaint arising from the provision of dentures were investigated by dental service committees during the most recent five years; and how many complaints regarding the provision of dentures were taken through to judgment by family practitioner committees during the most recent five years.

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

  Dentists
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the figure of target average net income payable to dentists under the national health service as set by the Dental Rates Study Group.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Target average net income—TANI—for general dental practitioners is determined by the Government in the light of recommendations from the independent Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body. For 1991–92, the Government accepted the review body's recommendation but decided to implement it in two stages. The effect has been the equivalent of setting TANI at the rate of £31,970 per annum for the period 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1991, with implementation of the full TANI of £33,010 per annum, as recommended by the review body, from 1 December 1991.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have withdrawn from the provision of dental treatment under the national health service since the introduction of the new dental contract.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 16 April at columns 151–58.

  Information is not available in the form requested. Between 1 October 1990, the date the new contract was introduced, and 28 February 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, there was a net decrease of 115, less than 0·7 per cent., in the total number of entries on family health services authority, FHSA, dental lists. A dentist may be on more than one list.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Functions which are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division.

  Figures for 1 April 1989 to 1 April 1991 are given in the table:

  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  Date

  Staff in post

  Complement

  1 April 1989

  31

  52·0

  1 April 1990

  52

  57·0

  1 April 1991

  54

  62·5

  Thirty-three of the staff currently employed are information officers.
  576
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the HEA/HEC.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Maitland, the chairman of the Health Education Authority, for details.

  South East Thames RHA
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the document submitted to his Department by South East Thames regional health authority about projected activity levels for 1991–92 for hospitals and districts in that region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  South East Thames regional health authority has submitted to the Department a plan for 1991–92, putting forward its key objectives for the year together with supporting information setting out planned levels of activity to be purchased for residents of the region. This has yet to be agreed.

  Nursing Prescribing
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in commissioning the cost-benefit analysis recommended in the recent report on nurse prescribing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have commissioned the consultants Touche Ross to assess the costs and benefits of allowing nurses working in the community who have a district nurse or health visitor qualification to prescribe from a limited formulary. For the purposes of this work, the illustrative formulary in the report of the advisory group on nurse prescribing is being used. The consultants have been asked to include in their assessment the resource effects of potential changes in the volume and type of drugs etc. prescribed and in pharmacists' dispensing fees, any additional training required, necessary administrative arrangements and any changes in the time worked by nurses and general practitioners. The results are due by the end of of August.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how much extra would be needed each year for the United Kingdom to meet its United Nations target on overseas aid over the next five years.

  The Prime Minister
  Under the public expenditure survey system, plans for expenditure on the aid programme have only been made up to 1993–94. Forecasts for nominal gross national product are available only to 1994–95. However, on present trends, to reach the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP spent on official development assistance would require a total aid programme of some £5·2 billion in 1995–96, £3·3 billion greater than the presently planned aid programme for 1993–94.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Prime Minister's Office.

  The Prime Minister
  Seven people including support staff were employed in 10 Downing street on 1 April 1991 on press and public relations activities. There is one vacant post at present. Detailed figures were not recorded separately prior to 1987–88; since then the total staff complement has remained at eight. The complement for 1991–92 is eight.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Cabinet Office.

  The Prime Minister
  The number of staff employed on press and public relations activities in the Cabinet Office on 1 April each year is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  12

  1985

  12

  1986

  11

  1987

  10

  1988

  10

  1989

  10

  1990

  7

  1991

  7

  There were no vacant posts in any year.

  Similar information for the years prior to 1984 is not available.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received and from whom concerning British policy towards South Africa prior to his meeting with President de Klerk on 22 April 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received representations from a number of hon. Members, trades unions and organisations with an interest in British policy towards South Africa.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised with Mr. de Klerk at their meeting on 22 April the failure of the South African Government to take legislative action to repeal the Internal Security Act and other repressive security laws as required under the United Nations declaration on South Africa of December 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  The South African Government are currently conducting a review of all such legislation, including the Internal Security Act. I did not discuss this specific issue. However, we have often stressed to the South African Government the need to repeal those legislative provisions, such as detention without trial, which are contrary to international norms of human rights.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised with Mr. de Klerk at their meeting on 22 April 578
  the need for him to implement the agreement he made on 6 August 1990 that all political prisoners would be released by 30 April 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed progress on the implementation of the agreement of 6 August 1990 reached between the South African Government and the African National Congress. President de Klerk reaffirmed his Government's commitment on the release of political prisoners.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised with Mr. de Klerk at their meeting on 22 April the need for him to implement the agreement for the granting of indemnity for political exiles by 30 April.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed arrangements for the granting of indemnity for political exiles. President de Klerk reaffirmed the South African Government's commitment to implement arrangements agreed between the South African Government and the African National Congress.

WALES

  Education Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates or statistics he has on the cost of insurance premiums paid and claims made by education authorities in Wales in relation to teacher absence through sickness in 1988, 1989, 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No information is available.

  A483 and A470
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Mongomeryshire for a consultative meeting with local government and community representatives concerning his Department's future strategy for the A483 and A470 roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no plans to do so. The Government's policy for improving the A483 and A470 routes is clearly set out in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" published in 1989 and the supplement published earlier this year.

  Welshpool Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce the proposed starting date for construction of the Welshpool bypass.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Work is planned to start in the current financial year as indicated in the 1991 departmental report published in February. I cannot be more precise at this stage.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq (Refugees)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list how many officials from the Overseas Development Administration have visited concentrations of refugees on either side of the borders between(a) Iraq and Turkey and (b) Iraq and Iran, since 27 March.
  579
  Mrs. Chalker
  Officials from the British embassies in Ankara and Tehran have made regular visits to both areas. The Overseas Development Administration's chief medical adviser, Dr. Nabarro, also visited Turkey from 9–14 April. He accompanied the Minister for Overseas Development and her team, including two officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, on a visit to Turkey and Iran from 18–21 April. Dr. Nabarro is now based in Turkey as the United Kingdom's co-ordinator of the relief effort, and is supported by a member of the British embassy in Ankara.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each date since 3 April, what tonnage of aid was delivered into the hands of Iraqi refugees in areas on both sides of the borders between(a) Iraq and Turkey and (b) Iraq and Iran.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The tonnage of aid, delivered by RAF C130 Hercules and Chinook helicopter airdrops to the refugees on the Turkish border with Iraq up to 24 April was as follows:

  Date

  C130s

  Chinooks

  8 April

  10·3

  —

  10 April

  31·0

  —

  11 April

  21·1

  —

  12 April

  20·5

  —

  13 April

  19·2

  —

  14 April

  18·3

  —

  15 April

  17·3

  —

  17 April

  9·3

  —

  18 April

  22·8

  —

  19 April

  25·4

  —

  20 April

  20·5

  —

  21 April

  27·1

  110

  22 April

  123·4

  130

  23 April

  123·4

  130

  24 April

  123·4

  130

  Total

  313·0

  1100

  1 Denotes estimate.

  We estimate that, as of 23 April, allied cargo planes and helicopters had delivered 5,915 tonnes of relief supplies as a whole—4,056 tonnes from United States, 921 tonnes from United Kingdom, 252 tonnes from France, 179 tonnes from Canada, 476 tonnes from Germany, and 31 tonnes from Italy—to sites along the Turkey-Iraq border. Daily totals for other donors are not available. Further supplies from donors have been distributed by the Turkish Red Crescent.

  As of 25 April, an estimated total of 240 tonnes of aid supplies have been flown by the Overseas Development Administration to Iran. Onward delivery has been carried out by the Iranian Red Crescent. Daily totals of supplies delivered to the refugees are not available.

  Minister for Overseas Development (Engagements)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the official engagements of the Minister for Overseas Development for each day since Tuesday 26 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, since 26 March my time has been increasingly taken up with matters concerning relief to the Iraqi refugees. This 580
  situation has continued on a daily basis regardless of any other official or private business and has been maintained by telephone and facsimile line during periods when I was out of the country.

  My main official engagements since 26 March, excluding a large number of meetings and other official engagements, are as follows:

  On Tuesday 26 March I met the Kenyan Finance Minister and Vice-President, hosted a reception for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and attended European Standing Committee B for its debate on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries' debt.

  On Wednesday 27 March I met the British Red Cross official dealing with the Iraqi refugees and addressed the London chamber of commerce.

  On Monday 8 April I met the British High Commissoner from Kampala and our ambassador designate for Peking as well as the French ambassador, with whom I discussed European Bank for Reconstruction and Development matters and Iraqi refugee needs.

  On 9 and 10 April I met with senior officials in the State Department and the National Security Council in Washington.

  On 11 April I met with the UN Secretary-General.

  On Monday 15 April with the Secretary of State I held meetings with representatives of non-governmental organisations dealing with assistance for Iraqi refugees and attended the inauguration and the main business session of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

  On Tuesday 16 April I met the Presidents of Tanzania and Cyprus, the French Overseas Development Minister and our ambassadors to Zaire and Senegal. I also addressed the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development meeting and made arrangements for the Turkey-Iran visit.

  On Wednesday 17 April I had meetings with the West Indian commission, and the Sudanese Finance Minister. I also gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on our assistance for Iraqi refugees among other subjects.

  I visited Turkey and Iran between 18 and 21 April.

  On Monday 22 April I called on the President of the Republic of South Africa. I had a meeting with the head of the British Red Cross. I answered oral questions in the House and made a statement on Iraqi refugees.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the moneys allotted to overseas aid (a) in cash terms, (b) revalued in 1991 terms and (c) as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Figures for expenditure by calendar year for the net aid programme are available up to 1989 as follows:

  £ million

  1979

  1,016

  1980

  797

  1981

  1,081

  1982

  1,028

  1983

  1,063

  1984

  1,070

  1985

  1,193

  1986

  1,195

  581

  £ million

  1987

  1,168

  1988

  1,489

  1989

  1,578

  For the other information requested I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 18 April at column 205.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Flying Boat (Shore Facilities)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider protecting from unsuitable development the remaining flying boat shore facilities.

  Mr. Needham
  Yes. The fact that a site has been used as a flying boat facility would be taken into account in the processing of a planning application by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Following a request from the Lough Erne Aviation museum, the Department is currently considering the statutory listing of the slipway and concrete service bays at Goblusk bay, Lower Lough Erne.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many old flying boat shore facilities are undeveloped.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is aware of at least three sites where some facilities for flying boats still remain. A comprehensive list of such sites is not kept by the Department.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each consultant's report commissioned by his Department relating to Northern Ireland Electricity in the past two years, with the fees paid in each case, and the total of consultancy fees paid.

  Mr. Needham
  The information sought is as follows:

  Consultant and title of report

  Fees paid

  £

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Competition and interconnection study

  154,851

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Review of NIE performance aims 1989–90

  14,732

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Review of NIE performance aims 1990–91

  18,814

  PJR Management Organisation Consultants

  NIE organisational capability review

  52,225

  Ewbank Preece Ltd.

  Inspection of generating plant at Belfast West and Coolkeeragh

  3,898

  Touche Ross

  Advance long form report

  140,320

  Touche Ross

  Supplementary privatisation study

  8,173

  Ewbank Preece Ltd.

  Development of power station site

  1—

  582
  1 Not yet paid.

  Total fees paid to consultants (including those advising the Department of Economic Development on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity) in the two years to 31 March 1991 were £3,582,418.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what representations he has had from members of the board of Northern Ireland Electricity on the effect of restructuring the industry;

  (2) what representations he had from the former chairman of Northern Ireland Electricity during his term of office on the privatisation of the industry.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government consulted the chairman and board of Northern Ireland Electricity in drawing up their proposals to privatise the industry. In responding to these proposals, the board made known its preference for NIE to be privatised as a single entity with strong regulation but accepted the Government's objectives in privatising the industry and committed itself to make the new structure a success.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will postpone the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity; and if he will establish an inquiry into the stewardship of the chief executive of Northern Ireland Electricity from the time of his appointment to date.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity will further strengthen the Northern Ireland economy by laying the foundation for a more efficient electricity supply industry and there is no reason to postpone it. The day-to-day management of Northern Ireland Electricity is a matter for its board, in which the Government's confidence remains unaltered.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the rate struck by each council in Northern Ireland for the 1991–92 financial year, the percentage increase and the cash increase in each case and also the same information for the regional rate indicating the reduction for each council area and for the regional rate as a result of the Budget statement by the Chancellor of the the Exchequer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The normal regional rate for 1991–92—that is, that payable by the non-domestic sector—was not changed following the Budget statement and stands at the figure of 165·40 p which was announced on 7 March 1991, an increase of 17·13 p or 11·55 per cent. on 1990–91. The reduction given to domestic ratepayers was increased by 82 p following the Budget statement, from 12 p to 94 p. Compared with 1990–91, the regional rate for domestic ratepayers has been reduced by 64·87 p or 47·60 per cent. The following table gives the district council rates and the overall rates, regional and district, payable in each district council area by non-domestic and domestic ratepayers for 1991–92 and comparisons with 1990–91.
  583

  District rate

  Regional (non-domestic) and district rate

  Regional (domestic) and district rate

  1991–92

  Increase

  Increase

  1991–92

  Increase

  Increase

  1991–92

  Reduction

  Reduction

  Pence

  Pence

  Per cent.

  Pence

  Pence

  Per cent.

  Pence

  Pence

  Per cent.

  Antrim

  56·50

  2·00

  +3·67

  221·90

  19·13

  +9·44

  127·90

  62·87

  —32·96

  Ards

  6·22

  11·22

  +17·26

  241·62

  28·35

  +13·31

  146·62

  53·65

  —26·66

  Armagh

  54·00

  6·50

  +13·68

  219·40

  23·63

  +12·07

  125·40

  58·37

  —31·76

  Ballymena

  51·00

  4·00

  +8·51

  216·40

  21·13

  +10·82

  122·40

  60·87

  —33·21

  Ballymoney

  59·75

  5·75

  +10·65

  225·15

  22·88

  +11·31

  131·15

  59·12

  —31·07

  Banbridge

  59·83

  4·95

  +9·02

  225·23

  22·08

  +10·87

  131·23

  59·92

  —31·35

  Belfast

  96·73

  8·65

  +9·82

  262·13

  25·78

  +10·91

  168·13

  56·22

  —25·06

  Carrickfergus

  76·45

  6·95

  +10·00

  241·85

  24·08

  +11·06

  147·85

  57·92

  —28·17

  Castlereagh

  52·04

  7·65

  +17·23

  217·44

  24·78

  +12·86

  123·44

  57·22

  —31·67

  Coleraine

  61·00

  6·00

  +10·91

  226·40

  23·13

  +11·38

  132·40

  58·87

  —30·78

  Cookstown

  56·00

  4·25

  +8·21

  221·40

  21·38

  +10·69

  127·40

  60·62

  —32·24

  Craigavon

  76·05

  5·28

  +7·46

  241·45

  22·41

  +10·23

  147·45

  59·59

  —28·78

  Derry

  90·50

  6·50

  +7·74

  255·90

  23·63

  +10·17

  161·90

  58·37

  —26·50

  Down

  73·50

  3·50

  +5·00

  238·90

  20·63

  +9·45

  144·90

  61·37

  —29·75

  Dungannon

  52·33

  4·58

  +9·59

  217·73

  21·71

  +11·08

  123·73

  60·29

  —32·76

  Fermanagh

  61·50

  4·00

  +6·96

  226·90

  21·13

  +10·76

  132·90

  60·87

  —31·41

  Larne

  75·00

  10·32

  +15·96

  240·40

  27·45

  +12·89

  146·40

  54·55

  —27·15

  Limavady

  58·51

  8·01

  +15·86

  223·91

  25·14

  +12·65

  129·91

  56·86

  —30·44

  Lisburn

  57·83

  2·27

  +4·09

  223·23

  19·40

  +9·52

  129·23

  60·60

  —32·63

  Magherafelt

  52·95

  3·95

  +8·06

  218·35

  21·08

  +10·69

  124·35

  60·92

  32·88

  Moyle

  79·57

  5·35

  +7·21

  244·97

  22·48

  +10·10

  150·97

  59·52

  —28·28

  Newry and Mourne

  62·10

  4·10

  +7·07

  227·50

  21·23

  +10·29

  133·50

  60·77

  —31·28

  Newtownabbey

  73·25

  8·56

  +13·23

  238·65

  25·69

  +12·07

  144·65

  56·31

  —28·02

  North Down

  74·88

  5·64

  +8·15

  240·28

  22·77

  +10·47

  146·28

  59·23

  —28·82

  Omagh

  69·90

  5·60

  +8·

  235·30

  22·73

  +10·69

  141·30

  59·27

  —29·55

  Strabane

  72·75

  5·50

  +8·18

  238·15

  22·63

  +10·50

  144·15

  59·37

  —29·17

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Conciliation Service
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask Mr. Attorney-General, what is the Government's policy with regard to the Family Conciliation Service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government recognise the valuable contribution made in the area of family law by conciliation services. The Government are at present reviewing all aspects of divorce reform and conciliation is under review as part of that review.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the level of Government funding for the principal family conciliation services; if he will list this by name of service and date since 1979–80; and whether he plans to conduct a reappraisal of its support for these agencies.

  The Attorney-General
  Other than the funding by the Home Office of the Bristol courts family conciliation service in 1982–83 and 1983–84, no direct or specific central Government funding is or has ever been available for conciliation services, although indirect help is provided through the courts, the probation service and the legal aid fund in some cases. The Government are reviewing the future of, and funding for, conciliation services as part of their consideration of proposals to reform the divorce law.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, he number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 1 April 1991, there were six permanent staff employed in the press office of the Lord
  584
  Chancellor's Department. Since that date, the number of staff in post has increased to seven, four of whom are members of the Government information service.

  Staff in post

  1984–85

  1

  1985–86

  2

  1986–87

  3

  1987–88

  5

  1988–89

  6

  1989–90

  6

  1990–91

  16

  1 and one on secondment from another Government Department for six months.

  For the years up to 1985–86 the staff in post were the same as the complement. In 1986–87 complements were abolished, but the authorised staff levels since that date have been the same as the staff in post.

  There were no such staff employed in the period up to 1983–84.

  Crown Prosecution Service (Vacancies)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there were for professionally qualified staff in the Crown prosecution service on 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have taken the hon. Gentleman's question to be confined to lawyer vacancies.

  On 1 April 1991, there were 323·3 vacancies for lawyers in the Crown prosecution service against 1,800 lawyers in post, representing a welcome reduction from 23 per cent. to 15 per cent. over the previous year.

  Divorce
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of divorce in terms of legal costs.
  585
  The Attorney-General
  The net amount of legal aid paid for divorce, and related matters, in England and Wales during 1989–90 was £117,397,000.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places for (i) employment training and (ii) youth training were available in 1990–91; and how many places are expected to be available in 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  For 1990–91 there were 215,000 places available for people eligible for employment training and 380,000 places available for young people eligible for youth training. The provision of places in 1991–92 is a matter for training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places are available in England and Wales; and how many 16 and 17-year-olds are registered as seeking a place.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the number of youth training places available or the number of 16 and 17-year-olds seeking places in England and Wales is not held centrally.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Robson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, (1) the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department;

  (2) the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Training Agency and the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the table below:

  In post 1st April

  Complement

  1979–80 to

  1987–88

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–89

  62·5

  57·5

  1989–90

  118·0

  123·0

  1990–91

  120·0

  126·0

  1991–92

  119·0

  115·5

  Figures for 1988–89 are for Training Agency's information branch services branch only. Figures for the Department of Employment are not available. Figures for 1989–90 onwards represent the total numbers for the Department's information branch. The branch was formed during 1989 by merging the Department of Employment's information division and the Training Agency's information services branch.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the proportion of(a) males, (b) females and (c) all workers in the county of
  586
  Northumberland earning less than (a) £100 per week, (b) £120 per week, (c) £150 per week, (d) £180 per week and (e) £200 per week at the latest available date.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in the following table:

  Full-time employees in Northumberland on adult rates whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence as at April 1990.

  Percentage with weekly earnings, including overtime, less than:

  £100

  £120

  £150

  £180

  £200

  Men

  1·8

  6·6

  14·8

  30·1

  38·9

  Women

  9·3

  24·0

  47·5

  67·8

  74·9

  All

  4·5

  12·8

  26·4

  43·5

  51·7

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workers in each of the 10 standard industrial classification divisions, within the county of Northumberland earned less than £180 per week and less than £170 per week at the latest available date.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Accommodation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how it would be decided whether The Times room would be better used as an extension of the Table Office.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Any such proposal would be considered by the Services Committee.

  Victoria Tower (Cleaning)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 22 April,Official Report, column 300, what is his estimate of the total costs of the cleaning operation on the Victoria Tower.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  The estimated cost of the project to repair and restore the stonework of the Victoria Tower, being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is £7·5 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he advises local education authorities and school governing bodies to consider as a relevant consideration any inspector's report on a shortlisted candidate for appointment as a head teacher.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not issued formal guidance on procedures to be adopted by local education authorities and governing bodies when selecting head teachers. This is a matter for the individual governing bodies and LEAs concerned. However, the Department has commissioned a school governor training package which gives guidance on good practice in making staff appointments, including the use of references.

  GCSE
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the spending per head for secondary school pupils and the proportion of eligible pupils obtaining grades A-C in GCSE, for the most recent year, for all English counties.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 12 February 1991 in Official Report, columns 437–442.

  Birmingham Polytechnic
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the current salaries of members of the directing staff at Birmingham polytechnic.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available to the Department.

  Degree Courses
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to introduce two-year degree courses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. Course design and content are essentially for individual universities, polytechnics and colleges to consider. Institutions will however need to review what they offer, including where appropriate the balance between two year sub-degree courses and longer degree level courses, in responding to the increased demand from a more diverse student body.

  Polytechnics
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the formula for determining the salaries of the directing staff of polytechnics.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There is no formula: the salaries of these staff are set as part of individual contracts.

  Education Budgets
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science using the latest figures, if he will show, for each English county, what proportion of standard spending assessment for education is being spent and what proportion of the education budget is being retained for administration, in rank order.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest available figures showing the amount that each shire county authority budgeted to spend on education compared with the education element of their standard spending assessment in 1990–91 are given in the following table. Information about the proportion of the education budget that each authority retains for administration is not held centrally.

  Local education authority

  Education standard spending assessment

  Budgeted expenditure on education

  as proportion of education SSA

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  Kent

  456·635

  434·043

  95

  Cornwall

  140·824

  138·336

  98

  Berkshire

  229·252

  225·469

  98

  588

  Local education authority

  Education standard spending assessment

  Budgeted expenditure on education

  as proportion of education SSA

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  West Sussex

  183·940

  181·805

  99

  Lincolnshire

  179·312

  177·303

  99

  Hereford and Worcester

  196·842

  197·342

  100

  Norfolk

  209·872

  212·391

  101

  Hampshire

  453·266

  461·580

  102

  Essex

  458·657

  472·463

  103

  Surrey

  257·425

  266·984

  104

  Buckinghamshire

  206·348

  214·468

  104

  Isle of Wight

  36·532

  38·047

  104

  East Sussex

  168·819

  176·212

  104

  Cambridgeshire

  193·391

  202·693

  105

  Lancashire

  445·622

  467·334

  105

  Devon

  276·355

  290·463

  105

  Bedfordshire

  175·531

  184·802

  105

  Cleveland

  202·966

  214·430

  106

  Northamptonshire

  179·549

  190·199

  106

  Staffordshire

  302·935

  321·768

  106

  Warwickshire

  142·196

  151·144

  106

  Wiltshire

  163·364

  174·677

  107

  Humberside

  277·145

  296·792

  107

  North Yorkshire

  196·440

  211·188

  108

  Dorset

  157·560

  169·468

  108

  Shropshire

  128·216

  138·087

  108

  Cheshire

  294·559

  318·739

  108

  Durham

  183·819

  199·467

  109

  Nottinghamshire

  311·592

  338·799

  109

  Suffolk

  172·628

  188·230

  109

  Hertfordshire

  293·468

  320·460

  109

  Gloucestershire

  148·565

  163·654

  110

  Leicestershire

  276·819

  305·248

  110

  Cumbria

  142·882

  159·102

  111

  Northumberland

  89·824

  100·350

  112

  Oxfordshire

  151·459

  169·252

  112

  Somerset

  128·613

  146·238

  114

  Avon

  254·787

  303·570

  119

  Derbyshire

  271·798

  326·789

  120

  Total shire LEAs

  8,739·807

  9,249·386

  106

  Note: Information on budgeted expenditure is taken from local authorities' returns to the Department of the Environment on Forms RA90/91 and RA(SG)90/91. Figures have been repriced to outturn.

  University Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will extend his proposal that teachers' pay and conditions should in future be determined by an independent review body to include university teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. It is for the universities to settle these matters through the universities academic salaries committees.

  Vacation Hardship Allowance
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Mr. Mark A. Santos, vice-president of Hull university union, with responsibility for education and welfare, on the subject of the withdrawal of the students' vacation hardship allowance; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Representations have been received from Mr. Santos and an official reply, explaining the reasons for withdrawing the allowance, will be made to him shortly.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is given below:

  In post

  Vacancies

  1979

  42

  —

  1980

  39

  1

  1981

  38

  —

  1982

  38

  —

  1983

  38

  —

  11984

  224

  —

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  11986

  223

  —

  1987

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  39

  2

  1990

  38

  4

  11991

  37

  3

  1 Figures for 1984 are as at 1 March, those for 1986 are as at 1 January, and those for 1991 are as at 15 April

  2 Excludes figures for administrative staff which are not available.

  Wandsworth CTC
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the date, purpose and location of all meetings held between Wandsworth city technology college and the principal sponsor, ADT plc.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no detailed information and require none. Such meetings are a matter for the principal sponsor and the college.

  East Birmingham Task Force
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how often the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education has met or visited the East Birmingham task force.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  During the course of my various visits to Birmingham I have so far visited the area of the task force four times, and I shall be visiting there again shortly. I have had two other meetings with the task force leader.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Special Car Tax
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to abolish the special car tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have no plans to abolish car tax.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons underlie the delay in publishing figures for import penetration in the Central Statistical Office's monthly digest of statistics; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the figures for the years 1989 and 1990 together with the corresponding figures for imports from the EC.
  590
  Mr. Maples
  Import penetration figures published in the latest monthly digest of statistics are the most up-to-date. As a result of recommendations in the 1989 review of Department of Trade and Industry statistics which considered the arrangements for collection of economic statistics by DTI and the burdens placed on businesses, quarterly sales data for most manufacturing industries, which are used in the calculation of this ratio, are no longer collected. Data for 1989 and 1990 are therefore not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons underlie the delay in publishing figures for the exchange rate and other countries' export values for manufactures in the monthly review of external trade statistics.

  Mr. Maples
  The delay in publishing exchange rates in table F1 of the monthly review of external trade statistics was the result of an oversight which occurred during the changeover to a new computer system; however, this data is widely available in other publications including "Economic Trends". Up-to-date information was published in the April 1991 edition of the review. The delay in the publication, in table E2 of the review, of main manufacturing countries—MMCs—shares of exports arises because the calculation of the shares requires statistics for manufacturing exports for all MMCs. While statistics on exports of manufactures are available for most MMCs within a few months of the period to which they relate, some countries' statistics are not available until much later.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount invested by business in 1989 compared to 1979; how much was invested by manufacturing other than food, drink and tobacco; how much was invested, in each case, in plant and machinery; and what the cost would have been in each of the four cases of constant allowances in 1989 and the 1979 notes.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table provides the available comparisons.

  Business investment

  £ million current prices

  1979

  1989

  All fixed assets

  24,816

  66,457

  Plant and machinery

  12,979

  33,842

  Manufacturing investment1 other than food, drink and tobacco

  £ million

  Current prices

  1985 prices

  1979

  1989

  1979

  1989

  All fixed assets

  5,614

  10,824

  8,701

  9,426

  Plant and machinery

  4,362

  8,975

  6,728

  7,964

  1 Excludes leased assets, for which no industrial analysis is available.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 272, he will give the estimated effects on petrol prices in the United Kingdom if the European Commission's minimum rates of duty for mineral oils are accepted; and if he will make a statement.
  591
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our rates of duty for petrol are currently above the proposed European Community minimum rates. If the minimum rates were to be accepted this would not affect petrol prices in the United Kingdom.

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total net direct inward investment in the United Kingdom from overseas in 1990 for each quarter; and which countries were the main sources of such investment.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures are published in table A9, on direct investments in the March issue of "Economic Trends", published by the Central Statistical Office. A country analysis of the quarterly estimates is not available. However a geographical analysis is available for cross-border acquisitions and mergers by overseas companies in the United Kingdom in 1990. This is published in table 7 of Business Bulletin 23/91 "Cross border acquisitions and mergers (Q4 1990)". Copies of both publications are in the Library. It should be noted that cross-border acquisitions and mergers do not always give rise to direct investment capital flows and direct investment may be in forms other than acquisitions.

  Tax Office
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he makes of any additional cost involved in a separate tax office dealing with the tax affairs of a non-working spouse.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  The tax office in which the tax affairs of non-working spouses are handled depends on their individual circumstances: for example, if they receive an occupational pension, it is the tax office dealing with that pension scheme; if they have investment income liable to tax it is their local tax office; and where the individual is claiming a repayment of tax suffered on investment income, the claim will be handled in one of the new Inland Revenue offices specialising in this work. These arrangements are the most cost-effective way to provide a good all-round service to taxpayers.

  Where the tax office is remote from the person's home, any personal inquiries can be directed to the local tax inquiry centre.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving (a) rates of inflation, (b) growth in gross domestic product, (c) growth in gross domestic product less oil, (d) manufacturing output, (e) employment, (f) real average earnings for the whole economy and (g) real average earnings for manual workers for (i) France and (ii) the United Kingdom, for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest available information can be obtained from the following publications:

  (a) rates of inflation
  Separate tables showing consumer price indices are given in both countries in "Main Economic Indicators Historical Statistics 1969–1988" and in part I (indicators by subject) in the monthly "Main Economic Indicators" both published by OECD. (b) growth in gross domestic product and (c) growth in gross domestic product less oil.
  592
  Part III (appendix) in "Main Economic Indicators" published monthly by OECD gives GDP for both countries. Data on a comparable basis are not available for gross domestic product excluding oil.

  (d) manufacturing output
  "Industrial Trends Theme 4 Series B" published monthly by Eurostat contains the latest data for both countries.

  (e) employment
  Information on occupied population is given in table 0 in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1988 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat.
  (f) real average earnings for the whole economy and (g) real average earnings for manual workers.
  Information on compensation of employees which includes all payments in cash and in kind made by employers in remuneration for the work done by their employees is given in Table J in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1988 Theme 2 Series C" published by "Eurostat". Data in respect of manual workers are not separately available.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Treasury.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of press and public relations staff employed in my Department on 1 April, with the full budgeted provision shown in brackets was as follows:

  Staff

  1986–87

  10(12)

  1987–88

  10(10)

  1988–89

  10(10)

  1989–90

  10(10)

  1990–91

  10(10)

  1991–92

  9(9)

  The information for earlier years is not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Trusts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the relationship between the £100 million in lost revenue that the Chancellor referred to in his Budget statement under the section dealing with trusts,Official Report, 19 March, column 174 and the figure of £10 million that is shown in the Red Book on page 45 in table 4·1 against item 45, "Non-Resident Trusts: Anti-Avoidance Measures".

  Mr. Maude
  The figure of £10 million in table 4·1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Review" is the expected increase in receipts in 1992–93 from the measures concerning non-resident trusts in the Finance Bill. The annex to the table states that, without these measures, there could be a significant loss of tax: this loss was estimated, by my rt. hon. Friend in his Budget statement, to be up to £100 million in a full year.

  P11D Forms
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many P11D forms for the year 1989–90 have not yet been processed by the Inland Revenue; and how many taxpayers are estimated to be affected by these forms.

  Mr. Maude
  Approximately 120,000 remain to be examined. Nearly all of these are for separate individuals and are returns for 1989–90.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross amount of assessed income tax excluding PAYE and unassessed companies payments collectable for 1988–89; how much had been assessed by 31 July 1989; how much had been remitted by 31 October 1989; and how much had been stood over or suspended by 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  The amount of assessed income tax excluding PAYE and unassessed companies' payments collectable for the accounts year ended 31 October 1989 was £11,489.3 million.

  The amount stood over in the year ended 31 October 1989 and not included in the above was £5,188.7 million.

  The amount of assessed income tax excluding PAYE and unassessed companies payments remitted in the year ended 31 October 1989 was £227.6 million, although most if not all of this would relate to assessments raised in earlier years.

  The amount of tax assessed by 31 July 1989 cannot be ascertained as the Inland Revenue do not hold such figures on a month-by-month basis.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the collectable balance of assessed income tax excluding PAYE and unassessed companies' payments at 31 July 1989; how much of this collectable balance was remitted during the period from 1 August to 31 October 1989; and how much of this collectable balance was stood over or suspended during the period from 1 August to 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  These figures for part years cannot be obtained as the Inland Revenue only makes up accounts for the whole year, ending on the last Friday in October.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Treasury on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: The expenditure for 1988–89 was £49,310, that for 1989–90 was £52,486 and that for 1990–91 was £43,581, none of which was on television or radio advertising. The 1991–92 budget is £53,693 none of which is likely to be on television or radio advertising.

  Comparable figures for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 are not available because of machinery of Government changes and could only be given at disproportionate cost.

  Duty Free Shopping
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report the representations he has received concerning the proposed abolition of duty free shopping in the single European market; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: In the past 15 months, Treasury Ministers have replied to over 100 letters and several parliamentary questions and have held six meetings with representative trade bodies, including two with the Duty-Free Confederation.

  Although no specific proposals have been put forward, the European Commission has made clear its view that, as a consequence of the completion of the single market, duty-free shopping for travellers within the Community should cease.

  The Government understand the Commission's view, but equally are aware of the significance of the duty-free trade for United Kingdom producers, vendors and the transport industry in general. We are examining very carefully all the evidence put to us in representations, and hope to be able to announce our view shortly.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which medical and paramedical toiletries attract VAT.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: Toiletries are normally chargeable with the standard rate of VAT. However, goods prescribed for the treatment of a patient by a registered medical practitioner and dispensed by a registered pharmaceutical chemist are zero-rated.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since his last announcement on 31 January,Official Report, column 584.

  Mr. Renton
  Since that announcement, I am pleased to inform the House that five further offers have been accepted. These consist of a collection of paintings and drawings by Alexander Runciman, a collection of papers relating to the geologist George Bellas Greenough, a watercolour by Whistler, a collection of musical instruments and two paintings by Nasmyth. These offers satisfied £196,000, £26,600, £7,000, £126,956 and £56,000 tax respectively. No decision has yet been taken on the allocation of these items except for the Nasmyth paintings, which will go to the Whitworth art gallery, Manchester in accordance with the condition on which the offer was made.

  I am also pleased to announce the allocation of three offers previously accepted in lieu of tax. A painting by Sickert entitled "Girl at a Window, Little Rachel", will be allocated to the Tate gallery, a collection of works by and relating to John Piper will go to the Wolverhampton art gallery and a collection of photographs by and of Cecil Beaton will go to the National Portrait gallery.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will issue a statement on the acknowledgment by the Civil Service Appeal Board that it was approached by Ministry of Defence representatives over the Colin Wallace affair.

  Mr. Renton
  That private communications took place between representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the chairman of the hearing before Mr. Wallace's appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board is not in dispute. The Government accept that the communications should not have occurred; and the present chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board has confirmed that it is not the board's practice to engage in private discussions with Departments in advance of an appeal hearing about matters which may be material to the outcome of the appeal and that it would refuse to entertain any request to engage in such discussions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences were(a) applied For and (b) granted under the export control system of the Department of Trade and Industry for arms exports in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Separate statistics are not maintained for the export of arms. Export licence applications received and granted for all military equipment for the years 1987 to 1990 and for the first quarter of 1991 were as follows:

  Year

  Applications Received

  Licences Granted

  1987

  17,590

  16,745

  1988

  15,697

  216,005

  1989

  14,601

  13,584

  1990

  14,996

  14,603

  31991

  3,313

  2,993

  1 Figures include applications for temporary export.

  2 Carry-over of applications from 1987.

  3 First quarter.

  Statistics were not maintained in this form before 1987 and could only be compiled at disproportionate cost.

  About one third of the above totals represents licences for firearms for personal, Government and police use.

  Iraqi Currency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now allow companies in the United Kingdom to tender for the production of Iraqi currency; and when he last refused permission for companies to produce Iraqi currency.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is up to companies to decide whether they wish to tender for this business. However, it is not our present policy to grant licences in such cases. One company has recently sought advice about the possibility of obtaining a licence.

  Optical Manufacturing Market
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the estimated size of the optical manufacturing market in the years ended(a) 31 March 1989 and (b) 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Leigh
  The latest available figures are for the year to December 1989. Estimates for that year and for 1988 as shown as follows:

  United Kingdom market1

  £ million

  Industry2

  1988

  1989

  Spectacles and unmounted lenses

  230

  272

  Optical precision instruments

  212

  185

  Photographic and cinematographic equipment

  661

  683

  1,103

  1,140

  Source:

  Business monitors PAS 3731, PAS 3732 and PAS 3733.

  1 United Kingdom figures devised by manufacturers' sales less exports plus imports.

  2 Activity headings 3731, 3732 and 3733 respectively of the standard industrial classification.

  Car Trade
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the changes in volume of car exports and of car imports over the past year; and what has been the effect on the balance of payments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information in the volume of car and taxi exports and imports is regularly published in the monthly statistical review of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, available in the House of Commons Library. The balance of trade in cars and taxis narrowed from minus £5,008 million in 1989, to minus £4,175 million in 1990, a reduction of £833 million.

  SIM's Law
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made(a) to him and (b) him about Italy's SIM's law.

  Mr. Redwood
  The International Stock Exchange wrote to me on 21 January drawing my attention to the law, and it has kept in touch with my Department. The ISE, the Securities and Investments Board and my Department have all made strong representations to the Italian authorities about the effects of the law on United Kingdom firms wishing to do investment business in Italy. The law may be in breach of the treaty of Rome and the Government are considering asking the Commission to take this up with the Italian authorities.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Office of Fair Trading to review restrictive practices affecting the distribution and sale of daily and Sunday newpapers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently conducting a review of a number of issues
  597
  concerning the distribution of newspapers. The Director General will decide in the light of this review whether further action under the competition legislation for which he is responsible is required. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in advance of the completion of the Director General's review.

  GATT
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how negotiations on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement and GATT round are progressing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The future of the multi-fibre arrangement pending the conclusion of the Uruguay round is to be addressed by a meeting of the textiles committee in Geneva scheduled for 16 May. The Community has recently begun to discuss the details of the mandate which will guide the Commission in that negotiation. All member states have agreed that a 17-month extension of the M FA should be sought. In the wider GATT negotiations, we hope that the good progress which was made towards a satisfactory textiles agreement at Brussels last December can be maintained now that the talks have resumed.

  Football Premier League
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed football premier league to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Any agreement between organisations and clubs may, however, constitute a registrable agreement under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This would be a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  The Gulf (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was his Department's allocation, in each of the last five years, to that part of the British Overseas Trade Board charged with encouraging arms sales to countries in the Gulf.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. The British Overseas Trade Board has no remit specifically to promote defence sales and there is no part of the board charged with encouraging arms sales.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the budget allocated by the British Overseas Trade Board for exporters of military equipment taking part in past arms fairs in Baghdad, Iraq for(a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) exhibition stands, (d) shipping costs and (e) in total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has never provided financial support for companies attending the Baghdad arms fair.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the budget allocated by the British Overseas Trade Board for exporters of military equipment taking part in (i) Dubai '91, (ii) Arabian security and technology exhibition, Riyadh, September 1991, (iii)598
  International Defence Equipment and Aviation, Ankara, 13 November 1991 and (iv) Middle East defence exhibition, Bahrain 1992 (a) for travel, (b) for hotel or accommodation, (c) for exhibition stands, (d) for shipping costs and (e) in total; and if he will make a statement as to the entitlement of exhibitors to apply for a share of that money.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no separate budget for exporters of military equipment.

  Support provided by my Department for companies participating in British groups at certain overseas trade fairs takes the form of the provision of stands at subsidised rates and contribution to the travel costs of up to two company representatives attending the fair. No provision is made for hotel or accommodation or for shipping costs.

  Car Prices
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to equalise British car retail prices with those charged elsewhere in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently investigating the United Kingdom car market, including car prices in the United Kingdom. When the Commission's report is available, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to consider whether there is scope for any action in the light of it.

  Iraq and Libya (Arms Supplies)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will obtain a copy of the special report commissioned by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre on western suppliers of unconventional weapons and technologies to Iraq and Libya, for his Department's library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: My Department obtained a copy of the report last year. The report consists of information obtained from various press sources. Her Majesty's Government were aware of the information contained in the report on British companies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 192–93, to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), if he will detail the reasons why the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he is now able to state when it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to do so.

  Mr. Hogg
  In the reply of 21 March given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) we announced the United Kingdom mainland position in respect of the convention. We are considering with the United Kingdom islands and dependent territories their positions and when these have been established we will ratify the convention.

  Polish Resettlement Act 1946
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach a decision on implementing some assistance under the Polish Resettlement Act 1947.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Polish Resettlement Act 1947 was passed to enable the Government of the day to look after the welfare of members of the Polish armed forces and their dependents, in recognition of their gallant service alongside their British allies in the second world war, and Polish civilian refugees.

  It enabled several Government Ministries to provide help for those Poles who elected to remain in this country and seek employment, or with arrangements and financial assistance for those who wanted to return to Poland or to emigrate to a third country.

  There are no proposals to re-introduce assistance.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The full complement of staff including posts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing news department and the aid wing press office for each year from 1979–80 is as follows:

  Year

  Complement

  1979–80

  29·0

  1980–81

  28·0

  1981–82

  27·0

  1982–83

  26·0

  1983–84

  26·0

  1984–85

  26·0

  1985–86

  26·5

  1986–87

  25·5

  1987–88

  19·0

  1988–89

  18·0

  1989–90

  18·0

  1990–91

  18·0

  1991–92

  18·0

  The number of staff actually employed on 1 April 1990 and 1991 was 18. Figures for staff actually employed on 1 April in the preceding years 1979–80 to 1989–90 are not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq (Refugees)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position of insurgents and refugees in the south of Iraq and on the Iran-Iraq border; and what aid Her Majesty's Government has sent and is proposing to send specifically for this area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 April to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, once the safe havens have 600
  been duly established in Iraq and have been in working order for a while, he will arrange for a delegation of hon. Members to visit these sites.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall certainly ensure that hon. Members are kept fully informed of progress on the establishment of safe havens for Iraqi refugees and shall consider how this can best be done, if appropriate by including visits to the sites.

  Nuclear Suppliers Group
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the purpose of the meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the Hague on 5 to 7 March; who represented the United Kingdom; when the previous Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting was held; what plans were made for the next Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting; and if he will make a statement on the role of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The meeting of states adhering to the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines focused on the strengthening of existing nuclear-related export controls and possible expansion of the group. Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry represented the United Kingdom. The last meeting of the full group had been in 1978. The participants in the recent meeting agreed to meet again in the future, but no firm date was set. The role of the group is to draw up and administer guidelines for the control of nuclear-related exports.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on Hong Kong will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The report is being published and laid before Parliament today. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Doncaster Benefits Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the overall cost to date of the computerisation of the payment system of benefits to claimants at his Department's offices in the Doncaster area; and what will be the final cost on completion of the system.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The computerisation of the social security payment system, otherwise known as the operational strategy, is being undertaken on a nationwide basis and it is therefore impracticable to apportion development costs to any one location.

  Widowed Parent Allowance
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what would be the annual cost of extending widowed mothers' allowance to widowed fathers where at least one of the children is under five years;

  (2) what would be the annual cost of extending widowed mothers' allowance to widowed fathers where at least one of the children is under 11 years.
  601
  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not possible to estimate accurately the cost of extending the widowed mothers' allowance to widowed fathers for those with children in the specified age groups.

  Appeals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has concerning the delays in weeks between the notification of appeals against the decisions taken by adjudication officers on(a) claims for benefit relating to vibration white finger disability and other manual-occupation inflicted disability and (b) claims for the payment of arrears of reduced earnings allowance, in local DSS offices in Stranraer, Greenock and Port Glasgow, and the hearing of such appeals by social security appeals tribunals and medical appeals tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The question of delay between appeal and hearing involves not only the Department of Social Security but also the office of the president of social security appeal tribunal, which is independent of the Department and falls within the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. Information as to the time taken to prepare appeals for hearing of specific benefits, by specific local offices is not kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 91, how many family credit entitlements of less than 50p a week were decided in 1990; and what would be the cost of (a) paying family credit of less than 50p a week and (b) entitling families with such awards to social fund payments and remission of NHS charges.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not readily available for the whole of 1990 as retrieval from records could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information for the period from August 1990 to date indicates there are about 4,800 claims for family credit a year where the entitlement is less than 50p a week and therefore is not payable.

  The cost of paying the assessed entitlement in those cases would be around £30,000 a year. There would also be additional administration costs.

  Non-entitlement to family credit does not prevent some further help being given to families. For example, help with NHS charges is also available to anyone on a low income through the NHS low income scheme. People can also apply for crisis loans from the social fund whether or not they are in receipt of family credit, and if they are in receipt of housing benefit or community charge benefit, they can also receive funeral payments. The additional cost of entitling families with family credit awards of less than 50p to maternity and funeral payments from the social fund and to automatic full remission of NHS charges would depend on the extent to which they were already entitled to such benefits and to the extent to which they needed to make use of them. From information available about social fund maternity and funeral payments to existing family credit recipients the extra cost is estimated at around £20,000 a year at 1990–91 levels. Information is not available to enable estimates to be made on the same basis in respect of remission of NHS charges.

  Severe Hardship Provision
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for the latest available date, the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds for whom a direction was made enabling income support to be awarded under the severe hardship provision who were(a) living independently and (b) in lodgings.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest information available, for the four weeks commencing 25 March 1991, shows that 2,240 directions enabling income support to be awarded to young people living independently were made under the severe hardship provision. Of those, 308 were made to those in board and lodging accommodation and 223 to those in hostels, including night shelters.

  Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals were heard by social security appeal tribunals in each month since January 1990; in how many cases no presenting officer appeared; and what information he has regarding the outcome of these appeals compared with those where a presenting officer was present.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Statistics relating to social security appeal tribunal hearings are collated on a quarterly basis. The latest figures available are for the quarter ending 31 March 1990, when there were 17,851 hearings.

  No figures are available on the number of cases at which a presenting officer was not present, although it would be exceptional for a presenting officer not to be in attendance.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon Catches
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest provisional figures available to his Department for salmon catches by all methods in United Kingdom waters, and what were the comparable figures for previous years.

  Mr. Curry
  The provisional catch data for salmon in the United Kingdom during 1990 has recently been estimated at 943·5 tonnes. The components of the catch are calculated as follows:

  Tonnes

  England and Wales

  297

  Scotland

  542·5

  Northern Ireland

  104

  All data are provisional since not all catch returns have been received.

  Responsibility for the publication of salmon catch data for England and Wales now rests with the National Rivers Authority, which is expected to publish detailed figures for 1989 shortly. Figures for 1989 in Scotland and Northern Ireland are already available.

  Data for earlier years in respect of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have been published by the fisheries departments, and are available in the Library of the House.

  Spray Irrigation
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions his officials have had with the National Farmers Union and Country Landowners Association about the need to ban spray irrigation in certain areas during the coming summer months.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials have had numerous discussions recently with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association and with the National Rivers Authority and other interested organisations. The objective has been to encourage responsible water use in order to avoid, if at all possible, the complete ban on abstraction for spray irrigation which was imposed in some areas in 1990.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested for the press office in my Department is as follows:

  Staff-in-post

  Complement

  1979–80

  1—

  22

  1980–81

  1—

  22

  1981–82

  1—

  20

  1982–83

  1—

  20

  1983–84

  1—

  24

  1984–85

  1—

  24

  1985–86

  1—

  24

  1986–87

  1—

  24

  1987–88

  1—

  27

  1988–89

  1—

  27

  1989–90

  24

  26

  1990–91

  23

  24

  1991–92

  22

  22

  1 Staff-in-post records prior to 1989–90 do not distinguish between staff dealing with press and public relations matters and other information division staff.

  In addition, approximately five staff years are devoted to press and public relations activities within the regional organisation.

  Number of crimes and offences recorded by the police and percentage change for each year since 1980

  K division, Sirathclyde region police authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Numbers

  Total crimes and offences

  29,068

  28,784

  31,390

  30,256

  33,534

  32,758

  34,372

  36,125

  33,301

  36,007

  37,332

  Total crimes

  16,224

  17,330

  19,491

  19,113

  21,633

  21,350

  22,031

  23,346

  21,758

  23,555

  25,943

  Group 1 non-sexual crimes of violence

  337

  419

  443

  499

  575

  584

  595

  820

  714

  630

  749

  Group 2 crimes of indecency

  173

  178

  148

  128

  163

  162

  130

  150

  117

  138

  134

  Group 3 crimes of dishonesty

  12,430

  13,662

  15,500

  14,831

  16,526

  15,998

  16,594

  17,901

  16,738

  18,048

  19,948

  Group 4 fire-raising, vandalism etc.

  3,081

  2,817

  3,103

  3,342

  4,007

  4,141

  4,238

  3,857

  3,443

  3,912

  3,967

  Group 5 other crimes

  203

  254

  297

  313

  362

  465

  474

  618

  746

  827

  1,145

  Total offences

  12,844

  11,454

  11,899

  11,143

  11,901

  11,408

  12,341

  12,779

  11,543

  12,452

  11,389

  Group 6 miscellaneous offences

  5,334

  5,291

  5,170

  5,071

  5,305

  5,500

  5,893

  5,844

  5,412

  5,169

  4,594

  Group 7 motor vehicle offences

  7,510

  6,163

  6,729

  6,072

  6,596

  5,908

  6,448

  6,935

  6,131

  7,283

  6,795

  Foxes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute a review of the nuisance experienced by farmers from predation by foxes, and of the means of fox control needed by farmers so as to limit that nuisance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No reviews of the nuisance experienced by farmers from predation by foxes or of the methods of fox control are planned.

  Montgomeryshire
  Mr. Alex Cartile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his statement in the debate of 18 April,Official Report, column 602, when he last paid an official visit to Montgomeryshire.

  Mr. Gummer
  I visited Montgomeryshire on 21 March 1987 and 27 April 1988, as Minister of State in this Department.

  Net Limitation Orders
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what net limitation orders are currently in force in the Northumbria sea fisheries area; and when these are due for renewal.

  Mr. Curry
  There is one such order to limit netting for salmon and migratory trout, made under section 26 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. This is the Northumbrian Water Authority (Limitation of Net Licences) Order 1981. This order expires in February 1992.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors, nurses and ancillary workers were employed in hospitals in East Lothian during the first three months of 1981 and 1991, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on staffing levels is not available centrally on a monthly or quarterly basis.

  Strathclyde Police
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage change in the number of crimes in the K division of Strathclyde police for each year since 1980, and for each category of crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:
  605

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Annual percentage change

  Total crimes and offences

  —

  –1

  9

  –4

  11

  ‒2

  5

  5

  –8

  8

  4

  Total crimes

  —

  7

  12

  –2

  13

  –1

  3

  6

  –7

  8

  10

  Group 1 non-sexual crimes of violence

  —

  24

  6

  13

  15

  2

  2

  38

  –13

  –12

  19

  Group 2 crimes of indecency

  —

  3

  –17

  –14

  27

  –1

  –20

  15

  –22

  18

  –3

  Group 3 crimes of dishonesty

  —

  10

  13

  –4

  11

  –3

  4

  8

  –6

  8

  11

  Group 4 fire-raising, vandalism etc.

  —

  –9

  10

  8

  20

  3

  2

  –9

  –11

  14

  1

  Group 5 other crimes

  —

  25

  17

  5

  16

  28

  2

  30

  21

  11

  38

  Total offences

  —

  –11

  4

  –6

  7

  –4

  8

  4

  –10

  8

  –9

  Group 6 miscelleaneous offences

  —

  –1

  –2

  –2

  5

  4

  7

  –1

  –7

  –4

  –11

  Group 7 motor vehicle offences

  —

  –18

  9

  –10

  9

  –10

  9

  8

  –12

  19

  –7

  Source: Reports of the chief constable of Strathclyde.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been charged over the last five years for drug-related offences in the K division of Strathclyde police; and what is the rate of such charges in K division relative to other Strathclyde police divisions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on numbers of persons charged is not held centrally.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many car thefts were reported in the K division of Strathclyde police in the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Number of thefts of motor vehicles recorded by the police K division, Strathclyde region police authority

  Year

  Number recorded

  1986

  1,573

  1987

  1,310

  1988

  1,470

  1989

  1,978

  1990

  2,106

  Source: Reports of the chief constable of Strathclyde.

  Legal System
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were(a) recruited to the procurator fiscal service in the past year, (b) how many left because of retirement age and (c) how many resigned for other than retirement reasons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the year from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991(a) 94 persons were recruited to the procurator fiscal service, (b) eight retired, and (c) 62 resigned. These figures refer to all staff in the procurator fiscal service.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Crown Office policy on plea bargaining.

  North Strathclyde Sheriffdom

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Reports received

  43,973

  45,254

  41,459

  42,530

  40,779

  Number proceedings

  3,559

  3,488

  6,180

  6,003

  7,588

  Number1 further proceedings

  1,068

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  Non-court proceedings

  Warning letters

  1,960

  1,736

  1,780

  2,322

  2,218

  Conditional offers

  11,577

  11,528

  7,392

  6,860

  5,604

  Fiscal fines

  3,629

  3,450

  1,984

  n/a3

  n/a3

  Diversions

  95

  119

  112

  n/a4

  n/a4

  606
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  "Plea bargaining" is generally understood to involve an agreement whereby an accused will tender pleas in return for an assurance as to the sentence which will then be imposed by the court. No such arrangements can be made in Scotland and accordingly "plea bargaining" is an inappropriate term in Scotland. The prosecution does retain the right in the public interest to abandon proceedings, amend the charges, or accept a partial plea of guilty, at any stage prior to the final determination of proceedings. This may be done by the prosecutor for a variety of reasons. As with the decision to institute proceedings, it is left to the discretion of advocate deputes or procurators fiscal. In specified circumstances individual prosecutors may be required to consult senior members of the procurator fiscal service, Crown counsel or the law officers before taking such a course.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many criminal trials in the past six months started within 10 days of the legal termination that would have been applied by the 110-day rule.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage of prosecutions when measured against the total number of charges reports submitted to procurators fiscal in each sheriffdom at the latest available full year; and if he will give the comparable figures for each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information which is set out in the tables below refers to court proceedings as a percentage of reports submitted to procurators fiscal. The first column details the number of reports received in each year. The subsequent columns detail the disposals for each year, although some of the disposals may relate to reports received in the preceding year.
  607

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Court proceedings

  22,085

  24,933

  24,011

  27,345

  25,369

  Court proceedings as percentage of Total

  50·22

  55·10

  57·92

  64·30

  62·21

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Fiscal Fines were introduced in 1988.

  4 No figures are available for the numbers of Diversions in 1986 and 1987. Such disposals would have been recorded as "Number proceedings".

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway Sheriffdom

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Reports received

  64,284

  62,471

  59,308

  57,820

  52,757

  Number proceedings

  4,907

  5,166

  7,329

  4,781

  4,521

  Number1 further proceedings

  499

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  Non-court proceedings

  Warning letters

  1,977

  2,163

  2,448

  2,447

  2,617

  Conditional offers

  17,273

  16,787

  15,396

  14,210

  10,236

  Fiscal fines

  3,423

  3,509

  1,809

  n/a3

  n/a3

  Diversions

  164

  83

  63

  n/a4

  n/a4

  Court proceedings

  36,041

  34,763

  32,263

  36,382

  35,383

  Court proceedings as percentage of Total

  56·07

  55·65

  54·40

  62·92

  67·07

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Fiscal Fines were introduced in 1988.

  4 No figures are available for the numbers of Diversions in 1986 and 1987. Such disposals would have been recorded as "NO PROS".

  Lothian and Borders Sheriffdom

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Reports received

  58,551

  60,419

  54,880

  57,970

  74,123

  Number proceedings

  5,815

  5,472

  6,855

  12,789

  31,522

  Number1 further proceedings

  3,814

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  Non-court proceedings

  Warning letters

  1,829

  1,909

  1,943

  2,930

  3,076

  Conditional offers

  16,544

  17,917

  14,666

  11,775

  8,488

  Fiscal fines

  1,746

  1,912

  860

  n/a3

  n/a3

  Diversions

  353

  296

  300

  n/a4

  n/a4

  Court proceedings

  28,450

  32,913

  30,256

  30,476

  31,037

  Court proceedings as percentage of Total

  48·59

  54·47

  55·13

  52·57

  41·87

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Fiscal Fines were introduced in 1988.

  4 No figures are available for the numbers of Diversions in 1986 and 1987. Such disposals would have been recorded as "NO PROS".

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin Sheriffdom

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Reports received

  80,543

  79,126

  70,477

  75,434

  69,868

  Number proceedings

  14,377

  19,066

  18,514

  19,772

  10,824

  Number1 further proceedings

  5,644

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  Non-court proceedings

  Warning letters

  3,897

  4,826

  6,223

  6,393

  5,986

  Conditional offers

  21,077

  14,198

  10,297

  8,680

  5,790

  Fiscal fines

  2,366

  1,963

  1,048

  n/a3

  n/a3

  Diversions

  264

  296

  178

  n/a4

  n/a4

  Court proceedings

  32,918

  38,777

  34,217

  40,589

  47,268

  Court proceedings as percentage of Total

  40·87

  49·01

  48·55

  53·81

  67·65

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Fiscal Fines were introduced in 1988.

  4 No figures are available for the numbers of Diversions in 1986 and 1987. Such disposals would have been recorded as "NO PROS".

  Grampian, Highlands and Islands Sheriffdom

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Reports received

  46,090

  42,231

  41,204

  39,654

  44,216

  Number proceedings

  3,798

  3,388

  5,038

  7,471

  8,486

  Number1 further proceedings

  106

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  608 609

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Non-court proceedings

  Warning letters

  1,211

  1,004

  840

  1,691

  1,326

  Conditional offers

  12,597

  10,240

  9,075

  6,617

  8,699

  Fiscal fines

  2,244

  2,359

  2,393

  n/a3

  n/a3

  Diversions

  337

  312

  336

  n/a4

  n/a4

  Court proceedings

  25,797

  24,928

  23,522

  23,875

  25,705

  Court proceedings as percentage of Total

  55·97

  59·03

  57·09

  60·21

  58·14

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Fiscal Fines were introduced in 1988.

  4 No figures are available for the numbers of Diversions in 1986 and 1987. Such disposals would have been recorded as "NO PROS".

  Tayside, Central and Fife Sheriffdom

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Reports received

  73,031

  69,459

  67,976

  65,151

  62,243

  Number proceedings

  8,357

  7,489

  8,581

  8,203

  8,287

  Number1 further proceedings

  1,172

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  Non-court proceedings

  Warning letters

  2,771

  2,669

  3,202

  3,260

  3,417

  Conditional offers

  20,723

  19,766

  17,981

  13,479

  11,596

  Fiscal fines

  3,577

  2,363

  1,210

  n/a3

  n/a3

  Diversions

  190

  69

  25

  n/a4

  n/a4

  Court proceedings

  36,241

  37,103

  36,977

  40,209

  38,943

  Court proceedings as percentage of Total

  49·62

  53·42

  54·40

  61·72

  62·57

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Fiscal Fines were introduced in 1988.

  4 No figures are available for the numbers of Diversions in 1986 and 1987. Such disposals would have been recorded as "NO PROS".

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the staffing levels in each office of the procurator fiscal service for the latest available year and each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table below.

  Staffing levels

  1 April each year

  Office

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aberdeen

  34·0

  35·0

  37·0

  37·5

  36·5

  Airdrie

  27·0

  25·0

  28·0

  29·0

  30·0

  Alloa

  5·5

  5·5

  5·5

  5·5

  5·5

  Arbroath

  3·5

  4·5

  4·5

  4·5

  5·0

  Ayr

  20·5

  19·0

  18·0

  20·5

  21·0

  Banff

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Campbeltown

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  Cupar

  4·0

  4·0

  4·5

  5·0

  5·0

  Dingwall

  3·5

  3·5

  3·5

  3·5

  3·5

  Dornoch/Tain

  5·0

  5·0

  5·0

  5·5

  5·0

  Dumbarton

  23·0

  22·0

  23·0

  23·0

  24·0

  Dumfries/Kirkcudbright

  20·0

  20·0

  20·0

  22·0

  22·0

  Dundee

  32·5

  32·5

  36·5

  38·5

  38·5

  Dunfermline

  14·0

  15·0

  15·0

  15·0

  16·0

  Dunoon

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Duns/Jedburgh

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  Edinburgh

  115·0

  115·0

  123·5

  130·5

  135·5

  Elgin

  6·0

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  7·0

  Falkirk

  14·0

  17·0

  17·0

  14·0

  19·0

  Forfar

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  4·0

  Fort William

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  3·0

  3·0

  Glasgow

  273·5

  282·5

  278·0

  287·5

  285·5

  Greenock/Rothesay

  21·5

  21·0

  19·0

  18·0

  20·0

  Haddington

  6·0

  6·0

  6·5

  8·0

  7·0

  Hamilton

  55·0

  60·5

  63·5

  66·0

  64·5

  Inverness

  14·0

  15·0

  16·0

  17·0

  17·0

  Kilmarnock

  32·0

  32·0

  28·5

  33·0

  35·0

  Kirkcaldy

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  19·0

  18·0

  Kirkwall/Wick

  5·0

  4·0

  5·0

  6·0

  4·0

  Lanark

  4·5

  5·0

  3·0

  5·5

  5·5

  Lerwick

  2·5

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  610

  Office

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Linlithgow

  16·0

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  Lochmaddy/Portree

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Oban

  2·0

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  Paisley

  35·0

  37·0

  38·0

  38·0

  40·5

  Peebles

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·5

  2·5

  Perth

  15·0

  16·5

  17·5

  20·0

  18·5

  Peterhead

  4·5

  4·5

  4·5

  4·5

  4·5

  Selkirk

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Stirling

  12·0

  12·0

  12·5

  13·0

  14·0

  Stonehaven

  3·5

  3·5

  3·5

  3·5

  3·5

  Stornoway

  2·0

  2·0

  1·0

  2·5

  2·5

  Stranraer

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  4·5

  5·5

  878·0

  901·0

  913·0

  955·5

  968·0

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many specialist drug offences units exist within the procurator fiscal service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no specialist drug units within procurator fiscal offices. Restraint and confiscation procedures in relation to drug trafficking are dealt with by the fraud and specialist services unit at the Crown office.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the salary scales for the procurator fiscal service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information which is set out in the table below refers to the minimum and maximum points on the scale for each legal grade. An officer on the maximum point for his grade may be eligible for performance pay.
  611

  £

  £

  Crown Agent (grade 2)

  59,020

  —

  Regional procurator fiscal (Glasgow and Edinburgh—Grade 3)

  47,090

  —

  Min.

  Max.

  Regional procurator fiscal (Aberdeen, Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley);

  40,116

  41,681

  Senior assistant procurator fiscal, deputy crown agent

  Upper level procurator fiscal;

  32,551

  36,997

  Assistant procurator fiscal; Assistant solicitor

  Lower level procurator fiscal;

  23,407

  31,851

  Senior depute

  Senior legal assistant

  22,399

  30,481

  Legal assistant

  15,156

  19,348

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons charged with drugs offences connected with dealing had the charges reduced in severity on the day of trial at Glasgow sheriff court in each of the past six months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show the number of legal staff by age ranges in each procurator fiscal office.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table below.

  Office

  25–35

  36–45

  46–55

  56+

  Aberdeen

  5

  3

  1

  2

  Airdrie

  5

  2

  —

  1

  Alloa

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Arbroath

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Ayr

  3

  2

  —

  1

  Banff

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Campbeltown

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cupar

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Dingwall

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dornoch/Tain

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dumbarton

  4

  1

  —

  2

  Dumfries

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Dundee

  4

  6

  —

  —

  Dunfermline

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Dunoon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Duns/Jedburgh

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Edinburgh

  9

  9

  5

  2

  Elgin

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Falkirk

  2

  1

  2

  —

  Forfar

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Fort William

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glasgow

  31

  29

  3

  1

  Greenock/Rothesay

  3

  2

  1

  —

  Haddington

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Hamilton

  9

  8

  —

  1

  Inverness

  3

  1

  1

  —

  Kilmarnock

  2

  4

  3

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Kirkwall/Wick

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lanark

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Lerwick

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Linlithgow

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Lochmaddy/Portree

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Oban

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Paisley

  7

  2

  2

  —

  Peebles

  —

  —

  —

  I

  612

  Office

  25–35

  36–45

  46–55

  56+

  Perth

  1

  4

  —

  1

  Peterhead

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Selkirk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stirling

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Stonehaven

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stornoway

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stranraer

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Court Hearings (Scotland)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Paymaster General what information he has regarding the delay in weeks between pleading and trial hearings in(a) each sheriff court and (b) each district court in Scotland for the quarters ended 30 June 1990, 30 September 1990, 31 December 1990 and 31 March 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures for the quarter ended 31 March 1991 are not yet available. The figures for the other quarters are set out in the tables below:—

  Interval (in weeks) between pleading and trial diets

  A. Sheriff Courts

  Sheriffdom-Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Glasgow

  12

  15

  13

  Sheriffdom-Grampian, Highland and Islands

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Aberdeen

  19

  13

  14

  Stonehaven

  12

  12

  9

  Banff

  12

  9

  7

  Peterhead

  12

  9

  12

  Dingwall

  11

  10

  12

  Tain

  9

  10

  4

  Wick

  9

  8

  8

  Dornoch

  15

  11

  10

  Elgin

  10

  11

  11

  Inverness

  12

  11

  13

  Fort William

  12

  11

  6

  Portree

  4

  8

  4

  Stornoway

  10

  10

  10

  Lochmaddy

  12

  12

  4

  Lerwick

  14

  10

  8

  Kirkwall

  11

  8

  8

  Sheriffdom-Lothian and Borders

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Edinburgh

  21

  15

  18

  Peebles

  12

  9

  8

  Haddington

  12

  12

  10

  Linlithgow

  17

  10

  18

  Jedburgh

  12

  10

  7

  Duns

  12

  9

  7

  Selkirk

  12

  6

  4

  Sheriffdom-North Strathclyde

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Dumbarton

  18

  18

  20

  Campbeltown

  10

  8

  8

  Oban

  14

  12

  12

  613

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Greenock

  14

  10

  10

  Paisley

  14

  17

  15

  Dunoon

  14

  12

  12

  Rothesay

  15

  10

  8

  Kilmarnock

  12

  14

  13

  Sheriffdom-South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Airdrie

  14

  15

  19

  Hamilton

  20

  22

  24

  Lanark

  11

  10

  10

  Ayr

  11

  12

  12

  Dumfries

  10

  9

  7

  Kirkcudbright

  10

  12

  12

  Stranraer

  10

  10

  8

  Sheriffdom-Tayside, Central and Fife

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Arbroath

  18

  10

  13

  Forfar

  9

  8

  8

  Perth

  8

  8

  8

  Dundee

  5

  5

  5

  Falkirk

  10

  14

  12

  Stirling

  7

  7

  13

  Alloa

  10

  10

  11

  Cupar

  8

  19

  10

  Kirkcaldy

  10

  12

  13

  Dunfermline

  8

  12

  11

  B District courts

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Aberdeen

  19·0

  20·0

  12·0

  Airdrie

  18·0

  16·5

  17·0

  Alloa

  12·0

  8·0

  17·0

  Arbroath

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  Ayr

  14·5

  9·5

  10·0

  Banff

  9·0

  9·0

  8·0

  Campbeltown

  4·0

  8·0

  4·0

  Cupar

  12·0

  10·0

  16·0

  Dingwall

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  Dornoch

  10·0

  10·0

  10·0

  Dumbarton

  12·0

  10·0

  12·0

  Dumfries

  12·0

  12·0

  12·0

  Dundee

  13·0

  15·0

  17·0

  Dunfermline

  17·0

  11·0

  14·0

  Department of Energy R, D & D Expenditure on Renewable Energy (£ million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Wind

  0·6

  0·8

  0·9

  2·5

  2·5

  4·8

  5·4

  3·7

  4·0

  3·9

  4·8

  Wave

  3·0

  3·3

  4·4

  3·1

  1·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  Geothermal Aquifers

  1·3

  1·7

  2·6

  1·5

  1·8

  1·1

  0·3

  0·1

  —

  0·1

  0·2

  Geothermal hot dry rocks

  6·0

  0·6

  5·6

  3·0

  2·9

  4·6

  3·5

  3·5

  3·6

  3·5

  3·3

  Solar

  1·2

  0·9

  0·7

  1·4

  0·9

  0·5

  0·7

  0·9

  1·1

  1·4

  1·9

  Biomass1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·4

  1·2

  0·7

  1·1

  0·8

  1·3

  2·2

  1·5

  1·4

  Tide

  0·6

  1·4

  0·4

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·4

  1·2

  1·1

  Hydro/general studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  Technology transfer and promotion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  1·0

  1·6

  ETSU services

  1·4

  1·2

  2·3

  2·0

  2·9

  2·1

  2·0

  2·3

  2·3

  2·5

  2·7

  8·2

  11·3

  17·3

  14·7

  11·7

  14·9

  13·2

  12·0

  16·3

  16·0

  17·9

  614

  Quarter ending

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Dunoon

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  Duns

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  Edinburgh

  19·0

  20·0

  19·0

  Elgin

  14·0

  11·0

  11·0

  Falkirk

  21·0

  16·0

  10·5

  Forfar

  22·0

  16·0

  10·0

  Fort William

  6·0

  4·0

  6·0

  Glasgow

  15·5

  16·0

  16·5

  Greenock

  7·0

  6·0

  8·0

  Haddington

  9·0

  11·0

  11·0

  Hamilton

  14·0

  13·0

  11·0

  Inverness

  8·0

  8·0

  10·5

  Jedburgh

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Kilmarnock

  11·0

  13·0

  10·0

  Kirkcaldy

  12·0

  10·0

  15·0

  Kirkcudbright

  10·0

  10·0

  10·0

  Kirkwall

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lanark

  10·0

  12·0

  10·0

  Lerwick

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Linlithgow

  14·0

  9·0

  8·0

  Lochmaddy

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Oban

  2·0

  12·0

  12·0

  Paisley

  9·5

  13·5

  16·0

  Peebles

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  Perth

  7·0

  4·0

  8·0

  Peterhead

  13·0

  10·0

  18·0

  Portree

  8·0

  4·0

  8·0

  Rothesay

  8·0

  4·0

  12·0

  Selkirk

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Stirling

  6·0

  7·0

  5·5

  Stonehaven

  15·0

  10·0

  11·0

  Stornoway

  10·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Stranraer

  13·0

  5·0

  4·0

  Tain

  8·0

  10·0

  10·0

  Wick

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the annual expenditure in each year since 1979 on renewable energy programmes in or for Scotland; and if he will break down the total sum spent among(a) solar active and passive, (b) photovoltaics, (c) biofuels, (d) wind, (e) tidal, (f) wave, (g) geothermal, (h) hydro power (including small systems,) and (i) others.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretay of State for Energy administers the Government's programme of expenditure on renewable energy in order to stimulate development for the UK as a whole. The table below gives expenditure within that programme since 1979. There is no specific allocation for Scotland.
  615

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  External contributions

  0·7

  0·9

  1·9

  3·2

  2·0

  3·3

  2·1

  3·1

  3·9

  4·7

  5·3

  Total

  8·9

  12·2

  19·2

  17·9

  13·7

  18·2

  15·3

  15·1

  20·2

  20·7

  23·2

  1 Includes expenditure on "waste as a fuel" projects unde the energy efficiency office demonstration scheme.

  Notes:

  1. Where available external contributions include both private sector, generating boards and the European Commission.

  2. Up to 1986–87 total for RED also includes expenditure on low head hydro and general studies to 1986–87. These are separately identified for 1987–88 and include work carried out by the chief scientist group ETSU.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of renewable energy potentials in Scotland by type of source including(a) solar active and passive, (b) photovoltaics, (c) biofuels, (d) wind, (e) tidal, (f) wave, (g) geothermal, (h) hydro power (including small systems) and (i) others.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The potential for the development of renewable energy in the United Kingdom was described in the Department of Energy Paper No. 55 published by HMSO in 1988 "Renewable Energy in the United Kingdom—The Way Forward". It was estimated on a United Kingdom basis that renewable energy might provide by the year 2025:

  Electricity producers

  TWh/year

  Wind power onshore

  0·30

  Tidal

  0·28

  Geothermal HDR7

  0–10

  Wave

  0–0·2

  Small-scale hydro

  0·3–0·7

  Electricity producers

  Mice/year

  Passive solar

  1–2

  Biofuels:

  Wet and dry wastes

  3–10

  Forestry

  1–5

  Working Hours and Earnings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will (1) publish figures showing the(a) average earnings, (b) average gross hours and (c) average overtime hours for (i) male, (ii) female and (iii) all workers in full-time employment in each of the Scottish regions and islands area for each year from 1979 to 1990, inclusive;

  (2) publish figures showing (a) average earnings, (b) average gross hours and (c) average overtime hours for (i) male, (ii) female and (iii) all workers in full-time employment in Scotland for each year from 1979 to 1990, inclusive.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The available information is given for 1990 in the table below. Since such a large volume of information has been requested, I will write to the hon. Member giving the equivalent information for each year from 1979 to 1989 inclusive. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
  616

  Average weekly earnings, total hours and overtime hours1 for Scotland and Scottish regions April 1990

  Average weekly earnings £ per week

  Total hours

  Overtime hours

  Borders

  Males

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Females

  145·4

  38·0

  0·6

  All

  205·7

  2—

  2—

  Central

  Males

  276·7

  41·6

  3·7

  Females

  169·3

  37·5

  1·0

  All

  238·5

  40·1

  2·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Males

  252·4

  42·3

  3·9

  Females

  169·8

  —

  —

  All

  226·5

  40·6

  2·7

  Fife

  Males

  255·9

  42·9

  4·4

  Females

  182·3

  38·3

  1·1

  All

  228·7

  41·3

  3·2

  Grampian

  Males

  327·6

  44·4

  4·7

  Females

  188·3

  37·7

  0·9

  All

  287·6

  42·2

  3·5

  Highland

  Males

  261·4

  42·0

  3·7

  Females

  175·9

  37·1

  0·6

  All

  229·2

  40·0

  2·5

  Lothian

  Males

  274·3

  40·8

  3·2

  Females

  197·4

  37·0

  0·7

  All

  244·8

  39·3

  2·2

  Strathclyde

  Males

  273·8

  42·2

  4·1

  Females

  190·1

  37·5

  0·9

  All

  243·1

  40·4

  2·9

  Tayside

  Males

  251·6

  41·5

  3·3

  Females

  177·2

  36·8

  0·5

  All

  222·4

  39·6

  2·2

  Islands

  Males

  253·1

  2—

  2—

  Females

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All

  243·4

  2—

  2—

  Highlands and Islands

  Males

  259·4

  41·8

  3·5

  Females

  184·7

  37·3

  0·8

  All

  232·3

  40·1

  2·5

  Scotland

  Males

  276·4

  42·1

  3·9

  Females

  187·2

  37·4

  0·8

  All

  244·0

  40·3

  2·7

  Source: Employment Department.

  1Earnings, total hours and overtime hours of adults in full-time employment whose pay was not affected by absence.

  2Denotes sampling error too high or sample numbers too low for reliable information to be given.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will (1) publish figures showing the distribution of earnings in Scotland for (i) all, (ii) male and (iii) female full-time workers earning(a) median, (b) the point below

  617
  which the lowest 10 per cent. of workers fall and (c) the point above which the highest 10 per cent. of workers fall, for each year between 1979 and 1990, inclusive;

  (2) publish figures showing the distribution of earnings in each Scottish region and islands area for (i) all, (ii) male and (iii) female full-time workers earning (a) median, (b) the point below which the lowest 10 per cent of workers fall and (c) the point above which the highest 10 per cent. fall, for each year beween 1979 and 1990, inclusive.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The available information for 1990 is given in the table below. Since such a large volume of information is involved, I will write to the hon. Member giving the equivalent information for each year from 1979 to 1989 inclusive. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Median and decile distribution of gross weekly earnings1 for Scotland and Scottish regions: April 1990

  £ per week

  Lowest decile

  Median

  Highest decile

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  Borders

  Males

  2

  n/a

  2

  Females

  92·1

  n/a

  251·5

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Central

  Males

  149·6

  n/a

  408·0

  Females

  101·1

  n/a

  285·1

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Males

  132·7

  n/a

  413·5

  Females

  96·7

  n/a

  314·5

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Fife

  Males

  140·6

  n/a

  399·6

  Females

  101·6

  n/a

  314·7

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Grampian

  Males

  149·4

  n/a

  573·0

  Females

  101·4

  n/a

  314·2

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  na/

  Highland

  Males

  134·5

  n/a

  406·7

  Females

  98·7

  n/a

  314·0

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lothian

  Males

  144·1

  n/a

  441·8

  Females

  115·4

  n/a

  314·2

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Strathclyde

  Males

  142·7

  n/a

  424·4

  Females

  105·7

  n/a

  313·8

  All

  120·3

  n/a

  389·1

  Tayside

  Males

  130·7

  n/a

  407·2

  Females

  105·5

  n/a

  312·1

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Islands

  Males

  137·7

  n/a

  421·5

  Females

  2

  n/a

  2

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Highlands and Islands

  Males

  2

  n/a

  2

  Females

  2

  n/a

  2

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Scotland

  Males

  142·3

  243·3

  443·2

  Females

  104·4

  163·5

  313·5

  All

  119·5

  n/a

  398·9

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Earnings of adults in full-time employment where pay was not affected by absence.

  2 Denotes sampling error too high or sample numbers too low for
  618
  reliable information to be given. Information on medians and deciles other than that shown is obtainable only at disproportionate cost, and is designated n/a on the table.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities he has made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has not made facilities available to staff to contribute to the appeal. The St. John Ambulance Brigade does not operate Scotland.

  Housing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report each private sector landlord and local authority who has expressed an interest in acquiring the former Scottish Special Housing Association housing stock in the Border region to date; and when he expects to announce a deadline after which further applications will be too late to be considered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expressions of interest in acquiring Scottish Homes housing stock will be registered with that agency, which will then screen them in accordance with the procedures published by Scottish Homes in October 1989. Any proposals acceptable after the initial screening stage will be notified to the tenants and made public by means of a press release. There is no requirement for Scottish Homes to make available the names of those making unsuccessful proposals.

  Scottish Homes asked for registration of interest to be submitted to it by 6 April. Applications received after that date will not be considered.

  MFV Antares
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any information concerning the date and location of the forthcoming fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of the crew of the MFV Antares; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Investigations are continuing into the deaths of the crew of the MFV Antares. The date and location of the fatal accident inquiry have yet to be fixed.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many criminal convictions there have been for offences against children where children were abused by a parent in the Renfrew division of Strathclyde region in the last two years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the relationship between offenders and their victims is not colleced centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to reduce delays in court proceedings in child abuse and sexual cases; and if he will make a statement.
  619
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Considerable priority is given initially by the prosecution authorities and subsequently by the courts to the speedy handling of cases involving children.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to introduce in court proceedings concerned with child or sexual cases video recordings of testimony from child witnesses as evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Certain of the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in its report on the evidence of children and other potentially vulnerable witnesses were implemented in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. We are considering whether it might be appropriate to bring forward legislative provisions implementing the remaining recommendations of the Commission. These recommendations include the possible taking of the evidence of a child on commission with the proceedings being video recorded for subsequent replay at the trial.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: For 1988–89 to 1990–91, the figures were:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  Television advertising

  576,000

  974,000

  741,000

  Radio advertising

  40,000

  85,000

  188,000

  Newspaper advertising

  378,000

  1,022,000

  613,000

  Other promotional material

  933,000

  1,001,000

  1,098,000

  For 1979–80 to 1987–88 an analysis in the form requested is not available.

  Total expenditure on information publicity was:

  £

  1979–80

  263,000

  1980–81

  362,000

  1981–82

  393,000

  1982–83

  386,000

  1983–84

  360,000

  1984–85

  704,000

  1985–86

  677,000

  1986–87

  857,000

  1987–88

  1,094,000

  Provision for expenditure by the Scottish Office on information campaigns in 1991–92 is £2·2 million. The breakdown of expenditure by different media is not available.

  The above figures do not include the running costs of the Scottish Office information directorate.

ENERGY

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The staffing of my Department's press office, including the speech writing unit and the public inquiry point where appropriate, has been as follows:

  Numbers

  1991

  13

  1990

  13

  1989

  13

  1988

  113

  1987

  211

  1at 1 July 1988.

  2at 1 December 1987

  It is not possible to identify separately the staffing of the press office before 1987.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies have been undertaken by his Department in the five years since the Chernobyl accident to evaluate the long-term costs of a nuclear accident, in the United Kingdom or nearby continential Europe, involving the equivalent energy and radiation release as occured in the Soviet accident.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since the Chernobyl accident, the approach of the United Kingdom Government and nuclear industry has been to concentrate on ensuring that the high standards of safety employed in the design, construction and operation of United Kingdom nuclear installations are maintained. These standards mean that the likelihood of any accident at a United Kingdom nuclear plant resulting in a significant off-site release of radioactivity is extremely small. The chance of an accident involving a release on the scale of that which occurred at Chernobyl is widely acknowledged as being considerably more remote.

  Extensive programmes of research and development funded both by Government and the nuclear industry are being carried out to underpin the maintenance of the United Kingdom's high safety standards.

  Despite the extremely low chance of an accident on the scale of Chernobyl at a United Kingdom nuclear installation, the Government have thoroughly reviewed nuclear emergency planning arrangements since the Chernobyl accident. In collaboration with the safety regulatory authorities, the industry, and other bodies involved in emergency planning at both central and local level, a number of improvements have been put in place. These should ensure a continuation of high standards of emergency planning for responding to a nuclear accident. and protecting the public from any consequences.

  There is no reason to suppose that the standard of safety adopted in nearby continental Europe are any less rigorous than those applied in the United Kingdom, and international conventions on early notification provide for early warning of events likely to have trans-boundary

  621
  consequences. The Department of the Environment has developed a national response plan to provide a framework for dealing with any consequences for the United Kingdom of an overseas accident; it includes the establishment of a nationwide network of monitoring stations, the Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network, RIMNET, designed to detect independently any radioactivity arriving in this country.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what British nuclear expert assistance has been offered by the Government to the Soviet atomic energy authorities managing the Chernobyl sarcophagus to obviate the threat of radioactive dust pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the Soviet Union has not requested any assistance from the United Kingdom Government in respect of this matter. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any such requests.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many scientists from(a) his Department, (b) the nuclear installations inspectorate and (c) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, respectively, have visited the Chernobyl reactor complex since 1986.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the information requested is as follows:
  622

  (a) no scientists from my Department have visited the Chernobyl reactor complex;

  (b) two principal inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate have made such visits;

  (c) six scientists from the Atomic Energy Authority have made such visits.

  In addition, since the accident, members of both the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Atomic Energy Authority have made visits to the Soviet Union to further collaboration on various aspects of nuclear safety. The United Kingdom has also participated in discussions held under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Advanced Nuclear Fuels (Uranium Shipment)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the outcome of the investigation by EURATOM into the mistaken shipment by Advanced Nuclear Fuels of Lingen, Germany, of 130 kg of enriched uranium to the United States of America; and what assessment has been made of the implications for the application of EURATOM nuclear safeguards in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not for the United Kingdom Government to comment on such matters. EURATOM safeguards will continue to apply to all civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom.