Sitting of 18 February 1991

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

    Ordered,
    That Mr. Don Dixon be added to the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Dyslexia
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of primary and secondary school pupils in Wales suffering from dyslexia and as to what specialist, qualified teaching is available for them.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The Education Act 1981 abolished the categorisation of children by disability, so the precise numbers are not available. Provision for children with learning difficulties is made by local education authorities according to local circumstances.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Clwyd local education authority only recently carried
    2
    out a survey of primary school pupils to identify those suffering from dyslexia and that it has not yet carried out a similar survey in county secondary schools? Does my hon. Friend agree that all Welsh local education authorities should carry out surveys if they have not already done so, since such data are essential if we are to raise the standard of special teaching for dyslexic pupils up to the admirably high level that prevails at Orrets Meadow school in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: As I think my hon. Friend knows, dyslexia covers a wide range of learning difficulties. The intention behind the relevant provision in the Education Act 1981 was to abolish the categorisation of children by disability. I understand that Clwyd has acted as my hon. Friend described. It is for Clwyd to get on with analysing the number of dyslexic children in secondary schools, if it thinks that it should do so.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authorities in Wales concerning the future of the community charge.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): On 7 January I met representatives of the district and county councils at a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance to discuss local government finance structure and functions.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating those people in Wales who have campaigned hard and long against the poll tax, often at great personal cost? Will he assure the House that when a replacement tax takes over from the poll tax, as it must, the new tax will take into account the cost of administration and that it will be substantially less than the very high bureaucratic cost of the poll tax?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not join the hon. Gentleman in what he asks, but he did not expect that I would. However, I very much look forward to meeting him and his colleagues, as

    3
    well as senior representatives of the Liberal Democrats, in the next few days to discuss this thorough, wide-ranging and constructive review of the community charge. My great regret is that the official Opposition have yet to respond positively.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend has done astonishingly well to enable councils in Wales to keep the level of the community charge so much lower than in England, but is he aware of not only the puzzlement but the resentment about the system whereby he has been able to secure so much extra money for rebates to communities? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has anything to say on the subject, but I should be glad if he would at least say that he is well aware of that ill feeling.
    Mr. Hunt: Of course, I considered whether we might introduce the English form of transitional relief. I was responsible for formulating it for England. However, there were two reasons why that was not possible. First, it would have taken a great deal of time and administration to introduce. Secondly, I should not have been able to get the relief to as many people as I have. According to my predictions, if the English scheme had applied in Wales, it would have gone to I million people and amounted to £50 million worth of transitional relief. As it is, the relief will go to 1·4 million people and will amount to £62 million.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware that Newport's council and its people are bewildered by the perverse effects of the rebate, whereby most prosperous areas get a hand-out and most of the poorer areas get nothing? The Secretary of State has managed to add the unfairness of the old rating system to the unfairness of the poll tax. What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Hunt: Not at all. It is easy to calculate, because it is based on the average rates paid in that community. I have more than trebled the amount of relief and whereas in the past just over 300 communities benefited, now well over 600 do. Three times as much relief now goes to twice as many people.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is extremely long on criticism of the community charge but remarkably reluctant to take part in constructive discussions on how to improve it? Is the reason that the Labour party is unclear about which of its 60 local government policies are actually Labour party policy on financing local government?
    Mr. Hunt: I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about that matter and understand that the Labour party has introduced a new condition for participating in the review of the community charge in Wales. In England, Labour Members have confined themselves to saying that they will sit down and talk if the purpose of the exercise is the abolition of the "poll tax"; in Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has now introduced a second condition, which is that I must promise to consider the introduction of a property-based tax levied according to an individual's ability to pay. It is about time the Labour party spent more time considering a positive attitude rather than considering what other conditions it will impose.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is universal agreement among all local authorities,
    4
    most political parties and even most members of the Conservative party that the poll tax is bad and should be abolished? Will not the Ministr admit that, over the years, the poll tax has been seen to be unfair? Does he accept that the most important statement for him to make to the House and to the Welsh people is that, in the first instance, the poll tax should be done away with?
    Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter, why will not he drop the nonsense of preconditions and talk to me about the future of local government taxation? In England the average payment after relief and benefit is £300 whereas in Wales, according to my latest calculations, which are in line with the settlement that I announced, the average payment of community charge after relief and benefit will be £161.

    Countryside Council for Wales
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairperson of the Countryside Council for Wales to discuss development and the environment in rural Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I met the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales on 30 October last year to discuss the council's corporate plan and other aspects of its proposed activities for the next financial year and beyond.
    Dr. Thomas: During discussions with the chairman of the Countryside Council, did the Minister of State discuss the funding of national parks in Wales? Will funding now be directed through the council, because the national parks in Wales have complained to me and many other hon. Members that their increase is about half that available to national parks in England this year and in the future?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The national parks' supplementary grant is, as the hon. Gentleman says, funded separately from the Countryside Council for Wales. We shall have to see how things develop, but we have increased the national parks' supplementary grant for next year by 11·2 per cent. Their representatives have been to see me. That increase was substantially more than inflation and is on top of a real-terms increase of about 37 per cent. over the past decade or so.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: In his discussions with the chairman, did my hon. Friend satisfy himself that the Countryside Council for Wales will be adequately resourced?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I have given that assurance, even for the formation of the council in its shadow form. This year, we gave it £470,000 of grant in aid and next year it will have a total of £14·5 million.
    Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will be aware that one of the special and unique features of south Wales is the finger of rural Wales stretching between the urban valleys. He will be aware of the great consternation about parts of rural south Wales being destroyed by landfill sites because local authorities are so strapped for cash that they cannot afford recycling units. What provision will the Government make to meet that need in urban south Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: There is another question on the Order Paper about the green belt which my hon. Friend

    5
    the Under-Secretary of State hopes to answer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the conference that was held under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is no question but that parks are of tremendous importance to the whole of Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman has particular regard for the Brecon Beacons national park, which generates much interest in the industrial valleys of south Wales and is supported by several county councils.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the unemployment total in Wales to exceed 100,000.
    Mr. David Hunt: In January 1991, the unadjusted total of unemployed claimants was 101,452. The seasonally adjusted total is 96,000.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that those figures represent much suffering and an appalling waste of human resources in Wales? After 12 years of Tory Government frittering away our national assets, under-investment in education and training, transport, research, industry and employment generally, does the Secretary of State feel neither shame nor embarrassment that he has no new initiatives, policies or prospects for improving the position of the people of Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: To be fair, five years ago the headline total was pushing 200,000; it has fallen substantially since. I am certainly doing everything that I can to promote Wales and the development of the Welsh economy. Having carefully considered transport provision, I am happy to announce a boost of more than £8 million in local authority capital provision for urban projects. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I am making a £4·9 million transport grant which will enable his county council to make a start on the lower Rhymney valley relief road scheme.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on Welsh affairs and myself to discuss an issue involving further redundancy and unemployment in Wales. If the Government continue like this, we shall soon reach the figure of 200,000 that he mentioned. I am talking about the 40 or 50 staff of the community action training organisation, which has trained 4,000 people in the past 10 years. It was established as a community initiative, but the Welsh training and enterprise councils, which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for setting up, have withdrawn CATO's contract for 200 trainees. The Secretary of State should at least announce whether he intends to carry out an investigation to ensure that the TECs did not take a political decision on the closure of CATO.
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to give that latter assurance. After hearing the argument of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, I contacted the training and enterprise council. I understand that it had reasons for reaching its decision and I have asked it to make them available to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this morning's announcement of the creation of
    6
    a further 60 jobs at Breger Gibson in my constituency, which brings the total to just under 300? Does he agree that that is a further sign of how much more diversified, soundly based and therefore resilient our local economy has become in the past 10 years, thanks in large part to Government policy?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The £2 million factory expansion at Holywell, Clwyd, which will create 60 new jobs is indeed welcome. I was happy to be able to make a Welsh Office grant towards the project. As well as creating the 60 new jobs, it will secure the jobs of 230 people who are already employed by the company, which was established as recently as 1986.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about transport. Is not he deeply concerned at the depth of the recession and the nature of the redundancies in Wales? I have in mind hundreds of redundancies in coal, steel, cement, furniture, clothing and electronics and in famous names such as Pilkington, Hoover and JCB. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the lost BBC and HTV jobs will be very hard to replace? Can he explain why, when unemployment is rising, with the figure of 100,000 in sight, he proposes to cut his industry and employment budget by 35 per cent? Why is that, given that the job situation in Wales is so serious? Will he relent on his plans to make cuts?
    Mr. Hunt: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has tried to suggest that there are planned cuts. I believe that he has done a great deal to mislead the press—unintentionally, I am sure. The industry programme, as last year, shows a decline due to the withdrawal of regional development grants, but that had been expected for some time. My industry programme provides for total gross expenditure of £268 million next year, which is some £15 million above this year's spend. It will still be higher than now in 1993–94, even allowing for the end of RDG. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to bring down our country with talk of gloom and doom. The medium to longer-term prospects for Wales are as good as ever.

    Heartbeat Wales
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of Heartbeat Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The Heartbeat Wales programme, which is run by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, continues to combat the high incidence of coronary heart disease in Wales. The evaluation that we have started under the programme, which was established in 1985, already shows welcome trends in the sample survey. It shows that smoking and excess drinking are decreasing and that more people in Wales now take exercise.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Notwithstanding the excellent work of Dr. John Catford and his team in Heartbeat Wales, my hon. Friend will be aware that the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Principality remains very high when compared with that in other countries. Does he agree that the new general practitioners' contracts provide an excellent opportunity to do more for health promotion? Will he ensure that general practitioners in Wales have the necessary information to deal with patients who come to

    7
    them with high levels of blood cholesterol and other indications that may suggest the onset of coronary heart disease?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend's interest in that matter is well known, as he is the chairman of the all-party food and health forum. I assure him that the plans for action contained in the Health Promotion Authority's document, which has just been issued, concentrate on that. He is right to point out that, in the new GP contracts, health promotion and dealing with heart disease are given very high priority.

    A55
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his present estimated date for completion of the dualling of the carriageways of the A55 from the Welsh border to Bangor.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Dualling of the whole of the A55 route in north Wales is expected to be achieved in 1994.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend and I have represented north Wales constituencies for longer than any other hon. Member in the House. Does my hon. Friend realise—I am sure that he does—how dramatic has been the transformation of the north Wales scene as a result of the progress made on the A55, especially during the past 12 years? Does he think that the public authorities along the route are taking the maximum advantage of the huge potential for development represented by this corridor of opportunity?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will agree that the plans outlined in our document. "The A55: Road of Opportunity" showed a tremendous amount of activity on the part of local authorities and I certainly look to those authorities to develop opportunities along that magnificent corridor into north Wales.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister will be aware that there are more than a quarter of a million of us living in mid-Wales. We have been very tolerant over the past 10 years. We have looked north and south and have watched the Welsh Office spending millions of pounds on the motorway in south Wales and the dual carriageway in north Wales. Will the Minister assure us that, after 1994, he will consider dualling the carriageway between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth to make sure that we in mid-Wales see fair play at last?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Our strategy for roads in Wales is set out in "Roads in Wales", which covers the whole of Wales. Not only are we providing the M4 in the south and the A55 in the north; we are spending a considerable amount on links to those two roads. On the north-south route, for example, we are due to spend £100 million on the A470 alone. We shall also be spending on the A483 from Manchester to Swansea and, in addition to Welsh Office spending, we are supporting extensive spending by local authorities on their county roads.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that the rural hinterland of north Wales requires links to the A55 if the benefits are to be felt deeper into the areas that really require them, including Denbigh and the Vale of Clwyd? Can the Minister tell me when there will be a link—
    8
    perhaps bypassing St. Asaph, with which I know he is concerned? That would add a link from the Vale of Clwyd into the A55 corridor.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Clwyd county council is the responsible highway authority for St. Asaph. On the broad principle, as I said earlier, we are spending a considerable amount on links to the A55. I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that we plan to spend £175 million on those links, which include the A5, the A470, the A487 and the A494.

    Green Belts Conference
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the green belts conference he held in Cardiff on 28 January.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: At the Welsh Office conference my right hon. Friend called for serious consideration to be given to the benefits that statutory green belts could bring to parts of the Principality. Participants at the conference were drawn from the local authority associations and environmental and development interests in Wales. Speakers expressed a wide range of views on the green belt. The Assembly of Welsh Counties has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to take forward the consideration of that question as a first priority in its review of strategic planning guidance and to submit an interim report in spring this year.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges the outstanding contribution of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. Will consultation be confined to the county councils, which are neither planning nor leisure authorities, as South Glamorgan county council appears to be leading the charge to develop that which should be retained as green belt? Will he keep to the forefront the consideration that my constituency, north of the M4 from Tongwynlais to St. Mellons, must be the prime candidate for green belt status?
    Mr. Bennett: As usual, my hon. Friend defends with vigour his constituents' views and I certainly take on board his point. We shall certainly ensure that the district councils and the city council in Cardiff are included in our discussions on this matter, because, as he rightly says, they are the planning authorities for most issues.
    Mr. John P. Smith: May I tell the Minister that he will find support on both sides of the House for the speedy introduction of statutory green belts in Wales to protect areas like the rural Vale of Glamorgan which are threatened not just by developers, in terms of the destruction of open countryside, but by the lack of much-needed urban regeneration on the waterfront?
    Mr. Bennett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We want the issue to be bipartisan. It is not a matter for party political controversy and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports us.
    Mr. Michael: It seems a little late for the Minister to consider being bipartisan. He is becoming very good at attending conferences and appearing to offer help to solve problems that the Government have created. Does he accept that attempts at sensible and coherent planning of land use and the protection of the environment have been undermined by the way in which the Welsh Office has granted planning permission on appeal with gay abandon

    9
    over the past 10 years? Will he promise now to break with the policies of the predecessors of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and put the power back into the hands of local elected representatives to protect the environment of our towns, cities and the surrounding countryside?
    Mr. Bennett: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise.

    Schools (Opting Out)
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary and comprehensive schools in Wales have applied to opt out of council control; and how many of these applications have been granted.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Two secondary schools have applied for grant-maintained status. The application in respect of Cwmcarn comprehensive school, Islwyn, has been approved and that in respect of Queen's comprehensive school, Newport, was rejected. No applications have been received from primary schools.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that our local education authorities are being pressured into curbing expenditure which invariably means school closures? When those schools are allowed to opt out, the capital funding is two and a half times the level for local authority schools. Can the Minister explain the rhyme, logic and reason for that ridiculous attitude on the Government's part or is that just bribery to undermine our local authority schools?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the option of grant-maintained status was given to the education system, and particularly to parents, under the Education Reform Act 1988. Various procedures must be followed before a school gains grant-maintained status. We have explained our decisions, and the decision letters in the two cases to which I have referred are in the Library. Their revenue funding is much the same as it is for any school under the local management of schools system and the capital funding is provided direct by the Welsh Office in this case. There is a problem in Gwent of surplus places and our decision in relation to Cwmcarn does not contradict that policy in any way.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the newly appointed chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss the recent fall in manufacturing output in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: I keep in close touch with the chairman and the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency about a wide range of issues concerning the development of the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Davies: In view of the fall in manufacturing capacity in Wales and the severe damage that has been wrought on the manufacturing base in Wales by 12 years of Tory Government, is not the Secretary of State concerned that the experience and expertise of the recently appointed chief executive of WDA lies almost wholly within the candy floss activity of property? Will he ensure
    10
    in future that senior appointments at board level and at senior level reflect sufficient expertise and a track record in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Hunt: I reject the right hon. Gentleman's comments about Phil Head. I believe that he will be a marvellous chief executive. He won a very competitive contest for that position.
    With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's opening comments, I must remind him that the WDA's budget this year is to be exceeded to the highest ever level next year of £160 million, which is £10 million higher than this year and £10 million higher than the figure that I inherited. It is set to remain above the 1990–91 level in each of the subsequent two years. The Welsh Development Agency has the means. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to decry Wales. I have recently seen executives from TSB, DAS, Bosch, Toyota and Dowty Koike. Those companies are now recruiting. That has nothing to do with a candy floss economy, but much to do with an expanding and strong economy.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people of Wales how his Government have reached such a serious recession after 12 years in power and about £100 billion in North sea oil revenues? Does he agree that falling output and rising unemployment are not just blips but signs of a recession affecting every kind of industry and every kind of worker? Why have he and his right hon. Friends in Cabinet been so complacent? It ill fits the right hon. Gentleman to tell us about our country. His Government are not helping our country.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that I thought that everybody in Wales would be greatly assisted if the Opposition did not talk and preach gloom and doom. The hon. Gentleman mentioned output. Output per employee in manufacturing industry in Wales is the highest ever. In the six years since 1985 manufacturing output in Wales has gone up by 33 per cent. Over the same period output in the United Kingdom is up 19 per cent. Five years ago there were 81 inward investment projects in Wales. We have increased that by 75 per cent. There are 135 per cent. more jobs through inward investment and investment has increased by 263 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to those statistics and not play down the recovery in the Welsh economy?

    Rural Economy
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the improvement of the economy of rural Wales during 1991.
    Mr. David Hunt: Several.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister will agree that agriculture plays a major role in the rural economy of Wales. Agriculture is in crisis. In order to restore confidence will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will go to Brussels to discuss Mr. MacSharry's latest proposals? Those proposals, whether phase 2 or phase 3, will have to be accepted. On behalf of both farmers' unions in Wales, may I ask him to give that assurance?
    Mr. Hunt: This is very defeatist talk. On Thursday, the hon. Gentleman introduced a debate on agriculture, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture,

    11
    Fisheries and Food demonstrated how strongly we should fight the MacSharry proposals. The Leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has just said, and I was astonished to hear it:
    "Farmers have cried wolf far too often in the past. Now that there is actually a real crisis they are having some difficulty in getting people to listen to them."
    They have no difficulty in getting me to listen to them. I am aware of the difficulties. How much does the hon. Gentleman support that statement by the leader of his party?
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). On Friday I attended a meeting about rural affairs. The Minister will know about farmers' serious concern about the future. They have had a bad year with lamb and beef prices, and now they are worried about the GATT proposals and the MacSharry proposals. All that we get from the Government is a vacuum. We know that they are opposed to direct income aid for small farmers. The vacuum creates much anxiety and despair. What can the Secretary of State say to farmers in my constituency who are afraid of going bankrupt?
    Mr. Hunt: There are many worries, and I share them. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fighting speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at last week's AGM of the National Farmers Union. That was a marvellous speech and I support every word of it. The hon. Gentleman should have paid tribute to the recent increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances. I fought hard to secure more than £37 million for Wales and I shall arrange for that money to be distributed to Welsh farmers as quickly as possible.

    Foreign Languages
    Mr. Grist: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of school leavers in Wales in 1990 held a pass at A to C level in a foreign language at (a) GCSE and (b) advanced level.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: In 1988–89, 21·3 per cent. of school leavers in Wales held a GCSE grade A to C in a foreign language. The corresponding figure for advanced level grades A to E was 3·3 per cent. Information for 1989–90 is not yet available.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that, compared with the achievements of our European neighbours, those figures are worrying? Does he further agree that, unfortunately, we are short of sufficient foreign language teachers and that the teaching of foreign languages should be started in primary schools?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, would like to see foreign langage teaching started at the primary level because we have had considerable success in teaching Welsh at primary level. There is, indeed, a shortage of foreign langage teachers, but we are combating that by providing bursaries of £1,500 per annum for trainee teachers taking the postgraduate certificate of education and other courses. We, too, would like to see a great improvement in the learning and teaching of foreign languages in Wales.
    Mr. Morgan: Could the Minister institute a study into the success rates of students taking foreign languages at GCSE and A-level, linking that with the constant drip,
    12
    drip, drip of rainwater passing through leaking school roofs into buckets in the corners? In the county of South Glamorgan, part of which I have the honour to represent, the estimated cost of putting right the backlog of repairs to school buildings has now risen to £32 million, but the annual budget for repairing those roofs is only £9 million. How long is it——
    Mr. Speaker: This is a bit wide of languages.
    Mr. Morgan: How long will it be before that backlog is put right, and students of foreign languages at GCSE and A-level are given a fair chance of success?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am well aware of the condition of our school buildings. Whenever I see a particularly rotten building and look into its date of construction, I usually find that it was constructed during a Labour Government's period in office.

  THE ARTS

    Arabic History and Art
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what funds are available for the study of Arabic history and art.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): No funds are allocated specifically by the Office of Arts and Libraries for the study of Arabic history and art.
    Mr. Dalyell: I should like to ask the Minister a question, of which I have given him notice. What response has he made to Professor Akbar Ahmed of Cambridge about the squandering of our legacy of scholarship in the Arab languages and the study of Arab history? Could the Minister say anything about the removal of the famous Islamic collection in Kuwait? May not it be just as well that that has been taken elsewhere temporarily, simply because of the pounding that Kuwait may well receive in a land battle?
    Mr. Renton: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not aware of any squandering of the funding that is needed for Arabic studies at the universities or the university museums. Funding for the universities and the university museums is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that allocations are made by the Universities Funding Council to individual universities in answer to specific bids. Such allocations will, of course, include Arabic studies.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is, alas, sadly true that the contents of the Kuwait museum of Islamic antiquities have been removed by the Iraqis. It is one of the finest collections of Islamic art in the world. For the hon. Gentleman in any sense to take any comfort in the fact that that collection has been taken elsewhere is absolutely astonishing. It is an example of Iraqi pillage and of the despoiling of Kuwait.

    Gift Aid
    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress is being made in promoting Gift Aid; and what support the scheme is achieving.
    Mr. Renton: A number of arts organisations have already received gifts under Gift Aid. This follows major

    13
    initiatives to publicise this very imaginative scheme by the Arts Council and the Museum and Galleries Commission, through their tax guide, and the National Arts Collection Fund through its Gift Aid for Art register.
    Mr. Powell: May I say how welcome it is that so many people and bodies are taking advantage of this scheme? Has not the time come for it to be extended from gifts of cash to gifts in kind? Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable success has been achieved in Australia and in the United States by allowing tax reliefs for gifts in kind? Could not such a scheme be accepted in this country?
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. It is satisfactory that a number of bodies such as the Aldeburgh Festival, the English National Opera and the Tate have recently been able to make use of Gift Aid donations. As to the second point, plans to extend Gift Aid to cover gifts in kind are interesting, but as my hon. Friend will know, the decision on this matter rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Minister aware that, while many of us in Wales are pleased with Gift Aid in that it has bailed out the Welsh National Opera and other companies, we are worried that funding is being kept from organisations such as the Association of Artists and Designers in Wales, which gives funds to individual painters and sculptors? Is the Minister aware that, while the great institutions may thrive on such aid, individual artists are bereft of funds?
    Mr. Renton: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be singing from the tops of the mountains about the help given to Welsh National Opera, and would be particularly grateful to the Welsh Office for the substantial sums that it has put forward to wipe off the accumulated deficit. The hon. Gentleman's other point should be pursued with the Welsh Arts Council. He should be suggesting that it should be studying the issue of direct grants to individual craftsmen in Wales.
    Mr. Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of the scheme would be even greater were it not for the fact that, in some parts of the country, there is difficulty in obtaining Gift Aid certificates? Will he have a word with the Chancellor to ensure that there is an adequate supply of these documents, so that people can press ahead with such schemes?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am interested to hear him say that. One or two other examples of it being difficult to obtain Gift Aid forms have been mentioned to me before. I immediately pursued the matter, to make certain that the forms were available to any charity or artistic organisation that wanted them. If he will let me know the names of any organisation that is missing the forms, I shall follow that up.

    Business Support
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister for the Arts what contribution the business community is making in both financial and manpower resources in supporting the arts.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Minister for the Arts what role the business community is playing in supporting the arts through the Business in the Arts scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I am delighted that the business community is continuing its splendid support of the arts, with sponsorship now standing at around £35 million per annum. Business also provides professional advice to arts organisations through business in the arts, which my Department helps to fund.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating a number of businesses in the Chelmsford area, which have generously sponsored arts activities such as the Chelmsford cathedral festival each year? Is not it significant that 70 per cent. of the business sponsorship incentive scheme money goes to the arts outside London?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for this imaginative scheme. I am delighted to hear of the sponsorship of the Chelmsford cathedral festival. I agree that it is satisfactory that so much of the money through the business sponsorship incentive scheme is not spent in the capital but is widely distributed throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Tim Smith: What contribution is the business community making to arts organisations in terms of the provision of management skills? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many ways, this is as valuable as contributions in cash? In how many cases has such help been given?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is true that advice from sympathetic business men on how better to run festivals and artistic performances is useful. Business in the Arts has 60 consultants in a register of management advisers. It made 48 placements in London alone in the current year and is hoping to increase that to 80 in the year ahead. There are a number of interesting illustrations.
    For example, an accounts manager from IBM is advising the Tricycle theatre in Kilburn on the design and analysis of an audience research questionnaire. More and more groups of artists are finding that business help is useful.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that during the previous Session I asked a question about a number of paintings and pieces of silver that the previous Prime Minister had stored away at Downing street? I was told that there were 72 different items at No. 10, including paintings from the National gallery. Can we be assured that the various paintings and pieces of silver have now been returned to their rightful owners, or could it be that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has set up an antiques business somewhere?
    Mr. Renton: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. When questions to the Minister for the Arts were last before the House, the hon. Gentleman was missing. On that occasion he had tabled a question on support for Welsh National Opera. I am sorry that we missed him on that occasion. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's question and go on to consider whether he should add to the beautiful objects in No. 10, change them or whatever. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to act as artistic adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Fisher: What contribution does the Minister expect the business community to make to the arts in London, precisely? Does he expect it to bail out the Government

    15
    from their incompetent handling of the future of Greater London Arts? He will know that the director of GLA left last week and that it has no finance director, music officer or literature officer. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose for the 200-odd clients of GLA and for all the London music societies that are left without funding? Will he give them to the business community or will he do something himself to save the arts in London?
    Mr. Renton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on retaining his position as shadow Minister for the Arts. I was rather fearful that we might have heard him call "crisis" from the Opposition Front Bench for the last time, and that he might be concentrating on his full-time duty as minute secretary of his notorious supper club. It is good to hear him in comparable voice. There is no crisis in London arts and there is no need for them to be bailed out. The hon. Gentleman will know that the London Arts Board has been set up as an autonomous committee within the Arts Council. That is how it will be run for a maximum of two years.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of trade unions in the civil service to discuss the role of trade unions within the civil service.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We have not yet met to discuss civil service issues, but I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors and meet civil service trade union representatives whenever necessary.
    Mr. Winnick: The Minister used to enjoy baiting trade unions when he was a Conservative Back-Bench Member. Is he aware that the continued ban on trade union membership at GCHQ is entirely unacceptable to Opposition Members? We shall never accept that British people should be denied their right to belong to a trade union. Will Tory Members have the guts to oppose my ten-minute Bill, which I shall introduce next week, the purpose of which is to attempt to reverse the present position?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice and his memory a considerable error. I have never baited a trade unionist in my life. I have been a member of the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), for about 10 years. From time to time I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would lend me his APEX tie so that I could wear it on suitable occasions. There is no change in the Government's position on GCHQ. I doubt, therefore, whether any of my colleagues will support the Bill that the hon. Gentleman intends to introduce next week. Affiliation by the Government Communications Staff Federation at Cheltenham to any outside bodies would not be acceptable to the Government.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a civil service union affiliates to an organisation such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, it is giving a clear signal to all its members, and especially to those who work
    16
    in the Ministry of Defence, that it is putting the interests of the discredited dogma held by a minority of left-wing activists ahead of the need to represent the legitimate interests of all its members?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend advances his argument extremely well. I am sure that the leaders of the union concerned will carefully consider his remarks.

    Te Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what estimate he has of the number of civil servants who have been allocated to duties relating to the Gulf.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the range of duties performed by civil servants—covering work as diverse as assistance to evacuees and shipping policy—makes it difficult to prepare an estimate of the kind he describes. A great many civil servants in the Ministry of Defence are involved in all aspects of work relating to the crisis, where civilian staff play a key role in support of the armed forces. I understand that outside the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the numbers of staff allocated specifically to Gulf duties are very small.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I gave his Department somewhat short notice? How many civil servants are involved in the operation to clean up the oil slicks? I put this question in the light of the fact that David Olsen, who is the environment adviser to the Saudi Government, has complained about both lack of personnel and of equipment.
    Mr. Renton: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to condemn unequivocally the Gulf oil spill as a deliberate crime against the planet. I have checked in Hansard the reports of his previous remarks, and I do not see that he has uttered any such condemnation, which I should have thought appropriate. As he knows, the United Kingdom Government made a quick response to this oil spill. We shall listen to requests from neighbouring Arab states for help. In particular, we should welcome offers from any non-combatant countries to help clean up the Gulf oil spill.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the congratulations of the House are conveyed, in particular, to those civil servants who are involved in defence procurement? These people have had to work considerable hours, and under some pressure, to ensure that our forces in the Gulf receive their supplies—no doubt, hindered to a considerable extent by the cowardly refusal of the Belgian Government to ensure that we do have some defence supplies.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall certainly see that his very well deserved congratulations on the work being done and on the hours being put in are passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of civil service unions to discuss the improvement of morale and conditions of service.
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet civil service trade unions to discuss morale.
    Mr. Renton: We have not yet met to discuss civil service issues, but I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors and meet civil service trades union representatives as appropriate.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that the working conditions of civil service trade unionists working in the national museums would be improved considerably if there were not holes in the roofs of those buildings? Let him tell the civil service trade unions that he will accept the findings of the report on the fabric of the national museums—a report which he commissioned—and will commit the necessary funds to the removal of this national disgrace. It is indeed a national disgrace that there are holes in the roofs of our great national museums.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman totally misstates the case. Having visited a number of the national museums, I cannot say that I found in any of them civil servants who are unhappy with their working conditions. Indeed, those employees are rather excited by the changes that are taking place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have commissioned a survey by the building firm Ove Arup, which is to report to me the estimates for repairs. That report will be in my hands by the summer and I shall consider very carefully indeed the figures that it contains.
    Mr. Allen: The Minister will be aware of the problems relating to over-payments, dubious payments and various other irregularities in respect of the sale of the Crown Suppliers transport section. Will he comment on the activities of Mr. Bill Pinkney in respect of the sale of that transport section, so that all these irregularities may be laid bare to the House and the public? Will he make a statement on this matter?
    Mr. Renton: No. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he seriously wishes to pursue this matter he puts in a letter to me all the facts and figures that are in his possession. If he does that, I shall look at those facts and figures very carefully.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the morale and conditions of civil servants would be much enhanced if many of them were to move to Teesside? Would not it be in the Government's interests to ensure that the Ministry of Defence did not renege on its promise to move 1,500 jobs to Teesside, but allowed its civil servants to take advantage of the excellent living conditions there?
    Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend knows, the policy of relocating civil servants to places outside London is being implemented vigorously. For example, the Inland Revenue is moving in a substantial way to the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
    18
    I shall certainly look into the point about Teesside with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he writes to me giving further details, I shall pursue them.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister also discuss with Locate in Scotland the possibility of relocating civil service jobs to Caithness, in the light of the changing circumstances there? Undoubtedly it will have a beneficial effect on the morale and conditions of service for the select few who might be induced to go there. Locate in Scotland has not been as active as some of us would have wished.
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to pursue that matter with Ministers at the Scottish Office. I remember during my time at the Home Office that people in many parts of the United Kingdom suggested that we should move, for example, an immigration office or passport office to their area. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a particular site in Caithness would be suitable, I suggest that he makes that known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: When my right hon. Friend meets the trade union leaders, will he congratulate the many volunteers who act as shop stewards and unpaid officers of the unions? Will he also raise participation rates in the elections for national officers of civil service unions, which are among the lowest in the country? Will he consider whether it is the employers' job to draw to the attention of staff the dates of elections rather than to tell them who to vote for?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He speaks as my immediate predecessor as president of the Conservative trade unionists. I know that he has a great interest in trade union matters. I thank him for his suggestion. I shall certainly pass on his congratulations and ensure that the matters that he raised are looked into.
    Dr. Marek: Might I for the first time agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that it would, indeed, be good to move civil servants out of London? Does the Minister agree that temporary and transient help by way of bridging loans should be given to civil servants who are asked to move? Has the Minister met the unions to discuss the matter? Is he aware that the Minister of State, Treasury will not meet the unions to talk about bridging loans? The right hon. Gentleman has given me an assurance that he is prepared to talk to the unions on the matter. Does he believe that help should be given by way of bridging loans to union members who are asked to move on public service?
    Mr. Renton: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that four out of five civil servants are now located outside Greater London and that relocation of civil servants outside London is continuing. His point about bridging loans to cover moving costs is not an easy matter, as he will understand. It is always difficult to determine when the loan should be repaid. I am sure that in any major relocation the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary of the Department involved will consider carefully whether such loans could be justified and whether they should make a case to the Treasury for such loans to be made.
    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No, I will take it after the statement.

The Gulf
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Gulf.
The announcement by the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council on 15 February stated Iraq's readiness
"to deal with Security Council Resolution 660 with the aim of reaching an honourable and acceptable political solution, including withdrawal".
The announcement clearly and explicitly links an undertaking by Iraq on withdrawal to a series of conditions. These include the withdrawal of Israel from occupied Arab territory, the withdrawal of coalition troops from the Gulf within one month, reparations for damage done to Iraq, the cancellation of Iraq's debts, the repeal of all Security Council resolutions passed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the guarantee of Iraq's territorial claims.
It is clear that the Revolutionary Command Council's announcement does not commit Iraq to unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait, as required by the United Nations Security Council either in resolution 660 or in the later ones, nor to the implementation of the other resolutions passed by the Security Council since 2 August. The announcement was rejected by the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Syria and the Gulf Co-operation Council in Cairo. It was also rejected by the great majority of speakers in the United Nations Security Council on 16 February. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, it was totally inadequate as a basis for ending the war. The aggressor cannot expect to set conditions for remedying the aggression.
What the world now requires is an unequivocal commitment by Iraq to withdraw its forces fully and unconditionally from Kuwait. When the Iraqi Government are ready to comply with the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council, they should say so unambiguously and match their words with decisive and irreversible proof. There needs to be clear evidence of withdrawal and of a commitment to repatriate allied prisoners of war.
Today, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mr. Tariq Aziz, is in Moscow. President Gorbachev has made it clear that the Soviet Union stands firmly behind the coalition and the resolutions of the Security Council. I hope that Mr. Tariq Aziz will take back to Baghdad the clear message that Iraq can decide when the fighting will stop by taking the steps that I have described.
The Security Council will continue its debate after the discussions in Moscow. I urge the Iraqi leadership quickly to put to an end the anxiety and suffering which their continued intransigence is causing to the people of Kuwait, to the people of Iraq and to the whole world.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Foreign Secretary for responding to our request for a statement. Our determination to insist upon the strict fulfilment of the United Nations resolutions requiring Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from all of Kuwait begins to be vindicated, first, by Iraq's citing of resolution 660, and, secondly, by the fact that Iraq, for the first time since the crisis began more than six months ago, is referring to withdrawal of its forces from Kuwait.
20
It remains unclear exactly what Iraq meant in the statement issued by Baghdad radio on Friday, and augmented by informal statements by Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi ambassadors to the United Nations and to Paris.
As far as the Labour party is concerned, what is certain is that if the list of issues accompanying the Baghdad statement is a list of conditions to be carried out before or parallel with withdrawal, those conditions are totally unacceptable, since resolution 660, to which radio Baghdad referred, requires unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. If it is a list of the issues which Iraq believes should be discussed after withdrawal, certain of the isues are again unacceptable. Other matters, such as the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, should certainly be discussed at the international conference foreshadowed by Security Council resolution 681, but they are certainly not matters to be negotiated bilaterally with Iraq and cannot be linked to Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
Therefore, we await developments following the Moscow talks and welcome the repeated Soviet insistence upon strict Iraqi implementation of Security Council resolutions.
If the Soviet plan or any other reliable actions and verifiable statements confirm or bring about, without any doubt whatever, Iraqi acceptance of the UN resolutions, and if Iraq then complies with the Baker-Bessmertnykh conditions, by commencing withdrawal from Kuwait in a manner verified by and acceptable to the commanders of the coalition forces, will such action receive a response from the coalition? The United States Secretary of State, Mr. James Baker, and the United States Defence Department have indicated as much and I shall be grateful for confirmation by the Foreign Secretary.
The whole House will deeply regret continuing Iraqi civilian casualties, including the loss of life at Fallujah. We hope that every possible effort will be made to avoid further such occurrences. I think that the Royal Air Force deserves credit for openly acknowledging the tragic error which caused casualties at Fallujah. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if such unhappy mistakes are made, it is better to do what the Royal Air Force has done and admit them and seek to avoid their recurrence rather than seek ways to justify them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that further casualties on both sides can be avoided if Iraq plainly and simply accepts the Security Council resolutions and, without further delay and without conditions, withdraws from Kuwait? Our support for those resolutions is firm and determined. Let them now be carried out.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the general tone of what he said. On his three specific points, I chose my words carefully as regards compliance. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that Iraq is required by the Security Council to accept immediately and unconditionally the withdrawal of all its forces. That obviously requires not just an assurance but decisive and irreversible proof. I said that there needs to be clear evidence of withdrawal and of a commitment to repatriate allied prisoners of war.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt rightly with the casualties at Al-Fallujah. Every effort is made by the RAF, and indeed by all the allied forces, to minimise civilian

21
casualties. I agree with what he said about the correct handling of the issue by the RAF. I also agree with the third point that he made.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the vast majority of the people want to see a solution which ensures that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi council cannot do again what they have done over the past few months? That needs to be an absolute factor when the war is over. It will receive the support of the vast majority of the people.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. We receive continuing evidence from all over the country that, despite all the efforts by Saddam Hussein to confuse and divide us, people are clear about the objectives, which are worth while. We are now entering the decisive and most difficult phase. It is a great strength to our forces in the desert that they have the support which is illustrated in the House and in the country.
Sir David Steel: Should not Her Majesty's Government make clear and repeat their determination to deal with some of the important matters mentioned in the Baghdad statement, and also make clear that the sooner Saddam's forces leave Kuwait, the sooner that process can begin? Should we not at least welcome the Iraqi mention of withdrawal from Kuwait as a change from the rhetoric of its being the 19th province of Iraq and demand that he turns his verbal translation into action?
Mr. Hurd: We made it clear, long before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, that the international community had to return, for example, to the Arab-Israel question. The right hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed that. That remains true. The Iraqis and Saddam Hussein have no particular standing in this. Their attempts to link the two questions have been repudiated by their fellow Arabs. We must not get into a position where we start negotiating with Saddam Hussein on that matter. Our determination, indeed our will, to deal with it is not in doubt.
It is certainly true that the Iraqi statement on 15 February appeared to begin a retreat from the statement that Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq, but what it does not do is comply with what the United Nations required. Therefore, I believe that it is right for the President of the United States, for our Prime Minister and for all the leading members of the coalition to make it clear that it is not an acceptable basis for ending the war.
Mr. David Howell: While all the analysis goes on in Moscow, Tehran and, indeed, the United Nations about what Baghdad does or does not mean by its latest statement, is there not one clear way in which Saddam Hussein can indicate his intentions to the coalition and that is by physically withdrawing his forces across the Iraqi frontier, requesting to the allies that. in the light of a genuine withdrawal, he is not bombed, and proceeding to comply in detail and in action with the resolutions of the United Nations?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has it exactly right. I hope that that is the message which Mr. Tariq Aziz will take back to Baghdad from Moscow.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Foreign Secretary give a clear assurance that no British forces will be committed to a ground attack on Kuwait or Iraq until
22
all reasonable efforts have been made, and all reasonable time has been given, to ensuring that Iraq undertakes a negotiated compliance with the United Nations resolution?
Mr. Hurd: Reasonable time was given—between the date of resolution 660 that was passed as the Iraqi troops poured into Kuwait and 15 January, the deadline set by the Security Council at the instance of the Soviet Union. No one can argue that that is not "reasonable time". The timing of any ground attack must depend on when those concerned believe that an attack can be made to liberate Kuwait in accordance with the United Nations, in circumstances that create the minimum number of casualties.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend highlight the number of Islamic nations that have committed forces to the coalition? Does not that number give the lie to Saddam Hussein's claim to speak for Islam?
Mr. Hurd: Indeed; and it is notable, as I said in my statement, that eight of the leading Arab members of the coalition—let alone Muslims—who met in Cairo on Friday were quick to declare exactly the same answer to the statement that came out of Baghdad as we did.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his statement left out some important facts? One is the fact that other countries saw this development in a more positive way than did the President of the United States or the Prime Minister. Secondly, clarifications have come since then, which might have been spelt out but which the Foreign Secretary did not spell out. Thirdly, the President and the Prime Minister gave a summary judgment on the matter without waiting for the Security Council, which is supposed to be the body masterminding the operation. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that, with these hopes still being explored in Moscow, a land attack is thought right-at this moment, when there is a possibility of a peaceful settlement?
Mr. Hurd: Part of the aim of the Baghdad statement must have been to divide the coalition; those who issued it must be bitterly disappointed with the result. With one possible exception—Morocco—all members of the coalition, and all who are contributing to the effort, were clear about the fact that the offer was inadequate. Since then, various efforts have been made to qualify it. The Iraqi authorities themselves sent me the text of the statement, with an English translation, in which they referred to Iraq's readiness "to deal with"—not "accept"—"resolution 660 … including withdrawal". They then said that the first step required to implement Iraq's pledge
"regarding withdrawal will be linked to the following".
Any suggestion that there is no linkage, or that the Iraqis have accepted resolution 660, is completely refuted by the Iraqis' own translation of their own document. Any attempt to qualify that is obfuscation.
What we need now is a further clear, unconditional announcement, backed up by the kind of concrete steps—and the decisive proof that the things concerned are actually happening—to which I have referred. I do not think that, in the present circumstances, it would be at all sensible or right for us to be deflected from the operations. This may well be an attempt to gain time—to enable Saddam Hussein to reinforce and re-equip the army of aggression, the military machine now sitting in the desert

23
and occupying Kuwait. I cannot think that even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would think it sensible to fall into that trap.
Mr. Paul Channon: First, has my right hon. Friend any more news about British military personnel in Iraqi hands, about whom there is much disquiet? Secondly, does he think that it is still appropriate for television correspondents to be in Baghdad when the news that we are receiving from them is clearly influenced largely by Iraqi Government propaganda? That is causing massive disquiet among our constituents.
Mr. Hurd: We are very much exercised by the first point. One of the cruellest things that the Iraqis have done is to give certain information about allied prisoners of war, with no corroboration or information being given through the proper channels in accordance with the Geneva conventions, to us and the relatives of those concerned. We are pressing the president of the Red Cross daily on that subject: we pressed him hard when he was in London a few days ago. It is not his fault that the Iraqis have denied access, but it is a particularly cruel breach of their obligations.
As for journalists, that must be a matter for the broadcasters and newspapers concerned. This is one of the things that distinguishes us from the regime with which we are dealing. It is very important that those broadcasters and newspapers that send journalists to Baghdad should ensure, in the case of anything published—whether in print or on the screen—that the public are fully aware of the restrictions on what they are able to do, of the restrictions on what they are saying and, perhaps even more important, of the restrictions on what they are not able to see and do. The Government have made that crucial point—I think perfectly correctly—to those concerned.
Dr. David Owen: May we be, assured that international measures to assure peace and security in the region are absolutely vital before sanctions can be lifted, even if there were to be, thankfully, a total and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait? Would that mean on-site inspection of any nuclear, biological or chemical installations? Would there be a ban on all missiles capable of reaching capitals in the region?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is moving ahead from the circumstances in which fighting might stop, with which I have already dealt, to the circumstances in which sanctions would be raised and normal relationships re-established with Iraq. However, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right—I cannot give specific details this afternoon—that when we move to the second phase and consider how we might restore relations with Iraq, the questions that he mentioned would have to be considered before we did so.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it needs to be reiterated over and over again that if the war is to end and peace is to come it must be on the clear foundation that aggression does not pay? Saddam Hussein must clearly see and learn that his rape of Kuwait will bring no profit to him whatsoever.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in what he says and the way in which he says it. I entirely support what he says.
Ms. Clare Short: Does the Foreign Secretary at least welcome the Soviet initiative, or is he not looking for a diplomatic solution because he wants the war to spread from Kuwait into Iraq? Is not the bombing of sewage systems, water and medical facilities for Iraqi civilians a breach of the Geneva convention? Will he please reconsider the way in which Iraqi civilians are being denied a decent human life?
Mr. Hurd: I welcome any effort that is designed to bring about an end to this war, through the fulfilment of the United Nations resolutions. We do not have details of any proposals that the Soviet Union may have put to Mr. Tariq Aziz today in Moscow. We are in touch with the Soviet authorities and I discussed the matter with Mr. James Baker just before I came to the House. We do not have those details, but that is the test. It is a test that the Soviet Union has emphasised itself in all its recent exchanges.
As for the second serious point that the hon. Lady raised, the objective of the coalition forces in these operations is to liberate Kuwait, which means weakening and reducing the strength of the Iraqi military forces. That obviously involves communications, logistics, supply lines. Every effort is made to make sure that in attacking those targets—which are perfectly legitimate for the general aim—danger, damage and loss of life to civilians, which cannot be entirely avoided, is kept to a minimum.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an element of absurdity in seeking to negotiate by means of Baghdad radio? Is it not clear, as my right hon. Friend said, that the elements here suggest that delay, or seeking to divide the allies, is the only reason behind this? Are not there ample opportunities to take the matter where it should go—to the United Nations, where the matter could be discussed in direct diplomatic terms?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I do not think that one can carry the discussion very far, due to the way in which the revolutionary council started it. If it were willing to come forward not just with an assurance but with proof that the resolutions are being carried out, that would change the situation.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to resist the siren voices of those who want to restrict what journalists in Baghdad publish and transmit. Is he prepared to ask the British media why they are not transmitting more material about the thousands of houses damaged in Israel, the 500 Israeli civilian casualties, the property damaged in Saudi Arabia and the torturing, murdering and crucifixion of Kuwaitis? Is not that what the war is about and should not the British media concentrate on a few more reports on those aspects of the war so that we may have more balanced reports?
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly about Kuwait. There was a good deal of publicity about Tel Aviv and Israel, but by far the greatest suffering is being, and has been for many months, inflicted on the people of Kuwait. Plenty of material is available to

25
journalists, even though they are not allowed to go there. They should make it clear that they are not allowed to go there and make the greatest possible use of existing material.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not clear that this frantic fluttering in the diplomatic dovecotes every time Saddam Hussein throws us a crumb can only lead him to suppose that our determination to defeat him is not complete, with the result that the war will continue and even more lives will be lost?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's realistic assessment of what has happened so far. If Iraq's will to fight is crumbling to the point where it withdraws from Kuwait, the position will change. However, my hon. and learned Friend is right to say that there is no evidence, as of today, that that is happening.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past 10 minutes, he has put forward two possibilities for Baghdad's statement on Friday: first, it may have been designed to split the coalition and, secondly, it may have been designed to engineer a ceasefire so that Iraq could re-equip its military forces for a continuation of the conflict? Is there not a third possibility, that the Iraqi regime may be signalling that it wants a way out of the difficulty in which it has placed itself?
Mr. Hurd: The first two possibilities, although not contradictory, are more likely than the third. Let us suppose, however, that the hon. Gentleman is right. In the past few days, to put the matter beyond doubt, the main leaders of the coalition have sketched how Iraq would act.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any person who is uncertain about the imperative need for military action in Kuwait should re-read the Amnesty International report, which makes it clear that the Iraqi Government have been using torture and murder as weapons of state? Will he encourage journalists to re-read that document and give it further publicity?
Mr. Hurd: Indeed. That document is now some weeks old. However, journalists should also go to Taif or the eastern province and listen to Kuwaitis whose cousins and nephews have been shot in the past few weeks for no crime but simply as part of the business of destroying Kuwait and torturing its people. There are plenty of anecdotes that can be checked and proved. Such an element is missing from much of the reporting.
Mr. David Winnick: If we should all be concerned about innocent people being killed in bombing raids on Iraq, as I am, should we not be concerned about the continuing atrocities that have been carried out in Kuwait—deliberately, not by mistake—by the occupying forces since 2 August? Despite the rhetoric from Baghdad, is it not clear that either Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait with no ifs, buts or conditions of any kind, or the allies will get him out? The choice is entirely up to him, and I imagine that there is little time left for him to make that choice.
Mr. Hurd: As usual, on this subject, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people entirely support his
26
analysis of and conclusions about the message received last Friday? Does it reveal any split in the Iraqi Government in terms of their attitude towards the war?
Mr. Hurd: There has been speculation, it is tempting speculation, but I am afraid that we have no evidence to sustain it.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on today's statement from the BBC monitoring unit at Caversham that it misinterpreted its first translation of the statement, but today it has made it clear that there is no linkage to conditions? For the first time, Saddam Hussein has recognised the existence of Kuwait and talked about withdrawal. Would it not have been better to seize upon his comment, build on it and widen it rather than to continue the slaughter?
Mr. Hurd: I have tried to help the hon. Gentleman. I prefer to rely on the translation that the Iraqis have given me. It proves two points beyond doubt: first, that the Iraqis do not accept resolution 660—they talk simply about their readiness to "deal" with it—and, secondly, that a pledge by Iraq about withdrawal "will be linked". That is the Iraqi translation into English of their statement. It puts the point beyond doubt.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that, when it comes to repatriation of Iraqi prisoners of war, Iraqi deserters will not be rendered up to Saddam Hussein or to the Baath party?
Mr. Hurd: Yes. When the time comes, that will be one of the necessary complications of the matter.
Miss Kate Hoey: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Pentagon believes that the Al-Rashid hotel in Bagdad has a military bunker? Is he further aware that that is where the journalists who are covering the war in Iraq, in difficult circumstances, are living? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that the Al-Rashid hotel will not be bombed?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the House would expect me to pronounce on that matter. It is clear, and was clear for a long time before the fighting began, that Saddam Hussein has no compunction about placing innocent people in positions of great danger.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that a constituent of mine is so incensed by the BBC coverage of propaganda from Iraq that he has described the BBC as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. Will my right hon. Friend issue further guidance on this aspect?
Mr. Hurd: The BBC is well aware of the reactions to its reporting. We have drawn the BBC's attention to the point that I specifically mentioned. We have also drawn its attention to the point made forcefully to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Germany by service families about the amount of operational reporting. We thought it right to make those two points to the BBC.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is it not a fact that all Saddam Hussein's diplomatic objectives over the past month have resulted in failure? He has tried to involve Israel in the war by launching Scud missiles attacks on Tel

27
Aviv and Haifa. He has tried to detach the forces of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria from the coalition. He has tried to involve Iran by sending his MiGs over its soil. Now he has tried to detach the Soviet Union from supporting the United Nations resolutions. He has failed in all four.
Is it not a fact that, since the beginning, the Soviet Union has been firm in its support of the United Nations and its resolutions? If the Soviet Union now uses its influence on its erstwhile friend and ally, Iraq, so that it complies fully with resolution 660, is that not the best for which we can hope in this situation?
Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. One of the things that slightly irritates me about several of the commentaries that we must read or listen to is their portrayal of Saddam Hussein as a subtle and clever operator who is constantly outwitting us. As the hon. Gentleman said, he has tried just about every means available to him to divide the coalition, but has failed. I am constantly being told that the coalition is about to split up or dissolve, but it has not done so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I do not think that it will.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members are receiving letters expressing revulsion for the broadcasts from Baghdad which cannot be ignored? There is a war on, appalling atrocities have been committed, and, while we are awaiting Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait, is not it possible for the media to give some expression to the relatives of the Kuwaitis who have suffered torture and execution and appalling damage to their property by the occupiers?
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That point has come through strongly in the House today, in letters from our constituents and in our comments.
Mr. David Trimble: Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I get the impression that within the Soviet system this weekend there was a certain amount of backsliding on this issue, as on other issues. Will the Foreign Secretary make it absolutely clear that any Soviet initiative that might be forthcoming will be regarded solely in terms of whether it fulfils the United Nations resolutions and that no question of giving help to Mr. Gorbachev to achieve diplomatic success will enter the picture? Given the difficulty that Mr. Gorbachev seems to have had in recent months controlling his military and security forces, I should like to be assured that measures will be taken to ensure that there is no surreptitious aid from the Soviet military to Iraq.
Mr. Hurd: Those are all fair points. At the Security Council, the Soviet Union has been among the most active in bringing about these resolutions, including the last one, and in insisting that they be fulfilled. Clearly President Gorbachev wishes to be active and agile in trying to find ways to peace. He and his representatives at the United Nations have, set the test, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must apply it.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: What exactly does my right hon. Friend think that Mr. Gorbachev is up to with Mr. Tariq Aziz in Moscow? In this age of glasnost, does not it seem a little strange that the Soviet Union has
28
not sent London or Washington any details of the peace plan that Mr. Aziz is supposed to be taking back to Baghdad? In the absence of those details, is my right hon. Friend confident that they do not involve any backsliding on the United Nations resolutions?
Mr. Hurd: President Gorbachev wishes to keep the door open for Soviet diplomacy to produce a breakthrough—he certainly has that intention—and is trying all the time to find a way of doing that. The test that my hon. Friend would like to apply is the test that the Soviet Union has set. That is why I am reasonably confident that any proposals that it produces will fall within the Security Council resolutions that it helped to put forward.
Mr. William Powell: Although it is encouraging to note that Iraq, a member state of the United Nations, has at last noticed the existence of Security Council resolution 660, which was passed on 2 August, does my right hon. Friend accept that events have moved on and that there have been 11 further United Nations resolutions, the most important of which is not 660 but 678, which lays down the objectives of the withdrawal from Kuwait of the occupying force, the re-establishment of legitimate government and the restoration of peace and stability to the area?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Secretary Council resolutions have, as it were, built on each other. Resolution 660, which we are still waiting to be accepted, mentioned immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Is not the reality of the situation that we cannot be deflected by nonsensical and absurd peace proposals and statements from Baghdad but must adhere to the UN resolutions, that we must get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and that there can be no linkage? There have been 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 sorties, yet the number of innocent people killed has been minimal. We should compliment the Royal Air Force on its performance.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right in everything he said. I do not suppose that there has been any campaign in modern warfare which has been so deliberately and successfully targeted on the objectives, which are those of the United Nations.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is no difference between us in our determination that Iraq should withdraw from Kuwait? The difference is about whether that can be achieved without the casualties that would result from a ground war. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the word "conditions" does not occur either in the Arabic or in the English text of his translation? Would not it be a disaster if troops were committed to a ground battle because of a failure to communicate and a mistranslation?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that there is any question of a mistranslation. If someone proposes to the hon. Gentleman transaction A and says that it is linked with transaction B, that is a condition.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Does my right hon. Friend accept that if Saddam Hussein did not think that allowing BBC, ITN and CNN

29
reporters to stay in Baghdad was a good idea, he would have them out tomorrow? Is it not time that the Government and all Governments of the free world told those so-called news reporters that they should get out instead of being part of Baghdad's propaganda service?
Mr. Hurd: I should not go as far as that, but it is crucial that no one listening to or reading reports from Baghdad should suppose that they are listening to or reading the reports of unfettered journalists. They are not. I believe that it is essential that all those concerned take not just the occasional opportunity but every opportunity to make that clear.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the American people receive far more factual Gulf information than we do from the BBC and ITN? Some of the hysteria on the Conservative Benches is now also occurring in Congress where they are calling for the banning of CNN and NBC reporting. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no further pressure on the BBC, as reported in the Daily Mail today, to curtail the provision of factual information to the British people so that they can judge for themselves what is being done in their name?
Mr. Hurd: I think that I have already answered that point. We are winning the argument in this country and throughout the coalition. We have no reason to be frightened of the argument or all the bits and pieces that go into the argument. The people who should be recoiling from the discussion are those who are losing. Those of us who argue in favour of collective security and the operation and against falling into the deceptions practised out of Baghdad are carrying opinion with us. It is because there is an open debate which we are winning that I have confidence in what we are saying.
Mr. Robert Adley: When my right hon. Friend mentioned a moment ago what people hear and read, he omitted—I am sure inadvertently—to mention what they see. I do not share the demand for general censorship, but does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to deal with the problem on television would be to invite the broadcasting authorities, whenever they have reports from their reporters in Baghdad, to put the word "censored" in the top left-hand corner of the box so that everyone who is watching will be reminded that they are seeing censored material? That would not prevent the material from being shown, but people would constantly have that reminder before them.
I stayed in room 1311 at the A1-Rashid hotel. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) that the proposition that merely walking into the basement of the hotel enables one to know whether it is a command bunker is ludicrous? If it is, it is unlikely that the Iraqi military using it would walk through the lobby in uniform.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend was on the right path in the first part of his question. It is not for me or for us to prescribe exactly how the points should be made. Any information from Baghdad should be labelled for what it is, not just occasionally but at all times. I had better not start analysing the bedrooms or other rooms of the Al-Rashid hotel.
Mr. Harry Cohen: If the Iraqi forces were to commence withdrawal, would they be bombed? Does the Foreign Secretary accept United Nations resolutions 660, which states that those forces could go to the positions that they occupied on 1 August 1990? If so, was not the response of President Bush peculiarly ill judged when he said that the only choice was war and annihilation or the assassination of Saddam Hussein? Does not that show that the war aims go far beyond the liberation of Kuwait and beyond implementing United Nations resolutions?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely distorting what President Bush said, and I heard what President Bush said as well as the hon. Gentleman. President Bush did not say that at all. The Iraqi troops need to withdraw. That is what the United Nations requires. Therefore, a simple assurance to withdraw is not sufficient. We need what I have described as decisive and irreversible proof that that is happening. We are not in that position yet.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents at least regard with considerable admiration the way in which he is conducting his part in this great effort? Does he accept that, with all his skills, it may be very difficult for someone as decent as him or for people as decent as his colleagues in the coalition to understand fully the mind of a paranoid despot like Saddam Hussein? Can he assure us, therefore, that the mechanisms by which Saddam Hussein can be assured that if he withdraws he will not be bombed are foolproof, even against a man as paranoid as Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hurd: Exactly. My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why it would have been a mistake for me to be too specific in answering an earlier question. We have to make quite sure that withdrawal is withdrawal and not a pretext for regrouping.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that his statement is three days late? It should have been made on Friday because the decision to withdraw in accordance with United Nations resolution 660 was made at 11.30 am and a statement was made suggesting that the Foreign Secretary would make a statement to the House. One is driven to the conclusion that he did not make a statement because he was waiting for President Bush to declare on the issue. Is it not a scandal that the Government are having to kowtow to the Americans before they open their mouth? The moment that President Bush said that it was a cruel hoax, the Prime Minister of Britain said that it was a sham—following in Bush's footsteps from beginning to end. The slaughter is continuing and the Americans are running the war. The United Nations has been left far behind without any consideration.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear what was said, but I hope that no unparliamentary expressions were uttered from below the Gangway.
Mr. Hurd: There are two reasons why I did not make a statement on Friday. First, I was meeting farmers in my constituency—which is an entirely respectable occupation—and, secondly, if I had made a statement on Friday morning, I would have done so on the basis of very

31
incomplete and imperfect reports. That would have been a foolish thing to do. We now have the evidence, and the House can make a judgment.
Mr. Den Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the completely unacceptable remarks from Iraq on Friday, the allied forces have no intention of winning the war and then losing the peace?
Mr. Hurd: That is entirely right. My hon. Friend makes the point well.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that he made a serious mistake on Friday by not recognising the statement by Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council as a major step forward? The least that he could have done was to order a halt to the weekend bombing raids which have resulted in even more civilian casualties. He could have shown his true concern for peace in the region by flying to Moscow to meet Tariq Aziz to see whether there was a basis for a political settlement. Did he not do that simply because the war aims have changed to the invasion of Iraq and its total annihilation, as indicated by President Bush at the weekend?
Mr. Hurd: Either the hon. Gentleman lives in a wholly unreal world or he does not want us to reverse the aggression. If any of us had done what the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would have enabled the Iraqis to benefit from a pause in the bombing, and they would have been able to recover and re-equip. How many extra casualties on our side does the hon. Gentleman contemplate we should risk while pursuing this will-o-the-wisp?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the vast majority of civilian casualties have been caused by the Iraqis, it is nevertheless impossible for us to tackle a war machine the size of the Iraqi army without the risk of some civilian casualties? At this very moment our pilots are taking risks with their lives in order to minimise casualties. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that those in the media who harp on such casualties invite Saddam Hussein to put more civilians into military installations?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right on his first point and puts it very well. My reply to his second point is that in pursuit of his wicked objectives Saddam Hussein seems to need no encouragement from anybody to put his own civilians and prisoners of war and others in danger.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State confirm the disturbing report at the weekend that the Americans have used the fuel-air explosive weapon in bombing raids on Kuwait? Does he know that, according to reports, such a weapon had been in the possession of Saddam Hussein and that it had been sold to him by Industrias Cardoen of Chile? If this terrible weapon is used, is not there a danger that the war will escalate and that Saddam Hussein will be tempted to use weapons that have hitherto not been used in battle? Was the dropping of the fuel-air explosive weapon carried out in collaboration with other members of the coalition?
Mr. Hurd: I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. I have no information.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In the event of Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait and returning prisoners of war, is it the position of the allies that the alleged link conditions and others will be discussed without commitment at some international gathering? Does the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate to pay some small tribute to the Government of Iran for their constructive role? They have played that role even though Iran itself was invaded in almost exactly the same bloodthirsty way by Iraq and received precious little help and sympathy from anyone.
Mr. Hurd: The Government of Iran have announced and, as far as I can see, have held to their declaration of neutrality. They are trying, like the Soviet Union, to produce a peaceful solution, but it has been clear that Iraq must unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait. Iran has been anxious to ensure that Kuwait does not of its own volition make any territorial concessions to Iraq.
My reply to my hon. Friend's first point is that we have always said that certain matters in the Iraqi list will have to be considered. Arab-Israel is, of course, the outstanding one, but there are others. Iraq appears to be making claims against Kuwait, but when United Nations resolution 660 is implemented the Kuwaitis for sure will have massive claims to make against Iraq for the terrorising of their country. Of course there are matters which will have to be discussed when the war is over, but that is quite different from the specific linking in the Iraqi document.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Foreign Secretary a question of straightforward fact? Before the American President and the British Prime Minister dismissed the Iraqi proposals, did they consult either the Security Council or the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Are the young men that we on the Green Benches are sending to be maimed or possibly to die part of a United Nations force, or part of a British and American force? Well, was the United Nations consulted before the British Prime Minister and the American President dismissed the Iraqi proposals? The answer is surely, "Yes, it was" or "No, it was not."
Mr. Hurd: No, it was not consulted because we are operating under United Nations Security Council resolution 678, which authorises member states——
Mr. Dalyell: The United Nations was not consulted.
Mr. Hurd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the reply. Resolution 678 authorises member states to take whatever means are necessary to implement the resolution. That is perfectly straightforward. Nobody in New York—neither the Secretary-General nor anybody else—expects the allies, who comprise not only Britain and America, but more than 30 nations, to operate in any other way. The Security Council is now debating the matter. As I said in my statement, most of those who spoke in the debate after the Iraqi announcement reacted in the same way as we have.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Inasmuch as a mention by Iraq for the first time of withdrawal, albeit hedged about with many unacceptable conditions, was the direct consequence of the allied naval blockade, air operations and the tightening of the allied army's noose around the Iraqi armed forces within Kuwait, is it not the case that rather than being seduced by a will-o-the-wisp of

33
diplomacy, Her Majesty's Government, along with the allies, should intensify operations until they reach a successful conclusion?
Mr. Hurd: We have no intention of being deflected from operations unless or until it becomes perfectly clear that the intentions, wishes and requirements of the United Nations are being met—not simply by an assurance that they will be met, but by decisive proof that they are being met.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the BBC has itself said that its correspondents are not approved to go where they want in Iraq when they want and that they cannot enter Kuwait, would it not be a good idea if my right hon. Friend could arrange for the dissenters in this House to go to Baghdad to explain the policy of the official Opposition, the policy of the House and the policy of the United Nations and every member of the Security Council, which is that Iraq must get out of Kuwait unconditionally? To hear that explained to the Iraqis by people such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would be a good propaganda coup which the BBC and others would be free to report.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has lodged that idea; it is for others to take it up.
Mr. Benn: As I have been referred to, may I say that I went to Saddam Hussein and said that, but when I returned the BBC did not even interview me to find out what I had discovered.

Points of Order
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the rights of this House, and I seek your guidance.
This morning two outrages were perpetrated in the capital, one at Paddington station and the other at Victoria. Hon. Members will be desirous of tabling a private notice question, conscious of the fact that those terrorist attacks took place in the constituencies of other hon. Members. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it might have been more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to have come to the House to explain how Her Majesty's Government intend to defeat terrorism instead of giving statements outside this place to the press and to others?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten)rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order was made to me. Although I do not wish this to develop into a statement, I shall call the Minister of State, Home Office to respond.
Mr. Patten: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about this issue, but the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after consultation through the usual channels, was, first, that to deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity, which would be brought about by ventilating these issues in this place when they are ventilated quite enough in the outside world by the media, was a considerable step that this House could take. Secondly, statements are not made in this House on every occasion when there is a murderous outrage in Northern Ireland. It was for those two reasons that my right hon. Friend took his decision. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood appreciates those reasons.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was referred to in personal terms, may I explain something? I have fired a gun at a tank and I fear for thousands of young men who might lose their lives. Therefore, I think that people should go in any official capacity to talk about this before endless youngsters are sent to be maimed or——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that point of order because the House accepts that he holds his view strongly, and he has every right so to do. I hope that, for that reason, no unparliamentary expressions were directed to him.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I fully understand and appreciate the points made by the Minister of State, Home Office and agree that the matter could be dealt with in that way, I feel that we might be more reassured if the Minister would say to us that, at some time, the House will debate the safety of the public in transport systems, both under ground and over ground.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister of State Home Office will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us and I understand——
Mrs. Gorman rose——
Mr. Corbyn rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please sit down; I am on my feet. We have a heavy day ahead of us and we should try to finish the business before 7 o'clock, when we shall have to move on to the opposed private business. I shall hear the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), but I hope that she will be brief.
Mrs. Gorman: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Could the Minister, while he is here, say how, if we are not to discuss the matter of the terrorist outrages perpetrated this morning, he intends to deal with the point raised by my constituents that, by——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have that. The hon. Lady is making a point with which I cannot deal because it is not a point of order for me. I am sure that her best course would be to see the Minister and get his explanation.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from the exchanges on the statement that we have just heard that Tariq Aziz is returning to Baghdad with proposals from President Gorbachev. May we have an undertaking from the Government that they will make a further statement on the possibility of obtaining a
36
ceasefire on the basis of the response to President Gorbachev's initiative for peace, which appears to have been ignored by both the British and American Governments?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that point will have been heard by the Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&c.
That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 41) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Amendment Regulationse 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 51) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&c.
That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2564) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the Matter of Rural Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for is consideration.—[Mr. Patnick]

Point of Order
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard two different statements concerning the media. First, you heard Members deploring what was being said by the BBC and the ITV in Baghdad and Ministers defending the right of the two companies to make such reports. Then we heard that the House should not be allowed to debate the two calamities at Paddington and Victoria. There seem to me to be two interpretations of Standing Orders. Some people believe that it is wrong for the media to be reporting in Baghdad, but that when bombs are set off in London the media should be allowed to report extensively what has happened in Victoria and Paddington, although Parliament has no rights in the matter. Is that a new Standing Order?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with Standing Orders. It is a decision by the Government.

Orders of the Day

  Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4 34pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that children and adults benefit from secure and stable relationships. Sadly, however, we must all recognise that some marriages and other relationships with children break up. As a result, both parties involved suffer emotionally. They certainly suffer financially. When the Bill has received parliamentary scrutiny—I hope that it will receive some all-party agreement as well—and been enacted, it will have an effect on many men, women and children. If it is enacted—it is my hope, of course, that it will be—some people will be affected extremely beneficially.
  The purpose behind the Bill is to concentrate on ensuring that those whom the courts have directed to pay maintenance do so, and do so regularly. Maintenance payments should be made to those who the courts have decided should receive that maintenance. Essentially, that is what the Bill is about.
  Children are often found to reside in the middle of matrimonial disputes and disputes where children are involved as a result of relationships where there were no marriages. I think that we all agree that children are almost always innocent and often the injured parties in such break-ups. As each Session passes, more and more is being done by the House to protect children. For example, the Children Act 1989 received much all-party assent, and it is soon to come into force. It has already done an enormous amount to forward the cause of children.
  Secondly, there is the Criminal Justice Bill, important clauses of which concern the proper protection of child victims in court following the report of Judge Pigot. Again, that Bill will greatly help the cause of children. It will come before us for its first day of consideration on Report on Wednesday. The provisions to which I have referred have been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know in particular that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has a long-standing interest in these matters, which we all respect.
  Thirdly, there is the critically important Child Support Bill, which has come from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and was introduced in another place on Thursday of last week.
  All in all, the three measures, plus the short but important Bill before us, represent an integrated package to try to help and better the position of children who are so often caught in so many different ways and who are almost always entirely innocent parties.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: I give way to my hon. Friend with great pleasure.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As someone who practised in the divorce courts, it seems to me that in divorce courts the agony that is experienced by children lies in the prolongation of the arguments that turn on them. They are treated almost like dogs quarrelling over a bone when they are caught up in the middle of a dispute. That is a tragedy.
  The position of children when disputes take place will be improved by the Bills that are before this place and another place. If the Maintenance Enforcement Bill is enacted, women will know that moneys will be coming to them. That will enable them to build a life for themselves without having to apply for social security and without having moneys docked. It is clear that the Bill is extremely important for women.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has considerable interest in these matters. I am sure that she knows more about civil law and divorce law than someone such as myself, who is neither a barrister nor a solicitor. My hon. Friend is right, if I may say so, when she holds that it is delay in settlement that so often harms children. They are harmed also when they are caught within what seem to be never-ending wrangles about whether the absent partner—it is usually the man, but sometimes it is the woman—should pay, should pay so much and should pay on certain dates. That harm often continues until the issues are sorted out by the courts.
  It would be a mistake to regard the Bill—I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) would not do this—as purely about financial provision. That might, however, be the view of some outside this place. The Bill's provisions will, of course, have an effect on the regularity of financial provision, but ensuring that that provision is adequate and that it is paid regularly will have a material and beneficial effect on children as they go through the appalling traumas that sometimes face them during marital break-down or the break-down of a relationship. That is why we have tried to assist those who have to struggle on by themselves economically after fragmentation of a family bond. That is why we have created a maintenance system to try to help families. I have in mind the work that has been done by the Department of Social Security, including that carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is in his place on the Government Front Bench. Like any system, however, the maintenance system can always be improved.
  As I have just said, the Child Support Bill, whose purpose is to help deal with exactly this issue, has just been introduced in another place. That Bill, when it is enacted, will radically alter the system of child maintenance. This Bill does not make such radical changes. Its purpose is rather more simple: to improve maintenance collection and enforcement in England and Wales—in particular, by giving new powers to the courts to help to ensure that payments are made regularly. We all know that regularity of payment is often just as important as the size of the award. Maintenance is no good to its intended recipient unless it is received—and received regularly, so that people may plan properly for themselves and their children. That is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) agrees that it is an important issue.
  40
  This Bill is being given a Second Reading at a time when another and much larger piece of legislation, in the shape of the Child Support Bill, is waiting in the parliamentary wings—if one may refer to another place as the wings. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall allude briefly to the Child Support Bill. As those hon. Members who have studied the White Paper "Children Come First" know, the purpose of that Bill is to make changes to only one area of maintenance—child maintenance. The Child Support Bill will affect the whole area of child maintenance. That is its importance to children. It will deal with assessment, collection and the very important matter of enforcement. On the other hand, the very much smaller Bill that we are considering today is limited to collection and enforcement improvements. However, it will affect all maintenance orders—spousal as well as child maintenance.
  Further—subject to parliamentary approval—the child support agency, which will be set up to administer the legislation, will come into full effect only in April 1996. The provisions of the legislation are expected to be relevant as interim measures until the function of child maintenance collection is completely absorbed by the child support agency. But the Bill will continue to be vital in respect of maintenance orders relating to spouses but not children. It will continue to be of fundamental importance. I can imagine no circumstances arising in the next few decades in which we might want to change it in respect of the collection of maintenance for spouses.
  I am sure that, like me, all other hon. Members understand the emotional difficulties and distress that arise when relationships break down. However, though one might try to understand people who run away from their responsibilities, one has to recognise it as a simple fact that far too many people who are obliged to pay maintenance fail to do so. They evade payment in a cold and calculating way, and for as long as possible. They play the maintenance avoidance game with considerable cleverness and exceptional aptitude. It is true that sometimes things go wrong, and the absent spouse finds it impossible to pay as much as he or she would like. I realise that there are some absent spouses who would like to make greater contributions but are unable to do so. On the other hand, there are those who—to use the jargon of government—take a policy decision to go as far as they can and to pay as little as possible towards the upkeep of their children. I find that very difficult indeed to understand. It is those people—not the ones who need help—that this Bill is intended to deal with, in the interests of spouses as well as of children.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I totally agree with the principle that the Minister has just stated. I should like, however, to draw attention to a practical problem. Take the case of a man who remarries and has children by his second wife. Often such a man is under terrific pressure from the second wife and the children of the second marriage because of the maintenance order in respect of the first marriage. The wife and children of the second marriage may actually be living in poverty. I accept what the Minister has said about the need for a sense of responsibility, but I should like to know how he views this practical problem.
  Mr. Patten: That emotional pressure can be very great indeed. I hope that it will be possible, during the debate on

  41
  the Child Support Bill, to examine such issues in rather greater detail. I realise that there may be great emotional pressures, but surely anyone who has taken on the responsibility of children should use all his endeavours to ensure that his responsibilities are met. Great acrimony can arise from responsibilities to a second wife or husband, but the children, who are in the middle, should not have to suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware not just of the economic deprivation but of the emotional turmoil sometimes caused by marital breakdown.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Under this Bill, if I understand it correctly, the first charge on the absent parent's income—after tax and national insurance—will be his or her own living standards, followed by the second family, in preference to the first. Can my right hon. Friend clarify the situation?
  Mr. Patten: That matter will undoubtedly be discussed in Committee. In addition, my hon. Friend may want to refer to it during our consideration of the Child Support Bill—the much bigger piece of legislation that was introduced in another place last Thursday.
  I shall give a few figures with a view to putting some flesh on the bones of the economic and social problems facing those who fail to receive the maintenance that the courts have decided they should have. In 1989—I apologise to the House for the fact that the 1990 figures were not available—there were more than 80,000 enforcement actions in magistrates courts. Generally a woman—occasionally a man; sometimes a guardian or parent—has to go to court to secure enforcement of a maintenance order. In 1989, many such proceedings were abortive. All too frequently debtors pay their arrears at the last moment because of the threat of the court hanging over them. What happens in the intervening period? Children, mothers and fathers are put under considerable pressure, and the time and money of courts are wasted. That must stop.
  In the rather bureaucratic language "This causes a great waste of court resources" lurk many of the delay problems that one encounters in the magistrates courts. It is entirely wrong that people should play the maintenance system and delay payments. It causes many problems for the courts. The Bill specifically targets those people who attempt to exploit the loopholes in the current system, or who are too disorganised or lazy, or simply too bad, to make regular support payments. Any reasonable means that can be found to foil maintenance default deserves the support of the House.
  I shall give one example from the 80,000 cases that went to magistrates courts in 1989. That figure does not necessarily mean 80,000 individual people, because on some occasions people had to go to court more than once in the calendar year. The worst example that I found—it is not much worse than some—was in Somerset magistrates court. In 1990 that court had to take no fewer than 11 separate enforcement actions against one debtor. Such examples are repeated throughout England and Wales.
  I hope that when I describe the Bill's main clauses hon. Members will realise that, although the kernel of this legislative nut is pretty uncomplicated and straightforward, the measure is necessarily wrapped up in some complexity. The Bill may seem somewhat long and complicated for its purpose. That is simply because the law
  42
  on maintenance is contained in a sizeable number of statutes. Some hon. Members may say that maintenance enforcement and maintenance in general are ripe for consolidation. That may well turn out to be true in the fullness of time. On studying the Bill, my hon. Friends will probably find that there is a great deal of repetition. That is because the law on maintenance is not consolidated. That is a matter to which in the fullness of time we shall undoubtedly need to turn our attention.
  Although the Bill deals mainly with magistrates courts' powers—much of the collection and enforcement of maintenance is done by those courts—the Bill gives similar powers to the county courts and the High Court. That continues the aims and ideas behind the widely welcomed Children Act 1989, which created a concurrent jurisdiction between the three types of court. Again, we are putting children first.
  Clauses 1 and 2 contain the principal provisions of the Bill. They give powers to the High Court, the county courts or magistrates courts to specify the method of payment when making or dealing with a maintenance order. Those powers include entirely new powers to order that maintenance payments should be made by standing order direct to the creditor, or by an attachment of earnings order.
  The first method—payment by standing order—will be particularly useful where a debtor is self-employed. On the face of it, the self-employed debtor is a difficult case because he or she cannot be the subject of an attachment of earnings order, especially if he or she is simply too lazy or too disorganised to make regular payments. Once the order has commenced, maintenance payments will become as regular as any of the other payments made by such debtors by that method. It would require a positive action to cancel the standing order.
  Some hon. Members may be worried that the power to require a debtor to open a bank account in order that payments can be made by standing order is somewhat draconian. I do not believe that it is and perhaps I should give a word of explanation about the thinking behind it. It is not as draconian as it might first appear. The provision is vital if we are to prevent some debtors from continuing so successfully to play the system simply by dictating the method by which they will pay, or rather not pay. Unless that power is available, a large number of the people who may be involved in maintenance order actions—those who are self-employed—would effectively be able to escape any maintenance order enforcement.
  My hon. Friends will probably notice that under the Bill no court is obliged to order that payments be made by standing order. There is no obligation. All the methods of payment given in the Bill are equally available. The Bill makes distinct provision for the parties and any person who may be the recipient of the maintenance, such as a grandmother or grandfather who is looking after the children, to tell the courts what method they prefer. There are four methods of payment—direct payment to the spouse, payment to the courts, payment by standing order and payment by attachment of earnings.
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the possibility of using direct debits? It may be possible at some stage to consider some type of indexation of maintenance payments. Direct debits have been left out. Is it possible that they will be put in?
  Mr. Patten: The direct debit is an appalling thought on the face of it. It is not quite the same as a standing order, because either side has the power to vary the direct debit mandate. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which we may have the chance to examine in Committee. Unless my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) is careful, he may find himself on that Committee. I do not say that in a threatening way. I shall think about his constructive suggestion, for which I am extremely grateful.
  Most importantly, if the debtor can show to the court that there is a reason why he or she cannot open an account—for example, because every bank in the area in which he or she lives has refused to allow him or her to do so it will be impossible for the method suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton to be used, whether by standing order or direct debit. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the power to which I refer does not interfere in any way with the banks' ability to run their business in the way in which they think best. If a debtor is ordered to open a bank account, the order will be against him, not a particular bank, to open an account on his or her behalf. In other words, the order will not specify where the account should be opened.
  Mr. Randall: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), clause 1(5)(b) suggests that payment can be made by standing order or any other form of payment. I am sure that that must include direct debits and other forms of crediting an account. In law those methods are the same to all intents and purposes, apart from direct debits, the mandate for which can be varied, as has been said.
  Mr. Patten: There are technical difficulties about using direct debits because the debtor can vary the payment at any time without cancelling the order. That is a point to which we may return in detail during the undoubtedly long hours of the Standing Committee sittings.
  Where a debtor is in employment, payment by attachment of earnings may be much the more effective method. At present that can be done only when the maintenance order is offered and the debtor consents, under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. I am advised that in only about 10 per cent. of cases in 1989 did people consent to having an attachment of earnings order made. That is a very small number.
  I realise that some hon. Members are worried that the Bill will increase the number of attachment of earnings orders in existence and, consequently, the administrative burden that employers have to bear. I do not want to add to the burden on either large or small employers. I understand that fear. I have considered the matter carefully since the debates in another place.
  We are urgently considering increasing the administrative charge that employers can deduct when complying with an order. It would be manifestly unfair if the level of charge that employers could apply were kept at perhaps its current level, which is less than the economic cost of making those orders. Consultation is proceeding. Lord Ferrers gave an assurance in another place on the matter. We are consulting the Confederation of British Industry and, I dare say, others on the issue. I hope that during the passage of the Bill through the House I shall be in a position to make an announcement about helping industry and business in that way.
  44
  What was said in another place bears repetition. We cannot depend on a debtor's consent to use such an effective method of maintenance collection, as fewer than one in 10 debtors have been prepared to give that consent. Last year consent was given in only 7,000 cases.
  Clause 3 of the Bill has two parts. The first simplifies the procedure by which a creditor gives authority to a justices' clerk to take enforcement action on his behalf, when maintenance payments are made through a magistrates court. Under the present system specific authority must be given on each occasion that a default occurs. The Bill provides that a creditor can give a standing authority—like a standing order—to the court so that every time there is a default the necessary enforcement action can be taken. That will considerably help to smooth the processing of maintenance orders.
  The second part of clause 3 has teeth. It is clear that sometimes people have been told to pay by a certain method but do not do so. Therefore, there needs to be some sanction. The Bill will impose a sanction of a sum up to a maximum of £1,000—people will have the chance to make representations about it to the court—if a person fails to pay by the method specified by the magistrates court. If there is no element of sanction, people will simply cock a snook at the court, as they do in so many cases at present, and—what is worse—they will badly hurt their spouse, child or children.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend be clarifying the position of the 7,000 people who pay up? I imagine that there will be some among them who would prefer to pay directly to ensure that their privacy is respected. They might not necessarily want their employer to be involved. Does the Bill contain provision to enable such people to continue to maintain their privacy and to pay directly?
  Mr. Patten: As I said earlier, there are five ways to pay: by attachment of earnings order, standing order, any other suitable banking instrument, payment direct to the court and payment direct to the creditor. Therefore, after due debate between the two sides before the magistrates, or in the county court or the High Court, it will be possible for payment to be made in that way.
  Mr. Randall: Unless I misunderstood, I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was referring to privacy when people have to pay by an attachment of earnings order. The Bill would result in other employees having access to some personal details—for example, the fact that someone is divorced. I do not think that the Bill ensures that there would be greater privacy, although the orders will be used far more in the future.
  Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We are trying to deal with this problem and to prevent 80,000 cases coming before the magistrates courts each year—with the emotional and financial problems involved. If an attachment of earnings order is the chosen method, a certain amount of information has to be given by the court. Such attachments may also be imposed by other means.
  Clauses 4 to 7 give magistrates courts power to specify the method of payment when varying, reviving or enforcing a maintenance order. Clause 8 allows the justices' clerk power to amend payment when a person no longer claims income support or when he or she

  45
  subsequently reclaims benefit under section 24A of the Social Security Act 1986. That was a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
  Many maintenance orders come before magistrates courts for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement, either from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other countries. We have remarkably good reciprocal enforcement arrangements with a number of West African countries, with Czechoslovakia and with one or two central European countries, but we have remarkably bad arrangements with some of our western European partners. We are prepared to do the business on behalf of people whose spouses have fled to this country, but, alas, some of our western European partners are not prepared to help out in return.
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am pleased to learn about the reciprocal arrangements with a number of countries. Will my right hon. Friend give me some guidance on what could happen if a British court has made a decision on payments to a mother and child, the father goes to a country with which we have a reciprocal arrangement, but the mother does not know where he is in that country and cannot trace him? One of my constituents has a spouse in Australia. She cannot track down the home address of her former husband, so she cannot take him to court in Australia to have the British courts' maintenance agreement enforced.
  Mr. Patten: I am extremely sorry to hear of that case and I hope that my hon. Friend will write to me with details about his constituent—perhaps he has already done so—which would give me the chance to look into the matter. Normally, in a country like Australia it should be possible to track down someone from social security records or residence records of various sorts.
  For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I must explain how we do things in this country. A group of civil servants are seated, or lurking—however one wishes to describe it—in the Home Office and they make up the central authority. If someone comes to this country from France, for example, and does not pay his or her maintenance order to a spouse or children in France, a French court or the French Government can get in touch with the Home Office, and we do all we possibly can to track down the person, through whatever means are available to us, and to get an enforcement order specified by a British magistrates court on behalf of the French spouse and children. Our system and our record are second to none. However, we need to do more within Council of Europe countries to ensure that our western European partners do more to help people in Britain whose husbands or wives have gone into European jurisdiction. That is an element of the European debate with which many hon. Members are not familiar, but it is one of the many ramifications which face us. We generally have good relations with Australia and the United States.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Are the provisions for paying citizens who have gone to France as good as our provisions for French citizens? Is there reciprocity of treatment in this matter?
  Mr. Patten: I must not get dragged too far down that route; I was referring to international relations in an aside. Reciprocal arrangements do not work well with France and one or two other western European countries and do
  46
  not benefit people living in this country. However, I think that there has been no criticism of the way in which the British have looked after the interests of French citizens who have applied for orders here. We need to pursue that matter further within our bilateral treaty arrangements.
  Many maintenance orders come into magistrates courts for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement, either from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other countries. Therefore, clause 9, which gives effect to schedule 1, provides for magistrates courts to have similar powers in respect of those orders.
  The Bill is small, but it seeks to make sensible changes. I hope that they will be uncontroversial changes to the existing maintenance system and that they will improve the effectiveness of the courts in preventing maintenance default and, should default occur, to assist them to take enforcement action.
  I hope that hon. Members will recognise the benefits of the Bill for women and for men who are dependent on maintenance payments and, most of all, the benefits which will undoubtedly flow to children in this country and elsewhere. 1 commend the Bill to the House.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: The Bill aims to improve the procedures for the payment and enforcement of maintenance orders. The major change that I perceive to meet the aims is to allow the courts, when a maintenance order is made, to specify the method of payment. Accordingly, as the Minister of State pointed out, the Bill is narrow.
  In the 1980s, considerable debate took place on the whole question of family maintenance and, in particular, on whether spouses should continue to be entitled to the so-called meal ticket for life. The outcome was legislation which compelled the courts, after a divorce had taken place, to consider whether the spouse concerned should receive maintenance for a limited term to help her to adjust to the end of her financial dependence on her former husband. That was referred to as the clean break.
  This decade has started with a change in the debate, towards the children and the family and the notion that parents will indefinitely have an obligation to support their children, irrespective of the state of the relationship between the parents. Although there must be an obligation to children, some fathers remarry and have children in the second marriage. Often those fathers are under terrific pressure, to which I referred in my intervention, from the second wife who perhaps resents having to bring up children almost in poverty because of a maintenance order from her husband's previous marriage.
  Notwithstanding the practical issue, it is important to note—the Minister touched on this—that after family break-up the majority of men continue to support their children and their former wives in a reasonable fashion. However, there must be concern that, according to the Minister's figures, an estimated 80,000 enforcement proceedings are held within the court system. I assume that that is the figure per annum.
  Mr. John Patten: Yes.
  Mr. Randall: That means that some children are being deprived of the financial security to which they should be fully entitled. It should also be said that many fathers who fail to adhere to maintenance orders put their own

  47
  economic well-being before that of their children. That behaviour is unacceptable. Therefore, I support the idea of improving enforcement to ensure that lone parents and children receive regular incomes.
  Another important factor worth mentioning is that a staggering 80 per cent. or so of lone mothers need to claim income support, which means that many children are brought up in households with all the disadvantages of near poverty because their fathers fail to make the necessary provision for them.
  The Labour party supports the principle that the court, at the time a maintenance order is made, should be able simultaneously to make an attachment of earnings order so that maintenance costs can be deducted at source from the father's pay packet, with the help of his employer, with the money being passed subsequently to the mother. The main reason for supporting that in principle is that, unlike the existing procedure where action is taken only after default, the default itself can be prevented, which means that children can be protected from much trauma, despair and distress.
  While supporting that provision in principle, the Labour party believes that in practical terms the Bill has serious deficiencies which threaten the very children whom we all want to protect. I shall highlight some of the deficiencies later. Perhaps at this stage I should say that some of them could be dealt with by proposals in the Government's White Paper "Children Come First". The Minister referred to the Child Support Bill which will come to the House soon.
  The White Paper, which was supposed to form the basis of the Government's review of the family justice system, was announced by the Government at the time the House debated the Children Act 1989. That was some time ago but it was announced in the Queen's Speech that a Bill would be published in this Session of Parliament to legislate on the proposals in the White Paper. I understand that the legislation had its First Reading in another place a couple of days ago. I will say within these four walls, because no one else is listening, that I intended to slag the Minister for not doing anything on the matter, but I note the efficiency of his officials, whom we should not mention, which has ensured the First Reading in another place, and which we all welcome.
  Clause 1 of the Bill before us refers to the powers of the High Court and of county courts to issue maintenance orders. It also gives those courts powers to specify the method of payment that may be used by a debtor—usually the husband—to settle maintenance commitments. The key methods of payment may be standing order, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, direct debit—I cannot remember whether I saw that in the Bill or read about it in a briefing—or attachment of earnings, which means debiting the debtor's wages. The aim of using the powers is to ensure that maintenance is paid regularly. Hopefully the effect would be to reduce stress and worry for the wife and children.
  In addition, much court time could be saved by reducing the effort expended, for example, in issuing enforcement summonses, preparing notifications of arrears and arranging hearings. I ask one question: will the Bill in its present form achieve those desirable objectives? The Labour party doubts it. I refer the House to the
  48
  comments of the Law Society, which also has doubts. I shall paraphrase what the Law Society said in a briefing sent to hon. Members on 18 February. It had some doubt whether the Bill would significantly increase the payment of maintenance, particularly when the fundamental problem was that the payer either could not or would not pay.
  Although the county courts will have new powers to force a debtor to set up a bank account, that will not provide a complete solution. A determined debtor could refuse to pay any funds into his bank account, and a bank cannot deal with a standing order if the debtor does not put in any money in the first place. That is a serious flaw: debtors would still be able to evade their responsibilities. Moreover, when a debtor is a proven bad-debt risk, a bank or building society is extremely unlikely to be prepared to open an account for him in any event.
  The Bill also has significant implications for civil liberties. I cannot remember the precise word that the Minister used, but he said that there was a need for sanction——
  Mr. John Carlisle: May I return to the question of bad debts, and credit rating with building societies and banks? Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that courts should not continue to try to impose maintenance orders. If the courts are put off by bad credit rating, people may be encouraged to achieve such status, perhaps maliciously, knowing full well that they can then avoid liability for maintenance payments.
  Mr. Randall: The Opposition entirely support the principle of enforcing maintenance orders. I merely suggest that the proposal with which the Minister dealt at such length could be made to fail to work. If someone definitely does not want to pay, although he can be compelled to open a bank account, he need only fail to put funds into it. As the bank cannot then proceed with the transaction, the system is bound to fail.
  Mr. Burns: Could not the courts deal with a systematic defaulter by adopting another means of obtaining the money—for instance, attachment of earnings, withdrawal of social security payments or seizure of goods? Surely the courts must judge for themselves what is the best system to impose on each individual to ensure that mothers receive the funds that the courts have specified.
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right. Various mechanisms can be invoked: the Minister listed four. I merely suggest that someone who is intent on not making standing order payments will be able to get away with it. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) looks rather bemused, but surely the position is clear: the debtor goes to court, a maintenance order is made and, at the same time—this is the new element—the method of payment is determined. My point is simply that more court time will be wasted if a debtor is intent on wrecking the system; he may set up a bank account, but he need only fail to invest any money for the whole thing to fall flat. Meanwhile, his family may be forced to rely on income support.
  Mr. Burns: I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but I do not think that the position is as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Surely, in such circumstances, the courts will change the system under which money can be obtained. The hon. Gentleman says that disruption will

  49
  result, but we must bear in mind that great disruption, and grave injustice, exist under the present system. Surely a mother waiting for maintenance payments will be more reassured by the battery of arrangements in the Bill than by the existing system, under which, more often than not, she will end tip resorting to income support because of the methods employed by the courts.
  Mr. Randall: I believe that the enforcement weapons now available to the courts will result in more families receiving money through maintenance orders. Like the Law Society, however, I am less sanguine about the system than the hon. Gentleman, because it would be so easy to wreck the whole arrangement by withdrawing money from the bank and putting it into, for instance, a building society.
  Mr. John Patten: I entirely understand the practical point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) cited a way of dealing with it, but, if the hon. Gentleman remains unconvinced, has he any practical suggestions to help the Government and those who do not receive their maintenance payments?
  Mr. Randall: I could offer some suggestions. The most popular measures for the courts to impose would be attachment of earnings and standing orders—although there are some stopgap measures, which are used only infrequently. Such arrangements would, however, be difficult to impose on, for example, a self-employed person: he will have no money in his bank account to pay a standing order, and attachment of earnings will not work because he will not be on an employer's computerised payroll file. Many small businesses are going into liquidation, but such businesses still employ a large number of people who can slip through the net.
  Mr. Stevens: Although those who do not want to pay may still be able to cause trouble, under the present system the adamant—or awkward—can cause not only difficulties for families, but a good deal of delay. The Bill introduces some measures to improve, if not cure, the lot of many families.
  Mr. Randall: I accept that the Bill's aim is to deal with such problems expeditiously, and, as I have said, a number of families will probably be better off if the courts are enabled to enforce orders on debtors. At the beginning of his speech the Minister of State referred to 80,000 proceedings. To how many will that number be reduced? I suggest that it will not be reduced to 10, 20 or 30; it may be reduced to 20,000 or 30,000. Even so, that is a very large number. I am not sanguine that these measures will be invincible. I have received advice from varous organisations, in particular the Law Society which is a reputable organisation; its judgment is sound and it knows what is going on. It should, therefore, be recognised that there is doubt about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
  Mr. John Patten: I may be in a position to help the hon. Gentleman. He is concerned about the effect of the Bill if it passes into law. I guess that he wants it to pass into law, as amended in this House and by the other place. No one can say what the outcome will be. However, in 1979 about 7,000 attachment of earnings orders were made. They represented the outcome of 22 per cent. of all enforcement proceedings. In only about 10 per cent. of those did
  50
  individuals say that they would consent to an attachment of earnings order. Therefore, 90 per cent. did not consent. They will have to do so in future, so that a lot more men, and sometimes women, will have to pay up for their spouses and children—and quite right, too.
  Mr. Randall: I welcome those figures. It shows that such measures can work. However, I am not convinced that they will be as effective as both I and, I know, the Minister of State would like them to be. I am dubious, but I am sure that in Committee these drawbacks and concerns will be debated in detail. There will also be the opportunity to table amendments.
  There are civil liberties implications. For debating purposes, I intend to put my argument in fairly strong terms. We have a Conservative Government who, it could be argued, are interfering in the personal affairs of private individuals by forcing them, against their will, to open bank accounts and make certain payment transactions in a way that is specified by central Government. The Minister of State will say that we are dealing with defaulters whose actions are detrimental to the well-being of children and wives. I know that the Minister speaks on behalf of the Government, but does he have any personal reservations about the civil liberties implications? This country sometimes goes overboard when it comes to civil liberties, but I feel anxious about the implications here. What are the precedents in British legislation for forcing people to open bank accounts? I am not sure that there are any precedents. I hope that the Minister will deal in specific terms with that question.
  The arrangements associated with maintenance orders that are made in the High Court and county courts are made directly between the debtor, the husband, and the creditor, the wife. Therefore it is for the debtor and creditor to note which payments have been made and whether there has been default. If the maintenance order debtor is in default, an attachment of earnings order can also be used to enforce the order. The Minister referred to that point, which was also raised in interventions. Attachment of earnings orders are regarded as the best means of enforcement, though they have limitations. If a defaulter regularly changes his job, it can lead to difficulties in finding out who his new employer is and making all the new arrangements to deduct the cost of maintenance from his wages. An example was given of inability to trace somebody. I am making the same point. There is a cost to employers in making the deductions. I believe that employers are entitled to make a further deduction from the debtor's pay packet, amounting to 50p per transaction.
  The Minister referred to the Confederation of British Industry. I have received a parliamentary brief from the CBI. It is very short but useful, and I welcome it. It, too, has reservations about the future cost of making the deductions. On 14 February the CBI said in its brief, entitled "Maintenance Enforcement Through Attachment of Earnings—Second Reading, Parliamentary Brief", that
  "The use of attachment of earnings orders in cases of maintenance enforcement will impose substantial administrative costs (around £10 per deduction) on employers and place an unwelcome strain on industrial relations. The CBI values the undertaking given at the Lords Committee Stage that employers would be consulted on the implementation and administration of the legislation and welcomes the Department of Social Security's initiation since then of this consultation process.

  51
  The Minister referred to the consultation process. The brief continues:
  "The CBI looks forward to working with the Department to ensure that administrative procedures are simple, certain and, as far as possible, consistent with those for existing forms of attachment order."
  From that it is clear that the CBI thinks that the new administrative procedures for attachment of earnings orders may be much more complex than the existing arrangements, to the extent that the deduction may rise from 50p to £10. I should be grateful if the Minister of State would explain who is to pay for that. I had always thought that the 50p was paid by the person who was making the maintenance payments. May this figure be increased to £10 per deduction? I hope that the Minister will explain whether I am right or wrong. Furthermore, can he enlighten us about the ramifications of the levy charged by employers being increased to that level? Has he discussed it with his Department of Social Security colleagues? It is a serious issue.
  Since the number of attachment of earnings orders will probably increase if the Bill becomes an Act, does the Minister of State see any reason for the increase in the levy because of the volume of payments? I should not have thought that it would make too much difference, because payments are made per deduction. I should like to know whether volume has anything to do with it. The House should be aware of the CBI's useful statement on the issue.
  The Bill empowers courts to issue an attachment of earnings order at the same time as the maintenance order is made. The existing arrangement does not allow a court to make an attachment of earnings order, if requested by the wife or creditor, until arrears exist. Even then, at least 15 days must pass after the order is made. The Labour party welcomes the change, which will improve considerably the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of attachment of earnings orders. A major administrative benefit is that courts will no longer need to spend extra time dealing separately with maintenance orders and attachment of earnings orders. More importantly, serving maintenance orders and attachment of earnings orders simultaneously will deal with potential defaults before they occur. The Bill will enhance the position of wives and children and reduce the probability of putting them through the trauma and uncertainty of having no income.
  Nevertheless, we must keep matters in perspective. Attachment of earnings orders are not always as effective as they might appear at first glance. Although the attachment of earnings orders arrangements aim to reduce defaults, in Committee we shall have to consider loopholes—for example, moonlighting. A debtor could have two or even three jobs which, together, give him a susbstantial income. In court, he could simply declare the name of one employer. Naturally, he would give the name of the employer from whom he received the smallest income and hide the details of the others. The court would then not order his other employers to make a deduction from his wage packet and the family would lose out. I regret that the Government have made no proposals to combat moonlighting.
  In addition to the Bill's civil liberties implications, we must also consider the threat to personal privacy, which was mentioned in earlier interventions. Again, the
  52
  Government have made no provision to protect people against such abuse. The attachment of earnings order provision means that a debtor's personal details—about marriage, maintenance or other matters—will be seen by certain employees in the company where the debtor works. The Bill does not appear to prevent that personal information from being indiscreetly used by certain company employees. For example, a person's promotion prospects could be impaired by the fact that it will be known throughout the company that that person has a broken marriage. In some jobs that may be important. I hope that, in Committee, the Labour party or the Government will table amendments to the Bill to ensure that the privacy of the individual is protected at all times.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about privacy extend to the right afforded to a mother not to reveal the name of her child's father? In certain cases, the father of the child may not be the marriage partner.
  Mr. Randall: I was about to come to that issue, but perhaps we can deal with it now. As politicians, we must deal with such questions and weigh up the arguments between civil liberties and privacy. The private details of a person's lifestyle, such as marriage, should not be carelessly disseminated throughout a company or used in telephone calls or references. I deplore such unnecessary and careless abuse of privacy. However, a woman who has a child and does not want to disclose the name of the father—perhaps she does not know it or has personal reasons for not wishing to disclose it—should not be penalised. For example, the father may be her grandfather, or she may have some other complicated reason for not disclosing the name. I should want to weigh up the arguments carefully before deciding. A court would need to be convinced that a woman had good reasons for not disclosing that information, but the woman should not be denied an income because she is not prepared to disclose it. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) asked a difficult and sensitive question. We have no rigid rules on the issue, but we must be careful and sensitive in dealing with it.
  Mrs. Gorman: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have taken much interest in the Bill. I have spoken to many women who are in that position, and they often say that they would rather not pursue the father because they are afraid for their own safety. They want to be independent and to be able to go out to work and earn their own money. They do not want to be caught up in this terrible business, but want their self-respect. Perhaps another Bill could be brought forward to help them.
  Mr. Randall: I could not have been more eloquent than the hon. Lady. Her argument is persuasive and shows the complexity and sensitivity of such cases. We should not be too heavy-handed and forceful in those matters; rather, there must be considerable discretion.
  Mr. Stevens: I understand the complexity and difficulties that can occur for some women, but it is important that collusion between parents does not disadvantage their children or the state. I accept that the availability of private information on an attachment of earnings order could be embarrassing if it were improperly used, but if people do not want to get into that position they can pay the maintenance by other means that are completely private to them and the court.
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, as he usually does. The Minister referred to the four mechanisms for making payment that are available to the court, and I am considering them individually. One of the problems with attachment of earnings orders is privacy. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about collusion but, as I said to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), any mechanism must offer discretion and flexibility. People who need their case considered sensitively and carefully could suffer under a rigid set of rules.
  The attachment of earnings order will be used extensively by county courts because they will be able to decide the payment mechanism when they make a maintenance order. However, the threat of potential abuses of privacy will grow. Labour Members believe that the Government have a clear duty to provide the appropriate mechanism to protect the privacy of people, whether or not they are failing in their duties properly to look after their children. The fact that they are debtors does not mean that we can discard the principle of ensuring people's privacy.
  Clauses 2 to 7 deal with the new arrangements to be applied in the magistrates court. Clause 2 provides that a magistrates court must specify the method of payment at the same time as the maintenance order is made. The Minister referred to the four methods of payment that the court can use—direct payment between the debtor and the creditor, via the court, by standing order and by an attachment of earnings order, via the employer.
  Magistrates courts have no discretion in adopting one of those methods of payment, but the High Court and the county court have the discretion to decide whether to specify a method of payment when serving a maintenance order. If the reforms in the Bill aimed at preventing arrears are so laudable—the Minister of State has praised them—why have not the Government imposed the same compulsion on the High Court and county courts as they have on magistrates courts? Is there a major principle at stake, or are there merely technical reasons for the difference between magistrates courts and the High Court and county court? If the difference is made for technical reasons, why have not the Government allowed magistrates courts that discretion?
  The consequences of that are serious. Families will be more likely to go through the stress and trauma that I referred to purely because technical difficulties exist in preparing appropriate legislation. I shall not speculate on that, but I should like the Minister to give the House a full explanation of that apparent omission from the Bill.
  Clause 3 amends the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and, in cases where maintenance payments are made via the court, enables the creditor—the woman—to give the justices' clerk a standing authority to initiate enforcement proceedings once the debtor goes into arrears on his payments. On the face of it, that approach would have considerable benefits for the wife compared with the existing arrangements, which prevent the justices' clerk from taking any action until the wife or creditor has requested him to do so.
  A major benefit of that reform is that valuable court time could be saved, thereby speeding up the processes of safeguarding the family's income. In addition, the debtor would be encouraged to keep up his regular payments because he would know that the justices' clerk will be monitoring his payments and will quickly take enforcement action if he falls behind.
  54
  In its brief on the Bill, the Law Society supports giving justices' clerks that standing authority. It says:
  "It will now be possible for a creditor to give a standing authority at any time, for the Clerk to take action, which will mean, that the Clerk will not need to receive repeated authorisations from the creditor in the future…The Law Society supports the provisions, relating to the introduction of standing authorities to the court clerk, to take enforcement action—this will simplify procedure and ease the burden from lone parents of taking action."
  However, it has doubts about the method of payment orders.
  The National Council for One Parent Families has expressed two concerns about the Bill. The first is that many lone parents are adversely affected by delays in courts' serving procedures, which is caused by a lack of resources. What steps will the Minister take to provide those vital resources to improve serving procedures? It must be a matter of concern that the Bill states that there are no resource implications arising from this legislation. If the Government are genuinely concerned about children and lone parents, should not they take immediate action to speed up court procedures by ensuring that the necessary resources are available? I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that because the sheer sluggishness of court procedures seems to be causing many problems.
  The second concern expressed by the National Council for One Parent Families is that the Bill seems to contain no provisions to deal with the delay in court procedures where a debtor deliberately fails to attend the court hearing in order to avoid making maintenance payments to his family. It believes that if a debtor and his solicitor intentionally fail to attend a court hearing dealing with arrears in maintenance payments, the magistrate should make an order in their absence unless he is satisfied that it is undesirable to do so. Clearly, such behaviour by the debtor is grossly unacceptable and quite irresponsible. I should like to hear the Minister's view. What new provisions do the Government intend to introduce to protect families from such behaviour?
  The long title makes the Bill rather narrow. Although some of the provisions seem supportable, we have considerable reservations about what they would mean in practice. Informed opinion outside the House has expressed serious reservations about the Bill's effectiveness. I regret the Government's choice of a long title for the Bill because it is bound to restrict the ability of the House even to propose amendments to alleviate some of the problems encountered by families when fathers fail to face up to their responsibilities.
  The Bill is a wasted opportunity. We support some of its provisions but its scope is too narrow. It is defective in practical terms and will have limited benefits.
  6 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I do not take up all the points that he has made. Let me say—in the nicest possible way—that I felt that his concluding remarks were a little unjust and unduly gloomy about the Bill's prospects of success.
  I regard the Bill as the hors d'oeuvre before a good lunch—the good lunch being the Child Support Bill, introduced last week in another place, which will no doubt wend its way to this House. The two Bills interact and should not necessarily be seen as totally separate. They are joint Bills and one helps the other.

  55
  I welcome the Bill, however narrow it may be, because it is a step in the right direction. It deals with the mechanics of collecting child maintenance. It is worth looking beyond the Bill to ensure that the Child Support Bill will tighten up the whole maintenance system. That is beyond the scope of this Bill, but it is important for it to be on the statute book as quickly as possible to bring help and to increase the number of weapons available to the courts to overcome the serious problem of maintenance support.
  One must consider the context in order to appreciate the extent of the problem. There are currently more than 1 million lone parents; 41 per cent. are divorced mothers and 23 per cent. are unmarried mothers. Each year, 41,000 new child maintenance orders, 34,000 lump sum orders and 50,000 consent orders are made and magistrates deal with 28,000 applications for award and variation of maintenance each year. Some 500,000 maintenance accounts and 85,000 enforcement proceedings are dealt with each year.
  Problems often arise not with those families in respect of which the courts are able to intervene and have some effect, but with the majority of lone parents who are not getting the financial maintenance that they should or could expect. Hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of taxpayers' money is being used, through the income support system, to support one-parent families when absent parents—they are usually fathers, but I believe that 3 per cent. are mothers—evade their social responsibilities. That is unfair to the taxpayer, but, clearly, no one wants to consider the issue solely from the taxpayers' perspective. It is also grossly unfair to the lone parents because, more often than not, the money that they receive from the state is less than the maintenance that would probably have been—or has been—awarded by the courts.
  Once an order has been made, there is the serious problem of enforcing it. That is why the Bill is so important. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the case of a father who gets divorced or splits from his family and children and then forms another family relationship, either inside or outside marriage. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the stress and problems placed upon the second family because of the father's financial responsibility for his first family through court maintenance orders. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, but, with all due respect, he was somewhat cavalier in glossing over the feelings and problems of the first family which has been left by a father who sets up a second home.
  Mr. Randall: I thought that I had made it clear on two occasions that I support the principle that parents are responsible for their children, irrespective of what happens to their relationship—whether they remain single or remarry. I accept that principle, but I was tempering the statement by mentioning some of the practical considerations. Many people are on low incomes and second wives may become bolshie and make life difficult. They may think, "Why should I bring my children up in near-poverty?" That is a dilemma for parents and it is a practical consideration which must be taken into account.
  Mr. Burns: I appreciate that point. I do not want to sound hard or uncaring—I do not believe that I am—but I think that a father who leaves one family, forms another
  56
  liaison, either inside or outside marriage, and has more children must bear in mind his responsibility and the implications of his action.
  Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is exactly what the Government are trying to do with their twin-track approach in this Bill and the Child Support Bill? We seek to make those who have left one household and some children think twice, or perhaps three or four times, before having more children. Parenthood is for life and it is their duty to maintain the children that they have had and those that they may have. The two Bills together will force them to do that.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his characteristically clear way, he has hit the nail on the head and come to the heart of the problem.
  We have discussed the second family and the father who wants to meet his financial responsibilities, although it may be financially difficult for him to do so. The other problem which, sadly, occurs all to often is that of the father who, when establishing a second family, wants to wash his hands completely of the first family and does not want to meet any of his financial responsibilities, whether he can or cannot do so. That is a tragedy as well.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we must always bear in mind the two basic principles of the Bill. The first is that family responsibility should be actively encouraged. I believe that it is still too easy for an individual to walk out of family life. I know that many people give serious consideration to the marital problems, and if a marriage has broken down irretrievably, it is probably in the children's interests for it to be ended, but under the law as it stands, it is far too easy for those who are not prepared to give their marriage a second chance—or to accept counselling that might help save that marriage—to abandon their responsibilities, including their financial responsibilities. That brings us back once again to the need for the Bill.
  I am sure that the constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members come to our surgeries with problems emanating from the fact that they are not receiving the maintenance that they should. It is upsetting to listen to the tales of genuine hardship told by mothers who are not only struggling after the traumatic break-up of their marriage—traumatic not just for them but for their children—but having to cope with financial worries because their only source of income is the state. They are then caught in the poverty trap of state benefits from which it is so difficult to break free. More often than not, the reason for that is the attitude and behaviour of the father.
  I welcome the fact that the courts are to have increased powers to tighten up on enforcement. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure us—perhaps we shall have to wait for the Child Support Bill for assurance to be given—that more will be done to give courts powers to track down absent fathers. Not only should more power be given through the tax system to track down absent fathers in this country, but, as I said in an intervention, more power should be available to track down those who may be the subject of British court orders but who have gone overseas. That is crucial.
  The second principle that we must not forget is that it is much better to avoid default than to try to rectify the problem once it has occurred. Despite the misgivings of the

  57
  hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, the Bill will go a long way to tighten up that aspect of the law. At present, maintenance is paid either to the court or directly to the recipient, but there are not enough ways of enforcing the provisions in respect of someone who determinedly defaults on payments. That is why the extra powers are so welcome. In future, payments will be made by standing order. I thought that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was nitpicking when he took us through the problems of standing orders. I do not think that the standing order provisions will be as difficult to implement as he suggested. Moreover, the standing order option is only one of a number of options that a court can adopt.
  Mr. Randall: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "difficult". I said only that the Government's proposed standing order scheme was utterly open to simple abuse.
  Mr. Burns: That is true. My point is that if there is likely to be abuse, and if the scheme is therefore unsuitable in a particular case, the courts will not use that procedure. They may go for attachment of earnings or choose some other way of enforcing payment. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears, even on that narrow issue, are as well founded as he implied. Certainly in respect of those who will not deliberately seek to use the standing order procedures to abuse the system, it will be easier to prove non-payment by examining building society accounts and bank statements.
  The other important provision is that relating to the attachment of earnings. At present, the courts use that method only when someone has been wilfully neglectful or has deliberately defaulted. The method is used only in extreme cases. By widening the use of that weapon to magistrates courts, we shall go a long way to help to solve the problem.
  I have one or two suggestions for the possible improvement or strengthening of the Bill. I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about court time and about those who deliberately do not turn up for hearings, thus immediately placing the burden on the shoulders of the lone mother awaiting a court decision. I agree with him that it would help to alleviate a great deal of hardship if my right hon. Friend the Minister could re-examine the matter to see whether there is any reasonable way in which the provisions could be tightened up. For example, we might allow magistrates courts to make a decision in the person's absence.
  If my memory serves me right, the CBI briefing that we all received referred to a possible cost of up to £10 in respect of an attachment of earnings order. It is not necessarily in anyone's best interests for industry and commerce—the employers to have—to pick up the tab. I welcome the promise that the Government made in the other place to look at the matter further. I hope that something can be done to ensure that the burden is placed fairly and squarely in the pocket of the person directly responsible—the father who is meant to be paying the maintenance-—and thus to save industry and commerce expense. That would improve the system and benefit everyone—except possibly the father who will then have to pay more.
  58
  Will the Government consider the removal of the provision which renders legal aid unavailable in respect of the issue of a county court summons? It is reasonable to ask the Government to look again, even if they eventually find that they cannot meet the request.
  Let me take up a point made on Second Reading in the other place. Will the Government consider consulting the Inland Revenue about the adjustment of tax codes for those in default as a means of deducting maintenance? People in all walks of life know how efficient the Revenue is in going after its clients and customers and its money. It is almost like a terrier. If we could involve the powers and enthusiasm of the Revenue, we should go a long way towards helping lone mothers and their children.
  The most important principle is to ensure that, in questions of divorce and maintenance, the interests of the child are put first. I would enter the caveat that we must not forget or overlook the interests of the mother who has to bring up her children alone, often in the most difficult circumstances.
  I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards helping the child by providing for proper and regular financial payments from the father. It also helps to alleviate the burden, worry and frustration of lone mothers. We look forward to the Child Support Bill, which, together with this Bill, constitutes an optimistic and serious way of tackling the problem.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: It is very pleasant to be invited to contribute to this debate on the introduction of a Bill that seems to have virtually all-party support. However, the two Members on the Opposition Front Bench must be feeling extremely lonely because no Opposition Back Benchers have been present during the debate, apart from one or two travellers who obviously came into the Chamber to escape the cold outside.
  Mr. John Patten: What about the Liberals?
  Mr. Carlisle: There have been no Liberal Members here either. It is disturbing that Opposition Members have not been present to debate this important Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, the Bill, regrettably, involves considerable sums of taxpayers' money. Opposition Members should have been here in greater numbers, although I pay credit to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for being present to represent their cause.
  When I first considered the Bill, I wondered whether it was a Bill for lone parents, as it had been paraded or whether it was intended to penalise absent fathers. My constituency experience over the past 12 years makes me believe that perhaps the Bill should penalise absent fathers. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware from their constituency experience that the number of absent married or unmarried fathers is increasing, and that fact has been brought to our attention by the lone-parent mothers involved.
  In the 12 years that I have represented my constituency the number of absent fathers has increased dramatically. It is high time that the Government introduced such a measure, and we look forward to the Bill's twin—the Child

  59
  Support Bill which is in another place—as a means of strengthening the powers of the courts against absent fathers.
  Absent fathers are prevalent at the moment and they cost the taxpayer enormous sums of money. They also bring misery upon misery to thousands of women and children. That misery is totally unnecessary and in many cases is callous. I can tell hon. Ladies who are present in the Chamber now that, although in the past perhaps I have not been too friendly to their causes and their gender, in this particular case they have my total sympathy. Absent fathers cause considerable misery.
  I share the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. West at the conclusion of his speech. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough—although it may be extended in the Child Support Bill. In many cases the fathers are not named and in some cases they are not known. In my constituency, in some cases the father is not known until the child is born and the colour of its skin is revealed. That perhaps gives some hint about the extent of the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I can understand my colleagues tutting when I say that, but such things happen.
  In virtually every case the father gets away with it. He avoids any responsibility to the mother and to the child. He also gets away with any responsibility to the taxpayer because the taxpayer must pick up the tab.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford took up a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about the courts enforcing orders against absent fathers who deliberately make themselves unemployed at certain times of the year when child maintenance orders are being made against them or are being upgraded in financial terms. I know of a sad case within my family where the absent father is a deep sea diver. He deliberately arranges for the court hearing to be heard when he knows that he will be unemployed because his work is seasonal. When the day is named for the case, he absents himself and the case is adjourned. In many cases adjournments are sought by absent or negligent fathers—call them what one will—on the basis that they know that the courts will not hear the case and it will be delayed. In every case the lone mother or the children involved suffer as a consequence.
  Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has raised an exceptionally important point which we will have to consider in the twin-track approach encompassing this Bill and the Child Support Bill, which is in another place. However, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 gives a new power to the court to levy costs against solicitors who put in for unnecessary adjournments that lead to the problems which my hon. Friend has accurately described. It would be a very good thing, too, if the lawyers had to pay occasionally.
  Mr. Carlisle: Knowing the sympathy that my right hon. Friend the Minister has on occasion to show to the legal profession as a result of his duties, I can see how that remark matters to him. However, he is absolutely right. Such a remedy exists, but I should remind him that in several cases, even with the powers under the existing system, let alone those proposed in this Bill, magistrates do not use their powers to the full. On many occasions the magistrates' sympathy seems to be with the absent father
  60
  or they are swayed by the legal arguments made by the solicitors representing them. As a result that brings more misery to the lone mothers and their children.
  Part of the Bill's aegis is that it will give some incentive to negligent fathers to go out to work harder to ensure that maintenance is paid. That is a somewhat pious hope. Sometimes absent fathers get themselves into financial trouble because of the so-called responsibilities that they take on in second or third marriages or in other relationships. They get themselves into virtually impossible positions and usually the taxpayer has to fund that irresponsibility.
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that many lone mothers are dependent on income support and on some form of social benefit simply because the absent fathers are not paying their way. The problem is experienced not just by the wronged married woman; it is experienced also by the second, third or other woman who, perhaps unknowingly, has the children of the recalcitrant gentlemen known in my constituency as tower block stags who tend to jump from one flat to another, with no responsibility for the children they father.
  Mr. John Patten: There is either something wrong with the amplification system or with my hearing. None of us on the Government Front Bench could hear the last word in my hon. Friend's phrase.
  Mr. Carlisle: I was referring to tower block stags, who leap from one bed to another within my constituency. I suppose that that is humorous in a way, but it is also tragic for those who, for whatever reason, are caught.
  In all sincerity, I can tell the House that the saddest cases that come to me—and I am sure to other right hon. and hon. Members—involve young girls who have been conned into producing children which they do not want. They must then take full responsibility for them and then go on their knees to their Member of Parliament and also plead with the social security to assist them. Many of them are ashamed of what has happened and are not willing to name the father who, of course, gets away with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said, many women are afraid to name the father because of the possible consequences.
  The Bill will provide some assistance but only a small amount. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a Bill of responsibility. That is what the House and our constituents should be concerned with. Sadly, in the last decade or two, responsibility and discipline within the family have slipped, and are slipping further despite gallant attempts by various Governments to reverse the trend. Regrettably, the Bill will affect many people, perhaps far more than we who frame it and hope to pass it would ever envisage. The situation worsens day by day.
  We and, I hope, the Opposition welcome the Bill. We welcome the spirit with which it has been presented and the spirit in which it has been received. If it brings some comfort to those lone mothers and children who suffer under the present system, it will be of some benefit. I hope that it will bring some relief to taxpayers who have picked up enormous bills for the negligence and indiscipline of many absent fathers. I fear that it may not go far enough, but, together with the Child Support Bill, it may at last reverse the terrible tide.
  6.32 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate the Government on this timely measure which will bear down on those irresponsible fathers who refuse to pay the maintenance ordered by the court. Power for the courts to attach a father's salary and make sure that the wife or partner receives money is long overdue.
  I do not like the term "lone parent" because there are always two parents. There is no such thing as a one-parent family, a term that we seem to have dropped. We are talking about families which are invariably fatherless, but as that could mean widows, it is more correct to say that we are dealing with fathers who have scarpered from their families. The mere fact that a father has cleared off and has left his wife to go to such lengths to get maintenance tells us something about him. It is necessary for the courts to be given extra powers to ensure that such fathers meet their obligations.
  The statistics on fatherless families show that about 41 per cent. of the women are divorced and that 23 per cent. are unmarried. What about the other 36 per cent.? Are they widowed mothers? Perhaps the Minister can supply that information when he replies.
  As hon. Members have said, we are dealing with a difficult area of human relationships. There is often great bitterness between the parties, and sometimes the mother is unwilling to prosecute for maintenance because she fears for her existence. Many marriages break up because of fear. Incompatibility has meant that the marriage has foundered, and we are left to do something about the resulting untidiness. In debating such matters we usually deplore the divorce rate, but sometimes divorce is the most humane and sensible course. Divorce is not always bad. In the old days women were often trapped in unhappy and brutal marriages, perhaps for all of their lives, because they could not afford to separate, establish themselves and support their children.
  Time and again I have made the important point that we who pontificate on these matters take a technical viewpoint to see how we can tidy the loose ends or block loopholes. I know some women who are bringing up children on their own. They meet for moral support and self-help so that one can look after the children while others go shopping. The Children Act 1989 is in danger of making that illegal because it requires people who look after children to be licensed.
  When I talk to the women in such groups, I always ask what they want me or the Government to do to help them. I am concerned not about what my colleagues think is right, but about what such women want. They never ask me for increased child benefit. Some of them say that they want the husband to pay for the children, but more often than not they say, "I do not want to pursue him in the courts because I am afraid of the consequences. I want to be able to go out and earn a bit of money so that I can support the children." They feel that it is more dignified to do that. Although the Bill will place much greater constraint on the father, I hope that when we consider the matter in another Bill we will take note of the feelings of women.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the women's obvious sense of pride in wanting to stand on their own feet, the father has a responsibility to make some provision? The hon. Member for Kingston
  62
  upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) spoke about limiting privacy. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage such women to ensure that the absent father pays his dues, if only for the sake of the children. They would then enjoy a better standard of living.
  Mrs. Gorman: I agree with my hon. Friend. Fatherhood and motherhood are for life, and fathers also have a responsibility. However, some women would not thank us for pursuing the husband or father through the courts in the way that we or the court might think right and proper. That is because of the consequences to the mother. It should be borne in mind that every unhappy marriage breakdown is a tragedy with its own circumstances.
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Lady spoke about the aspirations and desires of women to whom she has spoken. She has said that their top priority is to be independent and earn a living. I am a male and not as qualified to speak on the matter as a woman, but in my experience many women with babies and children want to be able to stay at home. Although the decision must rest with the woman, it is obvious that she cannot stay at home with the children if she has a job. The hon. Lady does not seem to support the notion that some women might like to have that option and that their top priority might be some sort of guaranteed regular income, perhaps from the father.
  Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my argument that almost every case is different and that women have different views on the issue. I remind him that throughout history women with young children have worked. In Victorian times some mothers with 10 children went out to engage in cleaning or laundering or some other work.
  Often an idealised view is taken of women staying at home and raising their children. That is the ideal, but the reality of most women's lives is not like that. Women often need to earn extra money. Of course, choice is what matters, but the fact is that 80 per cent. of mothers with young children stay at home with them whereas most mothers with school-age children—almost 70 per cent.—go out to work. It is not uncommon for women with children—of any age—to find that they need to work.
  In the past, a woman who was widowed in a war would have raised her children without any help from the state. She would go out to work and do a fine job. Because women are multi-competent and extremely able, they can make their own way in life when they are left in the lurch by their husband. Indeed, many would rather do that than risk the punishment that might be meted out to them by the children's father if he is a violent man, and unfortunately in this world there are many men who mete out violence to women, mainly because women are not taught how to defend themselves—but that is another story.
  I come to the role of the employer, which has already been mentioned, and to the question whether those concerned—either the woman receiving the payment or the man who is making the payment through a court order or by having the maintenance deducted from his salary—will want their employer to know that they are involved in such circumstances. It is impossible to prevent such circumstances from influencing the attitude of an employer. It is no good saying that that is private information because it will inevitably have an effect on the employer. I feel strongly that in deciding on this

  63
  legislation, if fathers are prepared to make a private arrangement, we must do all that we can to ensure that we do not lose that good will. Even if that involves only a mere 7,000 of the 82,000 cases that we are talking about, those 7,000 cases are still important and valuable. We must preserve the privacy of the man if he is prepared to do the right and decent thing and to reach a suitable arrangement with his wife.
  After a woman has gone through all the court proceedings to get maintenance from her husband's wages deducted at source, she may be awarded just 1p per week maintenance in arrears. That sometimes happens even today because the magistrates think that they are taking account of the real circumstances in that case. If a woman goes through the process and is awarded only a derisory maintenance payment, she feels insulted. The Bill does not cover the amount of money that a magistrate may award, but I believe that the courts should be discouraged from making such decisions. A woman may have gone through many unhappy emotional experiences to get that far, and it is insulting for her to be treated in that way.
  Sadly, the Bill is necessary in today's society because people's sense of responsibility has been undermined. That has increased under the welfare state, which has adopted the attitude that if an individual will not accept his or her responsibility, the state will do it. We will not cure the problem until we reverse the attitude that the state must be the last resort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, we must stop ourselves always rushing in with the public purse, because that is what lies at the root of this problem of irresponsibility. If we do not expect people to be responsible, in many cases they will be irresponsible. That is a sad fact of human life.
  Although I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, we have yet to debate many other aspects of this subject.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Randall: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to some of the comments that have been made in this interesting debate, which has been wide ranging although the Bill itself is narrow, dealing only with maintenance enforcement.
  The Minister referred to the CBI levy and to the consultations that are taking place on that. I cannot remember whether I asked him to give us more detail about that, because it could have a crucial impact on debtors. I should also like to know more about the reciprocal arrangements with the EEC. As a result of 1992 and all that, the problems of maintenance enforcement could be seriously exacerbated as people move around the various member states of the Community more and more. Therefore, I was concerned when I heard that the reciprocal arrangements with the EEC are not working very well.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is not in his place. He talked about family life and said that it was of paramount importance. Although we would all agree with that, I submit that the Government's taxation policy is also a major factor causing the break-up of marriages and of family life—[ Interruption.] I am sorry, I see that the hon. Gentleman is here, albeit in a different seat. The gap between the better-off and the less
  64
  well-off is unquestionably growing in this country. Such pressures can cause the break-up of marriages—[Interruption.] That is a well-known fact, but other social pressures can also have an effect.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose——
  Mr. Randall: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I had wanted to be brief because I made a long speech earlier.
  Mr. Carlisle: I was sorry to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way, but he must give the House the evidence about the startling fact that he has just announced. He has said that the difference between the so-called "poor" on the one side and the so-called "rich" on the other has contributed towards the break-down of marriages. Where exactly is the evidence for that? If the hon. Gentleman does not have it, perhaps he could inform the House of it at a later date.
  Mr. Randall: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware, because so much has been published about it, that, under this Government, there is a growing gap—I chose my words carefully—between the better-off and the less well-off in this country.
  Mr. Carlisle: Possibly.
  Mr. Randall: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
  Mr. Carlisle: I said, "Possibly".
  Mr. Randall: Well, the hon. Gentleman does not know, but Opposition Members do know and it is a matter of concern to us. It is one reason why the Labour party has been amending its taxation proposals. We want to compensate for that sort of thing and, in our taxation policy, to do the things that would be good for families. The Government's taxation policies run contrary to the well-being of family life. Many of the troubles we have been discussing today emanate largely from that.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford made a good point about defaulting. He is absolutely right that we should take steps to prevent defaulting and thus to reduce the workload of the courts. There is no doubt that a lot of the time that is currently taken by the courts in dealing with maintenance orders and ensuring that payments are made could now be avoided.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to standing orders and payments. I do not want to go over the argument yet again, but I feel that the hon. Member for Chelmsford does not understand the people with whom we are dealing. Some of them—not all—are out to bust the system and once one recognises that, one realises that the system of payment to a wife must be strong enough and resilient enough not to be abused in this way. The hon. Gentleman made a good point in his question to the Minister about something on which I had touched—debtors who do not bother to turn up at court. The hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) also mentioned that point. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
  The hon. Member for Luton, North referred to the effect that absent fathers have on the taxpayer. He spoke about the tower block stags in his constituency. I was pleasantly surprised by his description of the young lady who came to visit him in his constituency surgery. He

  65
  obviously has a soft spot for people, although that is not apparent from his political image. He reacted in an emotional rather than an objective way to her and I would have expected the latter.
  The hon. Member for Billericay put great emphasis on irresponsible fathers and I intervened on that point. She also spoke about the desire of women not to receive an income from benefit but to be free to go out and earn. However, lone parents—I know that she does not like that term, but she knows what I mean—are in a difficult position because they cannot share the burdens of parenthood. Those with young children, especially if they have no support from their own parents, encounter great problems. If we are to provide choice for women in that position, and allow them to live comfortably, the top priority is to give them a guaranteed income. The hon. Lady speaks authoritatively on this and has given the House the benefit of her experience.
  I look forward to the Committee stage. I hope that the amendments that will be tabled will encourage proper debate on the Bill, and, if agreed to, make it more effective. I have been encouraged by the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House have shared a belief in the basic principle underpinning the Bill, which is that those who have maintenance orders served against them should act responsibly and fulfil the terms of those orders. Where that does not happen, we need a mechanism to ensure that they are fulfilled. If the Committee can make that mechanism work as effectively as possible, we shall have given credit to the House of Commons. More importantly, we shall have helped people who desperately need an improvement in the system. The failure in the existing system has meant that children and families are enduring the distress and trauma to which we have all drawn attention. The Bill will help to alleviate those problems.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. John Patten: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. This has been an interesting if short debate, founded on considerable agreement between the two parties represented in the Chamber—there has been no representative of the Liberal Democrats. We believe that something needs to be done and we have agreed that a useful Bill will be brought to fruition by the Committee.
  We have heard some remarkable speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave us some important statistics and put his finger on a number of significant policy points. He also provided the House with a good keynote phrase for the Bill when he said something along the lines of, "It is better to prevent default than to have to enforce the measures after default." That underpins what the Bill is about and shows why it deserves an unopposed Second Reading.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) demonstrated that authority and robustness, mixed with compassion, for which he is well known. He drew attention to the link between this Bill and its big brother or sister, the Child Support Bill, which is going
  66
  through another place. He treated the House to what was, for my money, all too short a passage on responsibility and the rebirth of it in the 1990s. He reflected on the adverse changes that have followed a diminution of family responsibility in the previous two decades. That passage will bear rereading.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) also spoke about responsibility and I agree with everything that she said on the issue. She spoke about divorce and the effects of that on society, about the equally important issue of working women and about how these provisions can help them. I suspect that the issues that interest her, as they interest me, will be debated when the Child Support Bill reaches this Chamber under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
  I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay does to try to help women in a number of groups. Although they may not want to go to court to get the maintenance paid to them, perhaps because they fear physical violence—the police are doing more about domestic violence in this decade than they did in the previous decade—I ask her to urge them to think again about ensuring that those payments come. After all, it is the children of the marriage who will suffer. I hope that the quick and clean mechanism that the Bill will set in place will encourage women who face those problems to do something to ensure that the absent father, or the absent mother in about 3 per cent. of the cases, faces up to his or her responsibility. That motif of responsibility has run through each of the speeches made by my hon. Friends.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I do not have a great deal of time to refer to all the points that he raised. However, I have time for a couple of important ones. He asked about what would happen if people refused to pay standing orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, the courts have many ways to get money from the absent spouse if he will not pay by standing order. Furthermore, he can be fined up to £1,000. If he will not pay that fine on top of not paying the maintenance—most maintenance payments are in arrears of 15 weeks—there is always prison to encourage him to pay up. We do not want to send people to prison, but we must have that for a last resort.
  Direct debits are not provided for because the court could not adequately exercise supervision over variations in direct debits. Under direct debit mandates, the person who gives the authority can vary the order, but the courts should have that power. The courts will have an important role and I believe that, after an initial surge of business, their business will diminish greatly, just as the amount of money flowing to spouses and children will increase greatly as a result of the provisions of this welcome Bill. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance or ruling on the way in which we shall conduct our proceedings this evening. One of the difficulties lies with the decision whether the Bill should return to the House for further consideration in the light of the impending ruling by the European Court of Justice in the Leybucht bay case, which is recognised by the Government to be a similar matter. It is recognised also that that case is relevant because the promoters have sent a lawyer, as have the two Departments concerned, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, to observe the proceedings of the European Court.
  I ask for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because two material considerations will make this evening's proceedings less comprehensive and less well informed than they should be. First, we do not have an English translation of the proceedings of the European Court. Indeed, we shall not have one for another 10 days. That is what I am told in the letter that I received from the Treasury Solicitor of 11 February, which reads:
  "As requested I enclose a copy of the opinion of the Advocate-General in French."
  I would not wish to trouble you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or other hon. Members with any quotations in French, which would not technically be in order. The letter continues:
  "We are having the opinion translated into English, but the translation will not be available until the end of the month."
  It is explained that, unlike the French and German versions, the English translation will not be an authorised version.
  As I have said, the promoter and the sponsoring Departments—the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment—recognise the relevance of the proceedings of the European Court and have sent lawyers, at public expense, to observe them at Luxembourg. The public, including my constituents, have paid for that. The lawyers observed the proceedings on 5 December and heard the Advocate-General's verdict.
  When the House receives the Bill back from Committee on 18 February, it does not seem too much to ask that we should ensure that our consideration of it is fully informed. We should adjourn consideration until a proper translation of the proceedings of the European Court is available to us. As the production of the translation will coincide with the day on which the final judgment will be delivered—the Advocate-General's opinion is usually about 90 per cent. of the European Court's final opinion—an adjournment would enable us to take into account the verdict in our consideration of the Bill. It is thought that the verdict will be highly favourable to the objectors' case, and it should have a bearing on our consideration of the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred to an opinion of the Advocate-General, which was prepared for the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in the course of a case which the hon. Gentleman rightly said related to the proposed
  68
  development of the Leybucht bay in Germany. The document in itself does not have a direct bearing on the consideration stage of the Bill that we are discussing this evening. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deploy the opinion in arguing that we should not proceed with consideration of the Bill, I shall be able to hear him. But I must tell him that all the documents that are directly relevant to our consideration of the Bill are available.
  Mr. Morgan: Further to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tabled a question last week because I was promised the document in question on 12 November by the Secretary of State for Wales. As nothing happened in the intervening three months, I tabled another question, which was answered on Thursday of last week. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales,
  "pursuant to his reply of 12 November 1990"—
  he has promised that an English language translation of the Advocate-General's opinion would be placed in the Library shortly or as soon as possible after it was available. My question continued:
  "Official Report, Column 49, when he will place in the Library an authorised English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion on the Leybucht bay case heard at Luxembourg before the European Court of Justice."
  This is material, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were not, I would not detain the House. The Secretary of State replied:
  "An English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion prepared by the court is unlikely to be available for some time. However, I understand that an English language translation prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be available very shortly. I shall be placing a copy of this in the Library of the House."—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 589.]
  What does the Welsh Office have to hide? Why has it not placed the translation in the Library so that we can read it? Why will it not do so until after the House has had a three-hour debate, during which we might be relying on our own attempts to translate the French, German or Dutch in which the opinion was originally written?
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that the judgment concerns special protection areas under the EEC's bird directive, and that neither Cardiff bay nor——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now entering into debate, and that turns on my response to the original point of order. Hon. Members are raising debating matters. The opinion to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred is not material to our consideration this evening.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  I am pleased to ask the House to give consideration to the Bill, which I hope will speedily complete its remaining stages through the House. It may be useful if I mention the Leybucht bay case, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on a point of order. I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have said, that the opinion is not a document that is necessary for our debate this evening. It is important, however, for the House not to be misled. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend referred to it. It appears that he has followed these matters with care and has read the

  69
  Advocate-General's legal opinion. He must now be aware that the Leybucht case is completely irrelevant to the Bill and does not help his argument.
  I am surprised also that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West raised the language or languages in which the translation of the opinion is available. I am sure that he read the South Wales Echo On Saturday, and especially the article which set out liberal quotations from the opinion by opponents of the Bill. The opinion of the Advocate-General is that the Commission's complaints should be rejected. That is what he recommends on his interpretation of the facts of the case. He takes the view that the Federal Republic of Germany did not contravene the directive. He further suggests or recommends that the Commission should bear the costs of the disputing parties.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said, the Commission's interpretation of the directive is relevant as it applies to a special protection area, which Leybucht bay is but which Cardiff bay and the Severn estuary are not. He does not dissent from the view that the directive at article 2 is a balancing exercise, weighing up, on the one hand, the protection of birds and, on the other, public health and safety, economy, ecology, science, culture and recreation. I argue that in all the documents that are relevant to this evening's debate it can be demonstrated that matters of public health and safety, economy, ecology, science, culture and recreation demand the speediest possible passage of the Bill through the House.
  I wish to repeat a simple plea. I ask that the House does not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, for a better environment and for better homes and jobs that meet their aspirations. I still retain the hope——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for long, but perhaps I should tell him that I was in the Chamber on Thursday when, during business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked the Leader of the House about the whipping arrangements for a private Bill. Most of us believe that unofficial whipping has been taken place on private Members' Bills for a considerable time. My hon. Friend was able to unearth correspondence from the Government Chief Whip in which he advised Conservative Members to vote in accordance with his instructions this evening on this piece of private Member's legislation. The Leader of the House said that he was not responsible for whipping, and we know that that was a correct statement.
  Once a Conservative Chief Whip starts putting in writing instructions to Tory Members to vote in a certain fashion on private Members' Bills, the procedure for such Bills is broken down. Surely this is a matter for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What steps are to be taken?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman, like all other hon. and right hon. Members, knows, the Chair has a great many responsibilities, but concerning itself with what goes on in the Whips' Office is not one of them. I was in the Government Whips' Office for far too long to want to involve myself in such things now.
  Mr. Michael: I am glad to be able to say that it is not a matter for me either. It is a matter for the Government how they vote. However, my hon. Friends and I have sought to persuade others to support our view. I retain the
  70
  hope that opponents of the Bill will be satisfied now that it has survived an arduous passage thus far. I hope they will be satisfied with the many safeguards that have been built into the measure, and will recognise the need for the major investment that the barrage itself will bring and for the private investment that will be attracted.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Many of us in the Opposition have no objection to investment for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, we have a slight difference when it comes to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds by the Government, to what purpose, I am not sure.
  Mr. Michael: It is for the Government's representative to defend their decisions on public investment. However, I am rather surprised to hear an argument against public investment which would be of considerable benefit not only to my constituents but to those of my hon. Friend also. I hope that the public benefit argument will persuade my hon. Friend to support me in the Lobby at the end of this debate.
  Mr. Rogers: I represent a constituency which, measured by any socio-economic indicator, is one of the poorest in the United Kingdom. That being the case, I certainly do not have any objection to public expenditure. However, I do not want to see public money being poured down the drain—or the barrage, or whatever.
  Mr. Michael: I do not want to get involved in a knockabout, but, like my hon. Friend, I represent an area in which there is considerable deprivation. I am sure that he recognises, for instance, the deprivation in places like Newtown—in particular, on the dockside. Having worked with unemployed people in that area, and previously in the Ely area, I am very keen that misery and unemployment such as we saw in the past should not be repeated. It seems to me that this investment is the best means of avoiding that situation.
  Cardiff is a great city. It is a string of communities, each with its own character. Indeed, my friend, Councillor Paddy Kitson, who is chairman of the county's economic development committee, likes to refer to the area as a string of pearls and of opportunities. The barrage and the development will reunite Cardiff with its seafront. It will offer a future to communities that in the past have lived in dirt and have known poverty. It will offer a new lease of life to the old communities, and new communities will have a life of their own to complement those.
  The barrage will help to protect the city against the threat of flood. Last week the Department of the Environment issued a publication that referred to the need to consider this matter in the context of the future of our coasts. The barrage will provide a positive opportunity in this respect.
  One matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have agreed from the beginning is that the Crown water issue needs to be treated with great seriousness. I am satisfied with the findings that have been made to date. Even Woolworths gave a promise that satisfied the Committee. Subject to public consultation on additional work, and to the expert advice on the basis of which the Secretary of State will be asked to make his judgment, all developments to date in this regard have been reassuring.

  71
  In the current recession, we face difficulties. The figures that were produced by the economic appraisal cover a period of 15 to 20 years. It is very important that we should see early progress in this development, so that Cardiff may be the subject of successful regeneration. In the past, we have seen successful regeneration of the city centre, and I am proud to have played my part in that process, which was led by the public sector in partnership with the private sector.
  A massive project like this cannot be evaluated and summarised in a few minutes—which is all that is available to me this evening. The local councillors have spent much time on all the issues involved. The barrage proposals do not have uncritical support from the elected representatives. The support has been, and is, critical, careful, sceptical and conditional.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has referred to the successful redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff. I agree that the evolution of the retail central area has been remarkably successful. Does he agree—my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may well have personal knowledge of this matter—that the successful redevelopment of Cardiff city centre took place only after a major change in strategy? The original overweaning, over-ambitious Ravenseft development was thrown out, and a much more logical evolution of the existing centre was agreed on. A big development would have wrecked the town centre. That happened because the people of Cardiff rose up and said, "We do not want this big development. It will cost too much, and will take away the Cardiff that we know."
  Mr. Michael: As usual, my hon. Friend has run off down the tram-lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who at that time represented Cardiff, North, will recall the successful battle that led to the stopping of the Hook road. My hon. Friend equates two different issues. I was associated with the successful redevelopment of central Cardiff after 1974, and I believe that that project bears comparison with the redevelopment of south Cardiff. Both of those projects are based on a partnership between the public and the private sectors, involving an exhaustive examination of the issues, endeavouring to ensure that the public interest is properly served.
  This Bill has survived the Select Committee procedures of both another place and this House. So long as the safeguards are in place, and so long as we test each piece of evidence to destruction, as we have done to date, local people will want the project to go ahead. The evidence, in terms of the provision of jobs and homes and of protection of the environment, remains overwhelming. That is true for my constituency in particular, but I submit that it is true for Cardiff as a whole—indeed, for south Wales as a region. It is for that reason that I return to my basic and simple plea to the House: do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, a better environment, homes and jobs; support the motion and allow this Bill to make progress through the House.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I apologise for intervening in a debate on a Welsh matter. I do so for one reason about which I shall be brief.
  I should like to know a little more about the provision that is made in the Bill for fish passes, which are essential if the run of migratory fish on the River Taff is to be preserved. I am glad to see that that is mentioned as a significant factor. I look forward to being able one day to fish the Taff. I want the promoter and his colleagues to be frank with the House and, if there is time, tell us that they are confident that the works set out in the Bill will have the desired effect.
  Mr. Michael: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this has been the subject of very serious discussion since the earliest stages of the Bill—not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with his considerable interest in fisheries matters, made sure that was so. For that reason—with the best possible advice that could be obtained, and following consultation with fisheries interests—the pass has been built into the proposals to ensure a better future for the fish, as well as for humans, following the building of this barrage.
  Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have seen the provision in the Bill to build the pass, but I want to be sure that there is reason to suppose that the fish pass will work. The hon. Gentleman should know that some fish passes do not work. A great deal of money is spent on them and by the time that people find out that they do not work, it is too late. It is impossible effectively to restore a run to a river if the fish pass is deficient.
  Mr. Michael: That is why there has been the closest consultation. It is a point which I have been careful to note in correspondence with the promoters from the early stages. We must ensure that the best possible advice is available and that a fish pass which will work is built.
  Mr. Onslow: I am reassured to hear that. But I shall be mean and press the hon. Gentleman further. I should like to know what the fish pass is modelled on. Fish passes have been built in barrages elsewhere in the world but have not had the desired effect.
  Mr. Morgan: I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman here. I can even detect the slightest hint of a Welsh accent when he speaks. The problem is not only the fish passes. In August during periods of low flow when oxygen levels are low sewin—sea trout, for those who are more familiar with the fishing industry outside Wales—make their first run. That causes a particular problem because it is the period of minimal oxygen levels. The fish swim up the River Ely into my constituency. There are about three miles of narrow river channel from the edge of the lake after the fish will have to negotiate the fish pass. They then go up the River Ely to Ely weir. They have begun to do that only in the past two years because of the construction of sewage works further up the River Ely. We are expected to believe that when those sewin travel up the River Ely through my constituency in August at periods of low rainfall and therefore low oxygen, a mobile oxygen machine running underneath them will preserve the oxygen levels as they traverse the long, narrow river channel until they reach the better oxygen levels under Ely

  73
  weir. Anyone who believes that the sewin will not be disturbed by the distinctly odd feeling of having an oxygen machine running a couple of feet underneath them does not know about the fishing industry. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's expert opinion on the matter.
  Mr. Onslow: I am not sure that I am the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend or that I am an expert. It is the first time that I have ever heard of the oxygen machine of which he speaks.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the matter was under detailed discussion with the fisheries interests and the National Rivers Authority. Agreement has been reached on water quality and a fish monitoring programme, which is well under way. There is agreement in principle on the design of the fish pass. Discussions are continuing to ensure that the fish pass is the most effective possible. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to discussions in Committee which went into the matter in some detail. I shall be interested, when he has had an opportunity to read them, to hear any further points that he has to make.
  Mr. Onslow: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious not to delay the House, but I am equally anxious that assurances are given in our proceedings in the House, rather than taken on trust.
  I notice that clause 69(6) of the Bill contains a provision which may have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). It says:
  "When so required by the rivers authority the undertakers shall discharge water through the high-level sluices of the barrage for the passage of migratory fish."
  That may be of some help in this context, although it will not necessarily help much once the fish have passed through the barrage. That is another matter to be considered.
  I am serious about these matters because estuarial barrages are a great obstacle to migratory fish. It is no use pretending otherwise. So that the fish can complete their life cycle, smolts must be able to get downstream to the sea without damage. I see nothing specific in the Bill that requires the undertakers to make provision for that. I should be more content if I could see some written evidence, rather than having to take an assurance across the Floor of the House. I cannot reasonably ask for that this evening. I promise the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that I am trying to be reasonable. I do not seek to press him.
  Mr. Michael: I shall be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
  Mr. Onslow: I am glad to have that assurance and I look forward to seeing the evidence. Until I have such evidence I shall be reluctant to allow an irrevocable measure to be passed and implemented.
  I have an additional reason for being unhappy about the Bill. Elsewhere in south Wales there are threats and projects to put estuarial barrages on other rivers around the Welsh coast. The Usk is one of which I am aware. I should be surprised if it were possible easily to convince a committee that the run of salmon on the Usk could be preserved once the barrage was installed.
  I am not being dogmatic. I do not seek to be obstructive, but if a river is lost to migratory fish through the construction of a barrage, the barrage will not be taken
  74
  away so that the fish can come back. We need to know about such matters before we make decisions, rather than find out about them afterwards.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I did not take a particular interest in the Cardiff bay barrage when I first heard about it several years ago. My interest was aroused when I watched the video provided to every Member of Parliament by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds two or three years ago. Just one viewing of the video convinced me that there were major environmental problems with the barrage. In particular, wading birds and migratory birds use the mud flats at the site and the proposals would take away their habitat. That film, entitled "Half a million dunlin dinners", would impress anyone who is interested in the preservation of species of birds.
  The other argument which convinced me of the danger of the barrage is the problem of the nitrates and phosphates which the Taff and Ely would bear if the barrage were built. An ideal site for eutrophication would be created. In our debates on the Bill in the House the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is not with us tonight, outlined in detail the strong environmental objections to the barrage.
  But my main reason for speaking against the Bill is its prohibitive cost. I am not adverse to public expenditure. Labour Members believe strongly that public expenditure can be used to stimulate private expenditure. But we must consider cost-benefit and value for money. In our earlier debates a cost of £82 million was given. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said in the previous debate, the true cost will probably be four or five times that. We could be spending £400 million or even £500 million of public money. I grant that there will be a multiplier effect. The investment may be multiplied five or even 10 times. But with the economy in its present state, a recession or even a slump looming and public services in their present state, I wonder whether that level of investment is justified and would have sufficient benefits to the economy and in terms of jobs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) circulated to all Welsh Members a feature from the South Wales Echo describing the scheme and some of its effects and advantages. It estimated that the investment would trigger £2,000 million of private and public investment. The £400 million put into the scheme would be multiplied by five. Over a period of 10 or 15 years it was estimated that 24,000 jobs would be created. That is impressive. It would be marvellous for Cardiff and the people who live within a 20-mile radius of the project. But at a cost of £2,000 million for 24,000 jobs, we are talking about £80,000 per job created. I wonder whether public money could be used more effectively. In a boom, the private sector may look to the service industries, up-market housing and the type of leisure facility that the scheme would provide—as in the docklands area in London—but times have changed. We are no longer in that brief period of economic miracle; we are in recession. Will private money follow the public money? I do not think so.
  Last week, in an economic debate in the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted a Conservative Back Bencher,

  75
  talking about present unemployment, who said that some of the jobs which are now disappearing, because of the recession which is hitting the south and the south-east so hard, should perhaps not have been jobs in the first place. In a sense they are yuppie jobs. But those are the sort of jobs that we should be trying to attract to Cardiff. Considering our present economic climate, will that type of job be provided?
  If the Bill is passed, my main worry is that the scheme ignores the real needs of Wales. If £400 million of public money is available to invest in Wales, let us not invest all of it in Cardiff and depend upon a trickle-down effect spreading to the valleys, and perhaps as far as my constituency. Many constituencies in the valleys, and in west and north Wales, are in a state of deprivation. That £400 million must come from somewhere. It will come from cuts in other parts of the Welsh Office budget. That money is needed in the health service, for housing, for agriculture and to create better-paid jobs throughout Wales.
  I am certain that if we had a Welsh assembly to allocate the resources of the Welsh Office—I hope that we shall before the end of the decade—and if that assembly were debating this proposal this evening, it would not let it through because it is a poor way to use public money. The scheme was wrong in 1988, when I attended my first debate on it. Frankly, given our present economic situation, the project is crazy.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad of this opportunity to speak, but I assure the House that I shall try to be brief and I shall explain my reasons in my few remarks.
  I share the attitude of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I have what I think are well-founded hopes about what will be achieved by the Bill when it is finally enacted. I do not share the reservations of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) about the use of public expenditure, nor about the fact that there will merely be a trickle-down effect for the rest of south Wales.
  I am confident that these large sums of public money will be more than repaid because of the way that they will improve south Cardiff, the economy of south Cardiff and of south Wales. The money will be repaid because of the way it will increase the capital value of property and rental values. At the end of this very large equation, I am sure that the balance sheet will show a decidedly healthy profit for all those who invest in it.
  I do not agree with the implied criticism of there being a mere trickle-down effect. I think that there will be a natural evolution, and that the scheme will benefit all of south Wales. That benefit is likely to flow in a tangible form to points as far away from the capital city of Wales as Carmarthen. The transformation of Cardiff will reach out, and will make the capital city of Wales the dominant city in the western quarter of Great Britain, overtaking Bristol and placing us in a higher ranking. Of course the hinterland—the rest of south Wales—cannot be separated from that.
  It is significant that the scheme is the one feature that does not seem to have been affected by what we refer to as
  76
  the recession, or downturn in growth of the economy. In south Wales, I keep hearing about the amount of interest that exists in the redevelopment of south Cardiff, and no one has been dissuaded. There is so much positive, keen enthusiasm that it is the bright spot in the crown.
  The reason why I wish to be brief tonight is that I detect a real feeling of exasperation in my constituency and elsewhere in Cardiff as to why the Bill has taken so long to proceed through the House and the other place. I often meet people who ask me to explain why on earth it is taking so long. Why is this the third parliamentary Session that we have been considering the scheme? I do not want to frustrate proper examination of the Bill, but the feeling in Cardiff and elsewhere is that surely, by now, the House should have spent enough time to enable it to come to a final conclusion—ideally a final conclusion that will allow the Bill the barrage and the redevelopment of south Cardiff to proceed.
  I must take this opportunity to say how hard everyone involved in the Bill—the promoters, south Glamorgan council and Cardiff bay development corporation—have worked to provide such a thorough well-thought-out package which is of proven advantage to the capital city of Wales. Everyone concerned has also taken every opportunity to examine all the questions and to try to respond to all the doubts.
  One aspect that I have not been greatly involved in is the one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned—fish passes and how they will be affected by the barrage.
  The promoters of the Bill are determined to ensure that every reasonable step is taken to overcome or to assuage any and every objector. As a representative of the capital city of Wales, I can take pride in knowing who is involved with the Bill, both on the council and from the Cardiff bay development corporation.
  I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily, nor do I wish the House or the Bill to be detained unnecessarily. The Bill is excellent. It represents so many of our hopes that it deserves to succeed. I hope that it will succeed. I hope that we will approve the Bill this evening and that we will speedily move on to bring the scheme to the proper conclusion that it deserves, at the earliest possible opportunity.
  7.37 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), I shall be brief. Many of my constituents would not greatly care if a decision were taken to build a barrage and if Cardiff decided to flood itself—if that happens. I do not share those views, as I am fond of docklands Cardiff and always have been. I entirely agree that there is an umbilical cord linking the coalfield and the docks which will never be broken.
  However, I and my constituents find it strange that suddenly such a large sum of public money—whether £82 million or £500 million, another figure which has been quoted here tonight—can be found and be made available for the sort of scheme that we in Pontypridd are familiar with in many ways. We should like to develop our town centre, and to build a ring road to take away traffic, which would improve the quality of life for people in the town and attract jobs to Pontypridd. We do not seem to be able to find that sort of money. I wonder why. I do not know whether the money is going to Cardiff. Perhaps the Welsh

  77
  Office think of the barrage scheme as a flagship investment for the future. I am wary of flagship projects—I remember that the poll tax was the Government's flagship project and we all know what happened to that.
  I am dubious about the scheme, but if Cardiff wants to do it that is its business. I should have preferred Cardiff to debate the matter at a public inquiry, rather than using the back-door method of a private Bill, but that is another matter.
  Mr. Michael: It should be made clear that, as my hon. Friend may be aware if he takes his tongue out of his cheek, because navigable waters are involved, this is the only procedure that can be followed. The one thing on which we can unite in the House is that the private Bill procedure is unsatisfactory and needs to be changed. I think that it is being more unfair to me and to the promoters than to the opponents, but that is a matter for debate.
  Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend, who is always most constructive. Regardless of that, a great many people in south Wales feel wary about the proposal because it seems that large sums of public money will be used to prime the pump of the south Cardiff economy. I hope that many people in my constituency will benefit as a result. I have asked the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), through parliamentary questions, how many extra jobs would be created as a result of building the barrage, and how that number would compare with the number that could be created if the barrage were not built. There is no quantifiable figure. All kinds of theories are possible, but there are no figures that mean anything.
  The promoters of the Bill might care to consider what would happen if, instead of a trickle up from Cardiff, there was a trickle down from somewhere like Pontypridd if we began investing in it. I sense that we are not investing in Pontypridd because it does not have the appeal to big business that the Cardiff bay investment may have. That may be right. Geographically, Pontypridd is much smaller. We do not have the space or the mud flats to flood. It is a different kind of community. Not only does Pontypridd feed a population down to south Cardiff, but it also feeds the waters which will be dammed by the barrage.
  There has been talk about what will happen to the fish runs. I should like to know what will happen to the sewage runs which will go into the lagoon created by the barrage. I ask Welsh Office Ministers to take the message to the Secretary of State for Wales and to the Prime Minister that at any time they like they may come to my constituency, and I will guarantee them a huge audience if they will dive head first into the River Taff and show their confidence in the quality of the water by swimming in it. When either the Secretary of State for Wales or the Prime Minister does that, I shall be more than glad to support the Bill because it will mean that the waters of the Taff are clean.
  Mr. Rogers: Might not it be better to invite the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to Pontypridd to swim in the River Taff? He could come with a dual purpose, because I understand that he is also connected with Associated British Ports, which has a very strong vested financial interest in the development of the barrage. He could kill two birds with one stone. I believe that they literally would be killed if they dived into the River Taff.
  Dr. Howells: That is a remarkable suggestion. I am sure that the chairman of Welsh Water and the chairman of the National Rivers Authority have more sense than to dive into the River Taff at the moment because it is filthy, as is the River Ely, which would also flow into the barrage; indeed, it is even more filthy than the Taff. If they accepted the offer, they would both need their heads read.
  Mr. Morgan: May I make an alternative suggestion? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) may be alluding to the Prime Minister's well-known affection for HP sauce. If he sees the River Taff flowing past my hon. Friend's house, he will think that it is a river of HP sauce.
  Dr. Howells: That is stretching things a bit.
  There is a serious point. I cannot see the sense of building a barrage across two rivers when those rivers are filthy. I have never heard from the Government Benches or from any other quarter that the rivers will be cleaned before the barrage is built. I also do not believe the guarantees that I have had about the magic barge which will float on top of the lagoon and will clear the build-up of nitrates and phosphates which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. Michael: I do not want to stop the entertainment value of my hon. Friend's contribution, but I must make the point that associated with the building of the barrage is a proper means of dealing with the sewage outfalls into the bay. There is also the fact that what comes into the bay from the Severn estuary will be kept out by the barrage. I hope that I speak for my hon. Friend and myself when I say that we want to see a clean-up of the sewage outfalls into both rivers in the longer-term future, irrespective of the barrage.
  Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. I am glad that he shares my wish to see the rivers cleaned. The problem is that I wish for many things, but it does not seem that they will come to fruition in the near future. I certainly do not see hard proposals for the cleaning of either of those rivers, any more than I do for the cleaning of the Severn estuary in general. I wonder whether the remedial construction works on the sewage outfalls which my hon. Friend has talked about will simply collect some of the sewage which will still flow through my constituency in both rivers and take it out as an expedient rather than make a real attempt to clean the rivers from source. It is a serious point.
  If the Welsh Office is prepared to put public money into the barrage project, it should also think about the 500,000 people who live along the Taff and its tributaries who suffer from the filth and the litter that gather on the banks and from the fact that, as communities, we cannot face our rivers. When we talk of redeveloping our communities, we think of doing it as we did originally, by turning our backs on the rivers. It is a scandal that there seems to be one vision for south Cardiff, but quite another for the valleys. Only small sums seem to be available for projects in the valleys while there is a lot available for south Cardiff.
  To return to the point I made earlier, there is an umbilical link between south Cardiff and the valleys. South Cardiff grew up entirely because of the development of the coal mines which were sunk along the banks of the Taff, the Ely, the Rhondda, the Cynon and the other rivers

  79
  which will feed into the barrage. It would be good if the project could help transform the coal communities which have been so cruelly run down over the past 10 years.
  The promoters of the Bill should understand that development-led projects such as the barrage must take into account greater environmental considerations and not just the wildlife which will be affected within the boundaries of the project. They should take account of the fact that Welsh Water still allows raw sewage to flow into the Taff, the Ely and other rivers in south Wales, and that we cannot redevelop our towns using the rivers as focal points. I should like those rivers to resemble the rivers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). I should love to see our rivers crystal clear, like those that I swam in as a child. That should not be a demand which is beyond our making.
  The Government have allowed the water authorities enough leeway. They have allowed them to get off with so-called derogations for a number of years before they have to carry out the real remedial projects which are needed. The point is worth making on the Bill that if it is good enough for south Cardiff, it is good enough for the valleys. If there is an umbilical link, it should extend to all aspects of the project. The valleys should enjoy the kind of environment that the promoters say will be enjoyed by those who live around the lagoon and the barrage.
  I do not want the project to fail if it can be proved to be good. On the other hand, I do not want it to eclipse what is desperately needed in the hinterland of south Wales. I want all the schemes to be carried out, but not in the next decade or the next century. The people of south Wales have suffered long enough from filthy rivers and from an environment scarred by industrial development and by slapdash development for so many years. It is time the Welsh Office began to regard the hinterland as an area which is as fit as south Cardiff for flagship development.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I did not intend to speak, but I was stimulated—perhaps "provoked" is a more appropriate word—to do so by the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). Although he may find it strange, I support the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and, indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
  Like the hon. Member for Carmarthen, I have taken a close interest in the Cardiff bay development since its conception. Like many hon. Members representing other parts of Wales, I have attended presentations organised by the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and have discussed the issues with the corporation. This visionary project will, in my view, transform the economy of south Cardiff, and will have a multiplier effect on the wider local economy. There is bound to be some delay because of the current economic downturn, but that will do no more than temporarily hold back the ultimate economic growth that the development will bring. It will make a major contribution to the economy of south Wales.
  If the politics of envy are to enter into the debate, perhaps I am entitled—as my constituency is even further from Cardiff than that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen—to comment. Large sums of public money
  80
  have already been spent in my constituency, and in the whole of north Wales. I pay tribute to south Wales Members, who have, for instance, supported the massive investment in the dualling of the A55: such public-sector pump-priming makes a major contribution to the regeneration of the north Wales economy. An enormous amount—£500 million—has been or is being spent on the construction of the road. Public sector pump-priming has helped to establish a number of industrial estates in my constituency, in Wrexham Maelor, and in Alyn and Deeside—which, of course, are both represented by Labour Members.
  We have seen how effective that public sector pump-priming has been in stimulating private sector investment, no more notably than in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). It has brought about considerable development in, for instance, business parks, such as at St. David's, Ewloe. I am convinced that the same will happen in Cardiff. As Welsh Members, we are all surely entitled to take some pride in the revival of our capital city as a symbol of the Principality.
  I appreciate the concern of hon. Members who represent the valleys about the deprivation and environmental pollution that confronts them. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be not only petty but unwise to obstruct and delay this project further. As I have said, as a north Wales Member, I have intruded in the debate with some trepidation, but I do not resent this massive investment in south Cardiff. I want to see the models and the presentation come to life; I expect a great and proud city to come to fruition through this major economic development. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that this project will help Cardiff surpass Bristol, and act as a draw for the many companies that are now leaving the south-east.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen is, in a way, my hon. Friend: in the Select Committee, we have discussed the connection between Wales and the channel tunnel. The French have been investing massively in their infrastructure, because they expect the tunnel to help to develop the Pas de Calais. We on the other hand are concerned about further development in the golden triangle represented by London-Paris-Hamburg. I am very critical of the Government's lack of investment in infrastructure to meet the challenge of the tunnel. We have fallen way behind the French in terms of both rail and road investment.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) agrees with me on this point. He was also a member of the Select Committee during that inquiry and he is a much greater expert on French affairs than I am: he visits the country so frequently. We must ensure that the necessary draw is created. I hope that the Government will also soon come to their senses and invest in the necessary infrastructure. I think that Cardiff has the potential to be a major attraction to companies post-1992, and after completion of the channel tunnel.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has interpreted my comments as representing the politics of envy. That may be partly true; but politics is the language of priorities, and I do not think that this development should be our number one priority now. We are running a massive balance-of-payments deficit, and we are in an economic recession. Surely public money should be going into manufacturing rather than service industry.
  Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I differ with him on this point, because I have done so when sitting next to him in the Select Committee. I do not believe in this distinction between the service and manufacturing industries; I want Wales to have a share of both. Indeed, I should dearly like more service industries in my constituency. I have been lucky that, as a result of the enterprise zone initiated by the Government and opposed originally by the Labour party, many new full-time male manufacturing jobs have been created in my constituency; but, in any local economy, there should be a balance between service industry and manufacturing jobs.
  The hon. Gentleman is leading us up a cul-de-sac, distracting us from the main issue. He speaks of his contempt for "yuppie jobs", but not all service jobs are "yuppie jobs". The service industries must themselves be serviced, and jobs will, I believe, be created not only for yuppies but for many other people in Cardiff as the local economy is developed. That will result in an increase in wage levels, something that I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome.
  We must make Cardiff more attractive. I think that the Cardiff bay development will contribute to the economy of not only the city but the whole surrounding area of south Wales, and will also improve the quality of life enjoyed by the local people. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. Both Houses have considered the Bill for long enough and in enough detail, having debated such detailed matters as fish passes as we have today. It is time for the Bill to be passed, and for this development to be implemented so that the vision of the former Secretary of State, Lord Crickhowell, and many others can become a reality and the life and economy of our great capital city can be transformed.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: As we saw in the debate in December 1989, there is always the danger of our slipping into a bad-tempered mode, because those speaking for or against the measure are mostly Welsh Members and are generally believed—at least by the opposite side—to be speaking on behalf of vested interests.
  We in Rhondda, however, have no particular vested interest in the Bill's success or otherwise. We detect no envy in the Bill: if it is possible for the city of Cardiff to develop, we will support that wholeheartedly. Living in the hinterland as I do, with many constituents working in Cardiff, I see a spin-off for my constituency if Cardiff prospers; but I would prefer the money—various figures have been mentioned, but I believe that about £400 million is being put into the scheme—to be invested directly in areas whose need is far more urgent.
  The proceedings on the Bill in this House, then in Select Committee and again here have demonstrated that the development of the city of Cardiff does not depend upon it. Development is taking place in the docklands area without the barrage. We are not against public investment in the docklands area. However, all that the barrage does is to create a lake. It will not create an acre of ground on which factories and offices can be built. All that it creates is a lake where people can moor their boats. This huge investment is designed to create a pleasant atmosphere in order to attract investment. However, investment is going on in Cardiff without the barrage.
  Mr. Michael: I appreciate the fact that some of my hon. Friend's remarks have been good natured and generous. Does he accept, however, that some of the information that I provided privately, both to my hon. Friend and to other colleagues, shows that the barrage development will lead to investment and jobs that would not come to Cardiff without it?
  Mr. Rogers: Yes, that is an interesting question. However, the development of Cardiff bay and the docklands area is continuing apace. My constituency is probably the cultural centre of Wales. If any of my constituents want to lay on a cultural programme, they have to use St. David's hall or County hall in Cardiff. That is right in the middle of the docklands area. It is a wonderful new development, which I applaud. The area in Cardiff that needed to be redeveloped was badly run down. At one time my brother was warden of the Central boys club in Cardiff. I served in the Army with many lads from the docklands area. I boxed in the same Army team as many of the illustrious boxers who come from that area. I know them well. The docklands area needed to be redeveloped. However, we do not want a barrage. No land will be created by it.
  One wonders why the Bill is being backed so strongly by the Government. Why are they so anxious to pump money into it? The scheme was the idea of a previous Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell. He is a director of Associated British Ports which owns 160 acres in the Cardiff bay area. The same ex-Secretary of State is now the chairman of the National Rivers Authority. When Cardiff city rightly submitted schemes to him to attract development money he said, "You can have the urban development corporation or nothing at all." Over the years the UDC has tried to fit its plan into the framework that was constructed at that time.
  Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the first development—the creation of County hall, the flagship of south Cardiff—was undertaken by South Glamorgan county council?
  Mr. Rogers: I do not disagree. I pay tribute to both Cardiff city council and to the county council. They are doing all that they can to develop the area. However, there is a huge private sector interest in the development which far exceeds any previous public sector interest in it. If it could be demonstrated to me that the barrage would add substantially to the land bank in the Cardiff docklands area, I should support it. However, it does not.
  The valley communities of south Wales also need huge investment. Successive Governments have provided it. Coal tips have been reclaimed for industrial development. The valley communities accept that the land bank needs to be increased. However, the barrage will not increase the amount of land available in the Cardiff area for industry and offices.
  If another scheme had been adopted, the environmental and geological problems associated with the barrage would not exist. It would have confined reclamation to the eastern side of the estuary. It would have added to the amount of land available and it would not have had the environmental implications of the barrage, including its impact on wildlife. Moreover, the citizens of Cardiff object strenuously to the possibility of ground water flooding their homes.

  83
  It is not wise for politicians to set themselves up as experts. However, politicians must have a reasonable knowledge of any issue if they are to understand the arguments. When I read the plethora of documents that were pushed towards us when the scheme was first mooted, I was struck by the lack of research into issues such as ground water. I understand that the Select Committee asked for a second opinion. However, it was not sought and the report was published without that additional information being made available.
  When I queried that at the presentation, the promoters treated me in a most hostile way. I thought to myself that something must be wrong, so I looked further into it. I wondered why they had been so hostile to my question. I read the report again and found that the technical implications of the scheme had not been properly thought out. The initial report contained such phrases as, "When the full appraisal has been completed." It was then that the flooding problem for some of the homes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) became a real issue. That possibility still exists. According to the technical appraisal, no viable solution has been found.
  It serves no purpose to say that, if we cannot have it, nor can Cardiff. That is a self-defeating argument. The whole area of Cardiff and south Wales needs investment and development, however that takes place. If development in Cardiff benefits the valleys, that will be to our good. However, £400 million of public money will be spent on the scheme and the benefits will accrue to private business. No real public interest will be served. That money is being invested because of the private interests of Tory politicians, who sucked the city councils and county councils into the scheme by giving them no options in the beginning.
  I object to the building of the barrage. If there were a Cardiff Bay Bill and £100 million were being invested in the Cardiff bay area, I should support it 10 times over. But as long as it is a badly founded and ill-thought-through Bill for a narrow sector of private interest, I shall oppose it.
  8.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): As the House knows, the Government have a substantial interest in the Bill's objectives.
  The barrage proposal has been the subject of detailed and wide-ranging studies. We have given these careful consideration, weighing in particular the economic and environmental aspects. Our conclusion is that the case for the barrage is strong, in view of the substantial economic, recreational and other benefits that will arise, not just for Cardiff but for the wider area of south Wales. This view was not seriously challenged by the majority of the Committee which examined the Bill in detail last year.
  The Committee heard a great deal of evidence on ground water and, understandably, sought a number of undertakings from the promoters before allowing the Bill to proceed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also gave an undertaking that, in considering the further work on ground water requested by the Committee, he would satisfy himself that all the relevant economic,
  84
  technical and safety criteria could be met before giving consent for public funds to be used for constructing the barrage.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) told the House on 17 October 1990, to assist him in that task, my right hon. Friend has appointed an eminent specialist, Mr. Roy Stoner, director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at the university of Southampton, as an independent expert adviser. The House should be aware that Mr. Stoner has broadly endorsed the approach taken by the promoters' consultants in carrying out the further work. Copies of Mr. Stoner's report have been placed in the Library of the House. For its part, Cardiff Bay development corporation has confirmed that many of Mr. Stoner's suggestions have been taken on board and has given assurances that the remainder will be incorporated in the further studies.
  Mr. Rogers: I understood that, on 14 May, the Select Committee appointed Dr. John Miles to act as a second opinion on behalf of the objectors to the barrage so that the Committee could ensure that the objectors would not be flannelled by the consultants being paid by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Dr. John Miles was not given the opportunity of providing that second opinion on the interim report. Those are the facts that I have been given; if the Minister says that they are not true, perhaps he could say what happened to Dr. John Miles' report because the publication of the interim report came out of the blue and its contents have not been verified by a second independent opinion.
  Mr. Bennett: I cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman says about the Committee, but Mr. Stoner is producing an independent report for the Committee as a result of the remarks that were made by the Committee in its final report. It will ensure that all the concerns put forward by people in Cardiff during the Committee stage are taken into account.
  The report on the further ground water studies and the promoters' response are expected to be submitted to my right hon. Friend by the end of August. They will be placed in the Library of the House. Interested parties will be able to make written representation to my right hon. Friend about the contents of the documents over a three-month period.
  That takes account of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister, in the course of his prepared statement, refer to the reasons for not allowing public hearings or meetings? Why is he allowing only written statements after the Committee discussed public consultation? The concept of simply sending letters to the Secretary of State is a narrow definition of public consultation. The Committee promised public consultation. The Chairman of the Committee is present and may be able to elaborate on what the Committee had in mind. The Secretary of State interpreted it as letters only, but I do not think that that is what the Committee intended.
  Mr. Bennett: The submission of written comments is a well-established method of consultation and is used for hospital and school closures. Publicity and guidance on the arrangements for representations will be issued nearer the time. The Committee that examined the Bill was not specific about the arrangements that will apply during the

  85
  three-months consultation period. I am satisfied that the submission of written comments strikes the right balance between a thorough examination of the issues and the need to come to a decision without undue delay. The independent adviser will have all the written representations before him and will be able to take them into account in his report to my right hon. Friend.
  Once my right hon. Friend has considered the report of the further studies, the promoters' response and the representations made to him in the light of Mr. Stoner's further advice, I expect him to be able to announce his decision on public funding and the final position of the protected property line in the early part of 1992.
  The Government have already made available or announced very significant funding for the corporation—over £190 million to the financial year 1993–94. Provided that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the criteria in respect of the further work on ground water can be met, we intend to honour the long-standing commitment that the cost of the barrage will be met by the development corporation with the assistance of grant-in-aid from the Welsh Office.
  I hope, therefore, that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to its remaining stages.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Minister's one and only contribution to the debate, I thought that he would at least inform the House about the wider public expenditure consequences of the Bill. The Minister bothered to write to individual Members, including me—[Interruption.]—and he should have developed the case about the Bill's public expenditure implications.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is an important matter for debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the Minister finds this matter amusing. He muttered that we did not ask him. During my speech, I referred at least four times to the huge sums of money being invested. The Minister adds no dignity to his office or to the House by refusing properly to answer questions on the most crucial issue in this debate. We shall take his silence as an ominous sign that the amount of money being spent is as huge as we said it was.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate and those are not points of order for the Chair. Members who have not yet spoken can raise those matters as the debate progresses.
  Mr. Rowlands: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a further request and ask the Minister to seek to catch your eye to tell the House what he has stated in correspondence about the nature and character of the public expenditure implications of the Bill.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) could simply quote the Minister's letter, which contains the explanations. Hon. Members who have not seen it may he interested in it.
  I am delighted to be the third of the four Cardiff Members to support the Bill. I came to Cardiff about 28 years ago, and I remember seeing the docks run down and the increasing dereliction of the area. The transformation now taking place and which the barrage promises will make the city world famous again. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, which is a great shame. We would have come further down the road but for some rather wayward opposition to the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) became a Member in 1987. This measure had already been launched by then. He took his time in finding his Opposition to the Bill and, having heard voices, decided which way to go. I regret the fact that some valley Members have followed a beggar-my-neighbour, envious approach. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is an honourable man. I enjoy reading his comments on Sunday and treasure his company.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) made some rather unparliamentary criticisms of my motivation for opposing the barrage and said that I had heard voices. I should have liked to put him firmly in his place, but he did not give me an opportunity to do so.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my duty to listen to genuine points of order, and I must do so. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) was coming to the end of a sentence and was about to give way.
  Mr. Grist: Actually, I was not about to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will be well able to look after himself when he speaks.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman said that I had heard voices and had taken my time before opposing the Bill. I remind him that the Cardiff Bay development corporation was formed in April 1987. I became a Member in June 1987. I read all the evidence that had been presented to the House of Lords and, within hours of finishing reading it, made my decision and openly declared my opposition to the Bill. In what other way does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be proper for a Member with constituency interests to make a decision on a private Bill? Does he go along with the Conservative party Whip, as Ministers always have, as evidenced by the Conservative party Whip of 7 February, which I have in my possession?
  Mr. Grist: As a development officer for the county council, the hon. Gentleman probably knew about and well understood these proposals.
  Mr. Morgan: Rubbish.
  Mr. Grist: That is what I believe. The hon. Gentleman overestimated the opposition in his constituency, which

  87
  was shown in local elections. The seats were won by local candidates who opposed Labour party members who were against the development.
  The Bill does wonders for not just Cardiff but south Wales. Cardiff is the capital. It includes St. David's hall and a great new shopping centre. It is the biggest city in Wales and is a magnet for the area. Roads radiate from it. As I am sure the hon. Member for Pontypridd remembers, development of the A470 was stuck in the 1970s, until the Government built it. That road provides access for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others. A journey to Merthyr Tydfil on the A470 now takes 35 or 40 minutes. New roads in the area have created a close-knit community. The fame and wealth that this development will bring to south Wales will spill out. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will have more people going to the Rhondda heritage centre because of the fame of south Wales. Other people will learn about the advantages of the valleys and the opportunities available to them.
  The Bill is not just about south Cardiff, although, heaven knows, it is about reviving that part of the city that has fallen on bad times.
  Mr. Rogers: I fail to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Rhondda heritage centre is undergoing construction, before the building of the barrage, and the A470 was built 10 or 15 years ago. It is nonsense to suggest that those developments might take place in the valleys because of the Bill or to try to tie them in to the Bill.
  Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that the Rhondda heritage centre has been completed and that it no longer needs money to support it, I am sure that the Welsh Office will be interested to learn that. I do not believe that the development has been completed. It still needs support.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about space. If he knew Cardiff, he would know that it is ringed by the bay in the south, the M4 in the north and putative green belts to the west and the east. We need the new land that will be opened up by this development. The barrage will bring a focus to south Cardiff. It will give value to the land and attract industry and investment. It will bring 30,000 jobs and 6,000 houses. Those houses will not be just for yuppies, whom the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) goes on about. A quarter of them will be for social housing. There will be a housing mix, just as happened in the Tarmac development.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd would like to know what the water standards will be. The water near the dock which the county council built will be the type of water in the bay. One would not necessarily want to fall into it but it would not do any great harm if one did so. Fish live in it, birds use it, boats manoeuvre on it and there are displays there. The barrage will bring similar development.
  If Opposition Members turn down the Bill, they will be looking a gift horse in the mouth. They will not succeed in defeating the Bill, but they will muddy the water. They have not appreciated the evidence given to two Select Committees. Both Select Committees set a precedent by going to Cardiff to hear the views of the people and to see for themselves. That was a new step. No similar Bill has lasted so long and had such close attention paid to it. It has been supported by members of all parties. The hon.
  88
  Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is far from alone in his view, although it may have sounded that way this evening. He knows that the Cardiff city council Labour party and county council Labour party overwhelmingly support this development. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West gets things wrong every time on this issue.
  Mr. Morgan: On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman say that the Cardiff city council Labour party supports the scheme?
  Mr. Grist: It does.
  Mr. Morgan: Give us the odd fact.
  Mr. Grist: As Labour party members dominate the city council——
  Mr. Morgan: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows his party well. If the local Labour party opposed the Bill, he would say so.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a sort of Public Accounts Committee stand-in on this issue. I cannot understand that, but I believe that if he were still the Member for Cardiff, North, as he was between 1966 and 1970, he, too, would support this development.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman's assumption is incorrect. I had the privilege of serving Cardiff, North when I fought an equally grandiose nonsensical city centre scheme. Fortunately, it was heavily modified, and it led to sensible evolution of Cardiff's development. My approach and attitude to these proposals is very much the same.
  The hon. Gentleman called me a sort of mini-PAC, and he was right. Unlike Ministers, we have not had statements. I received a letter signed by the Under-Secretary of State but obviously written by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to read it out later. The letter gave us some insight at least into public expenditure, but we have many questions to ask about it. I was astonished at the facile speech by the Under-Secretary. It did not develop those issues.
  Mr. Grist: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was beginning to get into his stride. He knows that the public money that has gone to his constituency shows a smaller private return than will go into the Cardiff scheme. This is one of the best returns on public money available in any development in south Wales. In all his criticisms of this investment, the hon. Gentleman should remember that fact.
  Mr. Rogers: I accept the hon. Gentleman's faith in his arguments because he was the Minister responsible for working out the public investment figures. As he is obviously an expert, having lived with the problem as a constituency Member and as the responsible Minister, will he tell us what return is expected from the £435 million which will be invested?
  Mr. Grist: I should happily go over it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. The total is £335 million, which shows how far out the hon. Gentleman was with his figures. Often, we accept low returns to rebuild town centres, to encourage housing development or a shopping centre or to clear a tip site. Such development may have a low return, but it is necessary to build up an area and to make it more attractive and available to new industry.

  89
  The barrage is commercial investment by the country in the capital city of Wales. I cannot stress that too strongly. I should have thought that hon. Members would want to see a successful capital city. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was quite right to say that the Ravenseft plan crashed when the pound was devalued because the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth had run into a bit of trouble. They had to pay £3 million in compensation——
  Mr. Morgan: It was £4 million.
  Mr. Grist: It was £4 million, was it? That was when Councillor Ferguson-Jones used the money to start St. David's hall. Ultimately, more money had to be found, and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) topped it up. We ended up with a magnificent concert hall, which reflected well on south Wales as well as on the immediate area around Cardiff. We can all be delighted that, at last, we have a world-class concert hall. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontypridd occasionally attends concerts and other events in that hall. It is good for his constituency and for the immediate environs of Cardiff. The same will apply to the bay development.
  I have no hesitation in supporting this highly imaginative, worthwhile and economic transformation of the city that I have the pleasure and pride of representing.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with his new-found freedom on the Back Benches to speak for himself. I happily follow him down the history of the Cardiff centre development, which was nothing to do with the Government of the day but resulted from the economics and fundamentals of the scheme. The Cardiff central scheme was fundamentally flawed because it was a grandiose scheme. Huge assumptions were made that depended on enormous expenditure on a roadway, for which a huge part of Cardiff would have had to be knocked down. It would have meant destroying one aspect of the city's retailing sector. It was rejected not only because of the economics but because of the growing feelings of the people of Cardiff.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend and I were on the same side of that argument. That scheme involved the wholesale destruction of retailing, homes and communities, in direct contrast with the barrage scheme, which retains and benefits the existing communities as well as building new ones.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend tempts me to make a comparison. I suspect that I shall be able to show certain similarities in philosophy for that grandiose scheme and for the grandiose scheme of the Cardiff bay barrage development.
  Since our last debate, I have taken the opportunity to revisit Cardiff bay. I express my gratitude to the chairman of the development corporation for his kindness and patience in explaining the nature and character of the vision of the development corporation and of some people in Cardiff. I fear that when he has heard my remarks he might feel that I have not drawn the conclusions that he would have wished from my visit, but, nevertheless, I understand the infectious enthusiasm that grows when a
  90
  grand, visionary scheme is presented. It is natural and instinctive to think that big is best. The same spirit was behind the original Cardiff central area proposals. I can remember the planners, like the chairman of the development corporation, saying how it was bound to be a winner and asking how anyone could dare suggest that such a grand visionary scheme could have flaws or was not the way for the city to evolve.
  The same infectious enthusiasm has been expressed for the grand design of the barrage. I do not denigrate that. I understand and appreciate it, but we must not suspend our faculties. I did not do so when I was the Member for Cardiff, North and was placed under such pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will know that I was placed under pressure to be persuaded of the grand vision. I did not buy it then and I do not buy it for the Cardiff bay development. We should not suspend our critical judgment on the public expenditure consequences.
  Mr. Michael: I appreciate the serious point that my hon. Friend is making. One should not be taken in by grandiose plans. Does he agree, however, that the development scheme for the centre of Cardiff which was carried through to fruition after the collapse to which he referred was imaginative, important and positive in terms of the development of Cardiff? Will he accept that we must compare the critical examination that we brought to bear on that scheme, when I was chairman of the planning committee, with the way in which many of us have approached this scheme—not uncritically, but critically and positively?
  Mr. Rowlands: I am convinced that my hon. Friend is right that the scheme that evolved as a result of our turning our backs on the Ravenseft and Hook road schemes was sensible, imaginative and made Cardiff city centre such a pleasure to shop in, walk around and to listen to music in. Interestingly, what was decided evolved from existing development rather than from a large scheme being imposed.
  Following my visit to Cardiff bay, I am offering my untutored impressions of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said how much sensible development has been going on, and no doubt will go on, in this derelict area, with or without the barrage. The most striking impression of my visit to the site was the enormous amount of development that is happening irrespective of whether the barrage is to be developed. The Pengam site has been developed and there is housing development. I was told by the chairman and others that the developers were not selling the existing scheme on the promise of this Bill and that the development would proceed irrespective of the barrage. What will the barrage add to that?
  Mr. Grist: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was told just that. Naturally, anyone trying to sell the area and the development would stress that aspect. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that everyone believes that the barrage will come and has taken that into consideration in investing in the area?
  Mr. Rowlands: That is an interesting point. In that case, some people may be disappointed. They should not be making assumptions about what the House will decide. Remarks to the effect that we have spent too long debating

  91
  these issues show impatience with democracy, but patience is a vital quality of parliamentary democracy. If investors have made investments on that basis, they may well be disappointed. Who knows? As far as I know, however, the development corporation has not said, "Come and invest here because there will be a barrage." That is crucial. Even without the barrage, there has rightly been a large amount of exciting development.
  Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) has grounds for his optimism that the Bill will be delivered eventually? After all, huge sums have been spent on promoting it-on inviting hon. Members to functions and asking them to come to Cardiff at public expense to see what is what. If the promoters do not get the Bill, they will have egg on their face. My hon. Friend should take account of the optimism of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, who is an ex-Minister once responsible for the Bill. Clearly, he knows something that we do not.
  Mr. Rowlands: Who knows? We are crystal ball gazing. My hon. Friend has made a valid point, but I reiterate that a great deal of development has been going on and will continue to go on whether the barrage is built or not.
  What is the extra ingredient that the barrage will bring? I can only give my own impression. It will accelerate interest and development in the area. It will generate hype around the sale of the land in the area for high-class commercial and residential development. A curious feature of the present scheme and of all the 1980s property boom schemes—including the development of London docklands—is that they require a huge dose of inflation. They depend on an inflationary boost being given to land prices, rents and commercial developments. It is most odd—indeed, it is nonsense—that the Government should preach that inflation is the greatest evil in the land while in Cardiff bay and London docklands huge inflationary pressure is placed on property prices and land values. I heard with bated breath how office costs in Mount Stuart square had risen from £2 to £12 per sq. ft.—as if that was a marvellous achievement. I suppose that some may regard increased land values and the rest of it as an achievement. But in Merthyr, wage freezes and cuts in manufacturing costs are what is preached, whereas down in Cardiff bay developers and companies are expected to pay another £10 per sq. ft. for the good of the Cardiff development scheme.
  The 1980s were characterised by the nonsensical proposition that what is required is a property-led boom involving a degree of inflation way above retail price inflation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central shakes his head. I do not believe that, with a 1 or 2 per cent. inflation rate, any of the projects discussed in the report would survive for one minute. Behind almost every one of the schemes has been the assumption that—especially if one pours in large sums of public money—land prices, rents and the value of commercial developments will be lifted and that banks will therefore be attracted to the area to help people to borrow against assets inflated by that public investment. That is a curious feature of the 1980s and, thank God, I think that it is coming to an end. The rest of us, and the rest of the economy, have paid the price. For those of us in Merthyr and elsewhere there has been a trickle-down effect of property booms—whether in
  92
  Cardiff, in London docklands or in the south-east: jobs have been lost, manufacturing opportunities destroyed and investment cut and we have been charged punitive interest rates. That has been the effect of an overcharged property boom. The Cardiff barrage proposal is a late—I think, too late—example of that.
  Mr. Grist: Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that rising rents are a reflection of increased prosperity. After all, people have to be prepared to pay them. A firm does not pay increased rents just for the fun of it. It pays them because it recognises that there is enough business in an area to make being there worth its while. Rents are higher in Oxford street than in the outer Orkneys because there are more sales to be had. That is obvious.
  Mr. Rowlands: Did not the Government conclude, after their experience of running such a boom in 1986–87, that it was a complete economic disaster? The hon. Gentleman has described exactly what went on in the south-east and other parts of so-called prosperous Britain. People were paying £200,000 for houses worth £100,000. They were taking out 100 per cent. mortgages. That is the very market that Ministers have been trying to crush since the 1987 election. The notion is that we must have a property-led boom with large inflation for the Cardiff bay and docklands development schemes to survive and flourish. The rest of the nation has paid the price for such economic nonsense and I do not see why we should endorse it by supporting the Bill.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) does not realise that the people who suffer are those who pay and that the only people who reap the benefit of high rents are the landlords—the corporation, Associated British Ports and all the private interests. I see that the Minister is scoffing. Perhaps he can tell us who else benefits from high rents.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point.
  Let me take the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on further. He argued that there was a market which made it worth people's while to pay £12 per sq ft in Mount Stuart square when three or four years ago they were paying only £2. He said that that was a sign of increased prosperity. If that is so, why does not the private sector pay? Why should the public sector make a huge contribution to inflating land values, prices and rents in docklands? The Minister is an arch Thatcherite and, until the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central was sacked, I thought that he was, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Heseltini."] Oh, a Heseltini. In any case, he seemed dryish in character. But perhaps he is not. If the Cardiff bay barrage scheme is such a good scheme, and if we believe in the market, why should not it go ahead in the private sector? Why does not the development justify itself, rather than the promoters expecting the investment of large sums of public money to make it work? The basic test of such a scheme must be the degree to which it can sustain private sector investment.
  Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman wants to play that card heavily, I presume that he will not want urban aid or urban investment which relies on the leverage of public money coming in to bring in private money after it.
  Mr. Rowlands: I cannot attract this kind of private investment into Merthyr and Rhymney. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central made an aside about the nature of our society, but land in Merthyr and Rhymney is not attractive enough to warrant such investment. It may have been attractive enough 150 years ago when we had the coal that provided the resources which created work for the Cardiff docklands in the first place. However, we cannot attract such investment in 1990.
  Of course we need urban aid, but we do not need it to create inflation in our society. Urban grants or urban aid should not boost land prices or inflate house value; in my area because that would price the very people that we are trying to support out of the market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth claims that the development will benefit everyone in that part of the world. However, I notice that 25 per cent. of the residential development will be social or low-cost housing and I accept that that percentage is slightly more than tokenism. However, the rest of the development is for the market and we know what the market means in terms of marina-style residential developments.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has referred to that part of the development as being more than tokenism. The debate on the 25 per cent. of the development for social housing for rent, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been an important factor in the discussions involving people in the existing communities. Just as we want to see developments in Wales and just as my hon. Friend wants to see developments in Merthyr and in the other valley communities, we in south Cardiff—which has suffered like the valley communities—have a right to want jobs and the right environment for the future of our people. Are we on the same side of the argument in wanting to see public investment produce good returns?
  Mr. Rowlands: We must ask how much that wily cost, how it should be financed and what kind of scheme we are talking about. I am sorry that I am now treading on the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, although he is inviting me to do that more and more. I have, to use a nautical term, been trying to steer a middle course. However, the barrage bay concept is not just to develop good, honest south Cardiff. The intention is to transport a London docklands-style yuppie development into Cardiff in an attempt to make the city greater than Bristol. We expect rather more for our city than what has been proposed around the marina-style development.
  The development cannot be compared with low-cost housing in Merthyr. Having fought his battles, if my hon. Friend has managed to come out with only 25 per cent. of the development for social housing for rent in comparison to the total amount of public expenditure investment, he has not won.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has been comparing the development with London docklands. The big difference in Cardiff has been the co-operation involving the development corporation in Wales in comparison to what has happened in London and elsewhere. Local councillors like Peter Perkins, the local council member in Grangetown, who is the deputy leader of the county council, and other local authority members have been supporting the scheme after examining it critically to
  94
  discover what it will do to present communities as well as to the future of Cardiff. Labour local authority members and others have given the scheme a critical and careful appraisal and that has led them to support it.
  Mr. Rowlands: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the way in which the local politics of the scheme have been unfolding. I have no right to enter that argument. However, those of us who represent Welsh constituencies have a right to claim that developments of this kind have wider implications. Inevitably, we are drawn into arguments about priorities.
  The essential character of the scheme and particularly that character of the scheme that will be "barrage dependent", to borrow a phrase from a Welsh Office letter, will not necessarily be for the average working folk—and I put it no higher than that. I do not believe that the amount of public expenditure is justified.
  Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are already huge areas of housing around the bay area including Channel view, Ferry road, Avondale crescent and the Hamadryad? There is already a huge amount of housing in place and that is far from being yuppie housing. All that housing will benefit enormously from the improvements that the barrage development can bring.
  Mr. Rowlands: There has been a great deal of development around the bay without the barrage.
  I want now to consider the Bill's public expenditure consequences. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and rattled through his speech. However, we expected him to consider the public expenditure consequences. Indeed, he wrote me a four or five page letter setting out those consequences following our last debate on the matter.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman expected me to consider the public expenditure consequences today. On 19 December 1989 and 17 October 1990 the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), dealt with the matter. I sent the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) a nine-page letter on the subject on 13 December, but he did not reply. I assume that he was happy with it.
  Mr. Rowlands: I was waiting for the opportunity to cross-examine the Minister when he presented the figures publicly. The Minister took the trouble to write to me because he thought that it would be helpful to have a detailed explanation and clarification following our earlier exchanges.
  Mr. Rogers: Surely my hon. Friend should point out to the Minister that the locus of the Welsh Office in the argument is the public expenditure aspect. It is not the Minister's function to advocate a particular scheme, because this is a private Bill. The Minister's and the Government's input into this kind of legislation and discussion should involve the implications for public expenditure.
  Mr. Rowlands: That is so. The Minister should have presented the public expenditure implications of the Bill that he has supported in this House.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted a debate on the Bill's principles. The

  95
  letter that I sent him on 13 December contains nothing new from that which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central had advocated previously.
  Mr. Rowlands: He felt it necessary to place the expenditure implications on record. I would have been happy to curtail my speech if the Minister had set the matter out clearly.
  Let us look at what was contained in the letter of 13 December. The Minister confirms that the cost related to the Bill started out at about £84 million. He later confirms that figures have risen substantially. The key part related to the proportions of public and private expenditure. He said in the letter that of the £547 million of barrage-dependent and public expenditure, £335 million was estimated to be public expenditure. That is more than three fifths of the total cost of the scheme.
  Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rowlands: Not at the moment.
  Mr. Michael: I thought that my hon. Friend might not give way.
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall present the case and then readily give way to my hon. Friend.
  As I have said, £335 million of the £547 million for the barrage and associated works which are described in the letter and appendices is assumed to be public expenditure. The letter states:
  "The assumption in the January 1990 Update, which we would certainly support, is that there will be a greater degree of co-operation between the private sector and the Corporation".
  As a result, the Minister says that public expenditure will be £335 million. Will he assure the House that that proportion is correct, and that in six months we will not find a higher level of public expenditure? A huge number of assumptions are made about the proportions of public and private expenditure. The assumption of £335 million is based upon an increased contribution from the private sector. Will the Minister assure the House that that is the true ratio of public and private investment in the scheme?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a scheme of this size and duration, no Minister could give absolute assurances. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the figures of £547 million and £335 million do not take into account the consultants' estimates. We are talking about total private investment of more than £1,500 million, and that includes the cost of all the other developments that will take place. The Bill mentions £335 million of public expenditure which will generate about £7 of private investment for every £1 of public expenditure.
  Mr. Rowlands: We are talking about what the Minister describes in his letter, which states:
  "In summary, therefore, the most important and up to date figures at a comparable price base …
  Cost of constructing the barrage: £125·55 million
  Total cost of barrage strategy: £547·29 million
  Total estimated public sector cost: £335 million".
  That is what we are debating, and it is the basis on which the Minister reveals the ratio of public-to-private expenditure. Is the £335 million as a proportion of the £547 million an assumption or an assurance?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what I said. I cannot give any assurance because I do not know how inflation and changes in the scheme might affect the figures in future. Over time there could be changes. The £547 million covers the barrage, the infrastructure costs, improved access, including the link road, and environmental improvements in the scheme. It does not include any private expenditure on housing and commercial developments. The scheme could have £1·6 billion of private investment. That is £7 of private investment for every £1 of public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that.
  Mr. Rowlands: I understand it too well, and the Minister is trying to move to a wider point. I am asking about his letter, which plainly states that barrage-dependent costs for maximum development potential are £547 million, of which £335 million will come from the public sector. The letter states that the assumption in the January 1990 update is that there will be more private sector involvement in this barrage-related development scheme. It states:
  "The assumption in the January 1990 Update, which we would certainly support, is that there will be a greater degree of co-operation between the private sector and the Corporation in bringing forward developments within the overall barrage strategy. This will result in greater private sector contribution towards investment in infrastructure and reclamation works … water features, Iandscaping and, possibly, car parking and light railway facilities. Clearly, therefore, this will have a beneficial effect on the public sector input and, as I have indicated during our exchanges"—
  that is interesting because those last words betray the fact that the letter was written by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, because the only exchanges I have ever had on this matter have been with the hon. Gentleman. The letter continues:
  "it is estimated that the public sector will meet £335 million (in mid-1989–90 prices) of the £547 million total cost".
  I narrow my question and repeat it to the Minister. In the terms of his own letter, in which he states
  "the public sector will meet £335 million (in mid-1989–90 prices) of the £547 million total cost … with the balance … from private investment",
  will he now give the House something more than an assumption? Will he give us that assurance? At least we now know that, according to the Government, three fifths of the total cost of the scheme at the moment is to be met by the public as opposed to the private sector.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rowlands: No, I shall not give way because I am asking the Minister whether he will give us the assurance that that is the proportion of public to private sector involvement, as he described it in his letter.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I shall give the hon. Gentleman this assurance. I am convinced that there are adequate safeguards to control public expenditure on the scheme.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose——
  Mr. Michael rose——
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: My interpretation of the Minister's evasiveness on this matter is that he cannot give an assurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that that £547 million will escalate and that the

  97
  costs involved could be £600 million or £700 million, most of which will come from the public purse? Given the recession that we are now in—and if we have another Conservative Government, we shall never get out of it—the £1,500 million that the Minister projected will never come and the amount involved will be more like £1,000 million. We shall then be left with a multiplier not of 7:1 but of 2:1, if that.
  Mr. Rowlands: What my hon. Friend has just said is absolutely valid.
  Mr. Michael: I am keen that we should all operate on the same figures. That is why I sought to intervene a moment ago. Although I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's interesting conversation with the Minister, I want to ensure that we are all making the same assumptions——
  Mr. Rowlands: I was referring to the Minister's letter.
  Mr. Michael: Yes, I am referring to the Minister's letter also. My hon. Friend knows that I have been given a copy. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the £547 million includes the cost of the primary distributor road—the PDR—and the costs of a substantial number of other schemes. I questioned that at an early stage, because it seemed that all sorts of things, including the PDR, should not be included as barrage-related costs. We in south Cardiff have been waiting for relief for communities, such as Grangetown and Butetown, and for the building of the PDR. It has nothing to do with the building of the barrage, but I understand that it has to be included for legal reasons. Does my hon. Friend accept that the figure relating to the construction of the barrage, which is what we should really be concerned about, is £125 million of the figure to which he referred?
  Mr. Rowlands: Yes, of course I accept my hon. Friend's last point because that is the direct cost of the Bill. However, the Minister's letter stated that barrage-dependent expenditure to maximise the full potential is £547 million. I am quoting the Minister's figures—not mine or my hon. Friend's. The Minister has said that £335 million of that amount is public expenditure. I am simply seeking a modest assurance from the Minister that at least that proportion, which I think is horrific, will stand. I have not received that assurance and I hope that the Minister is satisfied with the control mechanisms for public expenditure.
  I should like to remind the House——
  Mr. Jimmy Hood rose——
  Mr. Rowlands: I know that my hon. Friend served on the Private Bill Committee, but I should like to develop my point a little and then I shall happily give way to him.
  We are told in the same letter that there are control mechanisms in place in the Welsh Office to ensure that costs are well under control. Let us consider first the cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has mentioned—the cost of the Bill itself. It started at £84 million—that is on the face of the Bill. At the same 1988 prices, the cost then rose to £113 million. Now, at 1989–90 prices, the cost is £125 million. According to the letter, the outturn cost is £147 million. I doubt whether the control mechanisms on which we are supposed to depend are well illustrated by that increase in expenditure.
  Mr. Hood: I chaired one sitting of the Committee
  98
  examining the Bill, when we interviewed three Treasury officials. We asked about control, but the officials could not give us assurances. We already had high inflation then, and now we also have a deep recession. I asked whether the £547 million could rise to £600 million or £800 million, and they could not answer. That may help the point that my hon. Friend is making.
  Mr. Rowlands: That is helpful. For all the words in the Minister's letter, the reality is that the control mechanisms are not effective.
  I have a suggestion to put to the Minister which I hope that, with his great Thatcherite tradition, he will accept. Why do we not cap the public expenditure that will result from the Bill? That should appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who goes around capping everybody else. We could put into the Bill rigid public expenditure-capped limits on every item of expenditure. We could follow the channel tunnel principle, which he supports, so that, instead of having a public expenditure element in the Bill, the £125 million could be raised in the private market, as funds for the channel tunnel were. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 has a section that forbids the use of public funds in the building of that tunnel. I have no doubt that the Minister supported, in his fervent Thatcherite way, that fundamental principle. If he believes in control mechanisms and the rest, will he support amendments to the Bill to introduce such rigid caps, so that at least the proportion of public expenditure to the private expenditure does not get out of hand, as it is doing now? That constructive suggestion should fall on welcoming ears now that the hon. Gentleman has been elevated from the Back Benches to the Front Bench.
  Mr. Rogers: Many of us have not had the privilege of seeing the Minister's letter. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether there is any assessment of returns on the expenditure? The Minister has, quite rightly, said that, given the proportion of private expenditure—I presume that every penny of that expenditure is costed in for a return out—the public money going in will have little return. Does the Minister mention any return, or does he expect the development corporation to repay public expenditure when it makes its huge profit?
  Mr. Rowlands: There are rates of return on investment to be found in the various documents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that he did not think that the Butetown link should be included. Whether it should be or not, I have one point to make about it. The 1·5 miles of the Butetown link is to cost an estimated £95·5 million. I picked up the Welsh Office Government expenditure plan. In table 7.4 on roads and transport, figures are given for the new construction programme, the main trunk road programme and various other roads. Except for the Briton Ferry-Earlswood section, no other road has a cost per mile higher than the 1·5 miles of the Butetown link. My hon. Friend has done his constituents proud in achieving this fantastic commitment. I do not engage in the politics of envy when I suggest gently that 1·5 miles for £95·5 million is a cost that should raise an eyebrow or two. The equivalent of the Butetown link for developmental purposes in my constituency is a programme that comes within the trunk road programme. It is called the Pentrebach-Mountain Hare route, phase 2. I thought that

  99
  the cost of that programme was high, but I have learnt since how modest it was. It is clear that I shall have to increase my demands on Secretaries of State. The cost of the programme was a mere £4·4 million a mile.
  We heard at long last great announcements from the Dispatch Box about the delayed Llanbradach scheme. Will the cost of that scheme be £60 million a mile? As I have said, the cost of the Bute link is £63 million a mile. It is said that it is part of a scheme, but it has cost a great deal of money. Even the Under-Secretary of State might raise an eyebrow if he were asked to think about £63 million a mile and the needs of Pembroke. There is other road expenditure that has to be taken into account. The cost per mile of the A55 has not reached £63 million. The Briton Ferry-Earlswood links with the M4 would not cost so much per mile.
  Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the one-and-a-half miles of the Butetown link? Has there been a 17 per cent. or 20 per cent. return? Bearing in mind the major links with the major arteries that we are rightly building in the Principality, it is extraordinary that the cost of a 1·5 mile link should be so enormous.
  As I have said, I am not engaging in the politics of envy. It is only right, however, to cross-examine at considerable length when we come to the public expenditure implications of projects such as the Butetown link.
  I am a great fan of the marvellous comedy "Only Fools and Horses". In the penultimate episode, Uncle Albert went missing. Rodney, the nephew, and Del Boy find Uncle Albert down Tobacco road, where he had been brought up. Tears were streaming down his eyes. That was his reaction when he saw the London dockland of today, the world from which he had come. He was understandably nostalgic, but it was a world that had to go. The nephew understood Uncle Albert's feelings. He understood the thoughts that were passing through his mind. As a member of the young generation, he was turning his back on the yuppie land of marinas and the dockland development that Uncle Albert had seen. The person who admired that development and considered it paradise was Del Boy. He stood before the development in amazement and, in effect, said, "This is Paradise. If only I could get my hands on one of the apartments and hang around for a couple of years, some Arabs would buy it from me at a greatly inflated price."
  There are not too many schemes such as that which is to be seen in the dockland area of London, but I fear that the Cardiff bay barrage yuppie residential schemes are part of Del Boy development and Del Boy society. Such activity might have been a feature of society in the 1980s, but I do not believe that it will be part of the 1990s. That is why I shall vote against the further consideration of the Bill.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the Uncle Alberts and the other inhabitants of Tobacco road are very much in Grangetown and the docks area generally. They will not be thrown out.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest as a relative of mine, the widow of my late brother, has recently bought a
  100
  house in Channel View road at a cost of rather less than £40,000. She has not moved into a new development. I am talking of council houses that were built in the 1930s. There is much older housing as well, which was built in the previous century. That is to be found in Ferry road. The housing in Avondale road was built in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Housing in the docks area, near the Hamadrayad, was built in the previous century. Some of the most recently built housing there is that which was provided to replace temporarily—in fact, most of the houses have become permanent—dwellings in the Madras street and Thomas street areas of Grangetown. Those could by no stretch of the imagination be described as yuppie areas; the reverse, indeed, is the case. It is the established community, not the yuppies, that will benefit hugely from improvement of the environment.
  The great curse of the coast of south Wales was described by Tennyson in the words
  "Break, break, break.
  On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!".
  He was describing the haven under the hill—the haven was Penarth—and the tall ships that went by. Tennyson stayed in the Hanbury arms, which is in my constituency, in the last century. The problem then was the same as the problem now. This is not a beautiful area. For 18 hours a day the view is not of a reflecting sea or of beautiful waves; it is of a mudscape. Sadly, since Tennyson's time even the mudscape has deteriorated greatly. The mud is now heavily polluted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is absolutely right when he refers to the disgraceful way in which we have fouled our rivers over the past 150 years. Restoring those rivers, preferably to the state that they were in 200 years ago, must be a major cause. It is conceivable. I hope that I am not being too autobiographical when I say that, as children, we used to swim in the Taff, near the Penarth road bridge. I remember vividly the feeder, which was exposed. There are now buildings there. During the war, boys would dive for coins. The river was in a terrible state at that time, but it is now becoming a fish habitat once more.
  There has been reference—how serious, I am not sure—to fish passes. This issue has arisen only very recently. I understand that Mr. Creswell, the National Rivers Authority's spokesman on these matters, gave evidence about fish passes. There was no challenge at the time, but another Bill will provide an opportunity for that. That Bill, which will involve my constituency, casts its shadow before it.
  I understand that in the Usk, which has been rich in fish life for at least 10,000 years—there may be objection to that period—is still rich in fish life. The number of fish caught in the estuary of the Usk, which is in my constituency, is eight times as great as the number caught in the 100-mile stretch that runs through the countryside. There is a very strong vested interest. The most remarkable thing about the fish is that they have been so robust over the years. Some of them have managed to swim through the fouled waters of the lower Usk, whereas, for many years, they have not succeeded in the Taff or in the Ely. It is gratifying to see such an improvement in water quality.
  A great deal has emerged from this debate. It has been much better tempered than many other debates. The question of water quality is, of course, paramount. I am told that the worst that we can expect is water quality such as is to be found in Roath park lake and Bute east dock,

  101
  which supports fish life and, at present, cormorant life. Although there is pollution there, it is not such that people find it disagreeable. At present, the great problem about the Cardiff bay area arises from mud held in suspension, which gives the water an ugly brown colour. There may be other reasons as well, but the principal one is mud in suspension.
  While on a boat trip with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I was fascinated to notice how nature had defied the experts. In the area, at least 20 cormorants have managed to survive, even though the water is not transparent at all. According to the experts, those birds should not be able to survive. Cormorants need to be able to see through water in order to fish. But nature tends—as the cormorants and other birds are—to be far more robust and better at looking after itself than many people suggest. There are many other examples throughout south Wales of birds finding other habitats.
  There has been no mention of the measures which will be taken under the Bill to establish an alternative habitat. There is an exciting proposal in the area of Wentloog, some of which is close to my constituency. Such measures have been taken elsewhere. That development should be well worth while. Great colonies of birds have moved from Collister Pill, an area at Magor in the Monmouth constituency. Those areas were drained for agricultural reasons and the habitat of tens of thousands of birds was destroyed. The birds moved to a wholly artificial, man-made habitat at the Uskmouth power station. They settled there and feed on the mudflats. They breed on the Uskmouth power station land. They have adapted successfully.
  There is much pessimism about the Bill. So many people fail to see that it is a magnificaent concept. We should feel excited about the scale of it and what it will do. It will make an enormous difference. Throughout the world—for example, in Australia and in Baltimore, in America—hugely successful schemes have been undertaken to allow people to enjoy living near areas of reflective water. The human species likes to live in such pleasant surroundings.
  Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend argue that we should spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to create reflective water?
  Mr. Flynn: I am saying that the Bill has many advantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) suggested that all the money was intended to create jobs; he calculated the cost of each job created. But the Bill has so many advantages that one cannnot pin down the value of the Bill to one.
  There has been a generous spirit in the debate tonight. It is significant that no one accused anyone of having a beggar-my-neighbour policy, but certain hon. Members adopted a defensive attitude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, we should all realise that prosperity as well as dereliction is contagious. We live in a single economy in south Wales. What is good for Cardiff will be good for Newport and the valleys. We welcome the £800 million investment in the valleys even though we may have been doubtful about some of it and the amount. We should like to see a great deal more investment spread to the valleys. They will benefit from the Bill.
  102
  Furthermore, Cardiff is our capital city. I have a special pride in it, in spite of being wickedly provoked on Saturday night when I attended the dinner of the Welsh Baseball Union. Welsh baseball is a splendid sport played only in the favoured areas of Cardiff, Newport and Liverpool. Welsh baseball is different from any other type of baseball. I was introduced to the assembled guests as, not the Member for Newport, West but the Member for Cardiff, Far East. In spite of that, I feel a loyalty to the Bill.
  I see the proposed barrage as a most exciting development in south Wales. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and others have rightly argued about the Bill and questioned it. The important matters raised, especially that of ground water and the history of the area, should be examined in great detail. If it is discovered that the worst fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West will be realised—we all hope that they will not be—the Bill and the entire project will be friendless in the House. I hope that that will not be the case.
  Mr. Morgan rose——
  Mr. Flynn: I shall take the hint.
  I think that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who intervened on the subject of fish passes, was being unduly pessimistic. Salmon are strong, resilient fish. They have survived. They go through waterfalls and all kinds of pollution. The great problem is that salmon need water coming down the rivers. They need sufficient rainfall. Global warming and our warm summers will cause them more problems than getting through fish passes, which are established and work well.
  We look forward to the day when the many objectors, both serious and less so, are answered and we can stroll together along the magnificent banks of Cardiff bay.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcomed the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) when he said what a good-natured debate we have had this evening, throughout the entire three hours and especially on the Opposition side of the House, although there was one exception, when the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) spoke. He rather surprised us all. He tried to exhibit mind-reading skills that we did not know he had. He was not trying to work out whether hon. Members such as myself disagreed with him, but our motives for doing so. I do not think that the House would function if we started to smear any hon. Member who disagreed with us by saying that they had heard voices. That was completely unnecessary. We all do our work in our own way and look after our constituents' interests. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has a better way of looking after his constituents' interests than I have, no doubt the results will show after the next election. That is when the matter will be put to the test.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central how he would be right to say that I had heard voices and that that is why I am opposing the Bill. However, I did not hear voices in the sense that he meant. It was simply that I walked around my constituency in Pontcanna and met a pensioner, who told me that he had lived there all his life, he knew all the pensioners, and he knew that they did not want the barrage. However, that was not sufficient basis for deciding to oppose this measure.

  103
  The next stage in my decision to oppose the barrage came when I was called to meet Dr. Noake, who was paid for by Cardiff Bay development corporation, as a second-opinion consulting geologist engineer. He was educated and lives in south Wales, and is an experienced consulting geologist. I was asked to meet him because he had been working on the barrage proposals and their effect upon the drainage of the low-lying part of Cardiff west, Cardiff central and Cardiff south. He told me that in his opinion—he was paid for by the development company, but jointly chosen by it and the objectors, as it was thought to be the fairest way to operate—having studied the scheme, the geological contours and the way in which the water table operated, he thought that the low-lying areas of Cardiff would fail to drain in certain circumstances if the barrage were built and that that would have the obvious consequence of a rising water table.
  A locally based, professional engineering geologist told me that there could be problems for draining the low-lying parts of my constituency and others, so again that made me take notice.
  I then set to and I read the entire evidence submitted to the House of Lords and decided that as the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West it was my responsibility to oppose the barrage because more low-lying residential areas are in my constituency than in that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central seems to object to this process. He seems to think that because I did not oppose the barrage on the first day I heard about it, I sacrificed my right to oppose it at any subsequent stage. That is obvious nonsense. One has to accumulate the necessary facts to form an opinion in the best way that one can as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman also seems to think that because I was the industrial development officer for the county of South Glamorgan I must somehow have been aware of the barrage proposal and must have favoured it before I came to this House. He forgets that I ceased to be the industrial development officer for the county in 1980, more than six years before the Secretary of State for Wales thought up this proposal. So any connection between my previous employment and my right to oppose the barrage on behalf of my constituents is a complete mystery to me. I will have to write to him when this stage is over to find out what he meant by hearing voices and whether he considers that to be a proper parliamentary remark for one Cardiff Member to make about another.
  Apart from that, the debate has been good natured on all sides and there has been a great deal of understanding. The fact that we may differ and that we have formed our views in different ways does not affect our ability to put them on record for the purpose of trying to persuade our colleagues to vote for or against the barrage.
  We are being asked to consider the Bill as amended by the Select Committee, which did its work thoroughly and diligently. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) signed a minority report. There were 72 petitioners overall—one of the many parliamentary records set by the Bill. Many of the petitioners were not well off. They were not corporations and they could not call for expenses and first-class railway tickets to London,
  104
  as we can and as companies can. Had they had to come to Parliament, they would have been put to considerable expense and might have prejudiced their jobs by taking time off. The Select Committee wisely accepted a request to hold sessions in Cardiff to let those petitioners appear, and it met for an entire week in South Glamorgan county hall. Something similar has happened only once before. We are grateful to the Select Committee for doing that and enabling many of my constituents to appear at minimum private expense.
  What the Select Committee did was curious and highly innovative, and requires serious consideration. It approved the Bill but not the barrage. It said in effect, "We are not in a position to give the barrage the go-ahead. We accept largely the ground water case made by the professional engineering witnesses who appeard on behalf of the objectors." Those witnesses were Dr. John Miles, Professor Ken Rushton and Brian Connorton from Thames Water. By and large the Select Committee accepted the bulk of their objections to the work that has been done so far. In effect, the Select Committee said, "We are not willing to pass the barrage. We want to pass the buck on the final decision to the Secretary of State for Wales after more ground water studies have been carried out." Studies should be carried out over a full four seasons because measurements are being made of rainfall and its effects on the ground water table to try to get an impression of the process going on under the soil in Cardiff.
  Most of the objectors in my constituency think that if the Committee was not ready to pass the barrage, it should not have approved the Bill. They wonder what the Committee meant by approving the Bill when it was not ready to approve the major works which the Bill would empower the corporation to do. I understand that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale signed the minority report; I am paraphrasing his views but he said that if the Committee was not ready to approve the barrage it should not send the Bill back to Parliament. My hon. Friend wanted the ground water studies to be completed so that the Bill would come back to Parliament to give the scheme the go-ahead only provided that the additional information warranted it.
  Mr. Michael: Obviously my hon. Friend develops the chronology in accordance with his own views and his reading of the evidence. Does he accept that the decision of the majority of the Select Committee and the interpretation placed on it by experts and engineers, including the independent experts on whom I have depended, are reassuring and that the additional work which was to take place anyway was, as it were, the belt and braces in addition to the considerable safeguards in relation to ground water?
  Mr. Morgan: If my hon. Friend thinks that that version of events is better than mine, perhaps I should read out Hydrotechnica's version, contained in the interim report that the company sprang on everyone in Cardiff—everyone of whom I am aware, at any rate—last Thursday. On page 2, we read:
  "At the Commons Committee stage of the Bill, Proofs of Evidence were presented by Professor K. Rushton, Dr. J. Miles and Mr. B. Connorton, on behalf of the Petitioners, which were critical of the modelling work and which cast doubts on its reliability.
  As a consequence of this, Hydrotechnica was instructed by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in March 1990 to

  105
  examine the modelling work performed by WEL, and the Proofs of Evidence, and to give an opinion. Hydrotechnica reported one week later accepting the competence of the Petitioners' advisers to comment on the work, and agreeing in large measure with the comments made. Hydrotechnica did however state '… we believe from our concept of the system that these conclusions'"—
  those of Wallace Evans—
  "'are essentially correct …'
  It became clear that the deficiencies identified in the modelling work needed to be addressed, and such action was undertaken by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. The Bill passed the Committee stage, with the condition that Hydrotechnica should carry out further modelling over a 12 month period ending on 31 July 1991."
  I do not want to engage in a barren argument about whether my version is superior to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I rest on the Hydrotechnica version.
  Mr. Michael rose——
  Mr. Morgan: No, I will not give way; I think that three versions of the same event are quite enough, with only 20 minutes to go before the witching hour.
  Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way on this specific point?
  Mr. Morgan: Yes, given my hon. Friend's professional knowledge of geology.
  Mr. Rogers: This has nothing to do with my expertise as a geologist. I have long given up that profession; my point relates purely to common sense.
  It appears that the Bill will have a minimal effect on houses in low-lying areas as a result of ground water. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to get rid of all such possibilities by allowing the models to cover at least four seasons? Is it not foolish to proceed with the Bill in its present form, given the present assumptions about ground water?
  Mr. Morgan: Let me make it clear that the proposal is to compensate for the damage being done by remedial work. It is anticipated that at least 1,000 houses may be affected by the waterlogging of basements, for instance, and my constituents do not understand why they should put up with such botheration.
  There is a wider and more important point at issue, however. We are now being asked to accept the Bill without the barrage, but to take the barrage on trust when the additional ground water studies have been completed on 31 July. That is a unique parliamentary device: it is rather like General Colin Powell's words to the United States press corps the other day, when they were looking at the laser print. He said. "Trust me; I have had to change the photographs a bit to stop the Iraqis from understanding where we get our information from."
  How much trust can my constituents—who constitute a large proportion of the objectors—put in the House and the Secretary of State for Wales, given that, since 7 February, we have had a document signed by the Government Chief Whip telling all Ministers to be present tonight to vote the Bill through in the Lobby—and also to procure the presence of all parliamentary private secretaries? They are the unpaid members of the payroll voters who hope for promotion next year. The Welsh Office will, apparently, be acting quasi-judicially at the end
  106
  of a planning inquiry, but we know that the Government have been whipping the Bill through on the quiet all the time.
  Mr. Hood: As a Member of the Select Committee and as the individual who wrote the minority report, may I cast some light on my hon. Friend's comments about the Committee's views? The Committee unanimously accepted the evidence of Rushton and Miles. We would not have supported the Bill without the amendment backed by the majority which gave the final decision to the Secretary of State. Judging from the advice that we have been given by the Clerk, I do not believe that the Bill will proceed any further, whether or not the House supports it. There was gerrymandering. The Bill was not accepted because of the dangers. That was dishonest. Therefore, I cannot support it. I do not criticise the three other members of the Select Committee. They came to an honourable decision, but the advice we received and the evidence we heard led me to believe that the Bill would not be supported by the Secretary of State for Wales. We were advised that the Bill was flawed. That was the reason for the amendment. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend to develop his point.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central will say that he heard voices, too. If he did, they were the right ones. His words will be warmly welcomed by a large number of my constituents whose houses are low lying and near to the river.
  Additional ground water studies began after the Select Committee disgorged the Bill on 14 May. The Cardiff Bay development corporation said that as most of the work had already been started it would be completed by March. Luckily, the Select Committee was able to put that straight. The corporation was firmly put in its place by the Committee. It was told that the work would begin on 1 August 1990 and would end on 31 July 1991. Over a full 12 month period that allows readings to be taken from the boreholes of the rise and fall of the tide, heavy rainfall and drought. A large number of boreholes have been drilled in the three constituencies affected; furthermore, a few have been drilled in the Cardiff, North constituency.
  Hydrotechnica's interim report was published last Thursday. The Committee appointed Dr. John Miles to give a second opinion and to act on the petitioner's behalf. It was felt that that would reassure them that the Committee had done its work thoroughly and that it would not allow the petitioners to be railroaded by Hydrotechnica or any other consultants. Consultants are pulled both ways—in one way by their professional reputations, which they want to protect, and in the other way by the fees that they receive from their clients and by their customer-client relationship.
  In addition to the protection afforded by Hydrotechnica's good name as professional experts in hydrogeology and computerised modelling of ground water, Dr. John Miles was called in to give a second opinion. When he was asked whether he had read the interim report and had been given a chance to comment upon it, he said that he had not—that he had not been told that it was to be published and that therefore he had been given no chance to comment upon it. The report was therefore published for public relations purposes just

  107
  before the debate by Cardiff Bay development corporation. It told Hydrotechnica that it needed a report before this debate but Hydrotechnica was told not to show it to Dr. Miles in case he said that he wanted certain alterations to be made to it, or that he disagreed with it. The interim report was not shown to that second opinion, Dr. Miles, who had been appointed by the Select Committee to look after the interests of the ground water objectors.
  That is no way to deal with the Select Committee's views on the ground water objections to the Bill. That is a poor advertisement for the trust that my constituents, who have ground water objections to the Bill, can place in the way that the Cardiff Bay development corporation works. It does not seem to appreciate that the Select Committee wanted evidence from other geologists and engineers as well as its own evidence. The corporation should read a few texts on philosophical humility. It should have realised that when the Select Committee told it that it wanted the corporation to appoint consultants and to refer everything that its consultants proposed to a second opinion, it ought to have done so and then made use of that second opinion instead of ignoring it. It should not have tried to go behind his back just because a big debate was to take place in the House of Commons. It is similar to what happened when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He cut base rates by 0·5 per cent. on the last day of the Labour party conference and the last working day before the Conservative party conference. The right hon. Gentleman thought that that was a clever move, but it has rebounded because markets have lost faith.
  I am concerned that the same process will occur again. My constituents who object to the Bill may ask, "What trust can we put in this elaborate structure that the Select Committee created to defend our interests? One need not worry about Hydrotechnica and the Cardiff Bay development corporation railroading you, because there is Dr. John Miles." The development corporation did not consult Dr. John Miles when it wanted to bring out an interim report.
  Dr. John Miles, Professor Rushton and those of my constituents who object to the Bill will probably tomorrow—unless the cold weather holds it up—sink boreholes in certain parts of Cardiff to act as a double check. Professor Rushton is one of the world's great experts on computerised modelling of ground water behaviour. Boring holes is the only comeback they have against the development corporation's underhand behaviour. I do not criticise Hydrotechnica—the firm has an immense reputation—but all consultants are pulled by the attraction of fees while obviously having to consider their professional reputation.
  Economic arguments have been made for the barrage. We heard a great deal about the promises of huge numbers of jobs in the Cardiff area. We even heard that the development may in some way skew up the pattern of development in south Wales because too many jobs may accrue in Cardiff and not enough in other areas. We have heard that the development may make Cardiff bigger than Bristol, double its size and make it an important European capital city of the 21st century.
  The Cardiff Bay development corporation's record on job creation is abysmal. The corporation existed in prototype form from about February four years ago, so it
  108
  is virtually the corporation's birthday. More than £100 million of public funds has been given to it and it has acquired many sites. During a period that included a considerable boom in industrial investment, by British standards, the development corporation has managed to contribute only a new Volvo garage to Cardiff's economic life.
  That is a poor return for four years of effort. It is a taster of the incompetence and overweaning behaviour that will characterise the corporation's behaviour. It does not have to abide by the rules governing local authorities and because it has been a favoured child of the Government. Therefore, it is not able to bargain and to negotiate in the same way as people who live in the real world. It is neither in the private sector, because it is publicly funded, nor in the public sector, because it does not have democratic accountability. One tends to get the worst of both worlds.
  Four years of effort have given rise to one imported car garage—just the sort of thing that will put Britain back on the right track to economic growth. If any hon. Member knows of a development to which the development corporation has managed to give birth, I should be pleased to amend my statement. My understanding is that Bay Track Volvo in Cardiff bay is the only project that the development corporation has managed to get together in four years.
  We have not heard the Government's solution to the problem of the highly nutrient-rich water of the bay. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the water quality of the bay will be as good as in Roath park lake, which is surrounded by some of the most attractive housing in Cardiff, and in Bute dock. However, it is far more nutrient-rich than Roath park lake and is a far shallower environment than Roath dock, which has steep sides. Large mats of algae will form, as they did last summer and the summer before last in the shallow feeder lakes into Roath park, which had to be removed in lorries. When mats of algae are allowed to decay they give off an anaerobic stench, and that will be a characteristic of the bay. It is accepted by the bay's promoters and their water consultants that mats of algae will form in the summer, when people will expect to be able to toddle around and enjoy Cardiff bay at its best. During the fine weather, unfortunately, the eutrophication and the low oxygen levels——
  Mr. Michael rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered:—
  The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 17.

  Division No. 68]

  [at 10 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amess, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Anderson, Donald

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Bowis, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Boyes, Roland

  Atkinson, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brazier, Julian

  109

  Bright, Graham

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

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

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howells, Geraint

  Burns. Simon

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Jessel, Toby

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Key, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kilfedder, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Couchman, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cox, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Crowther, Stan

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Devlin, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dixon, Don

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lilley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Fallon, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Maclean, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Mans, Keith

  Foster, Derek

  Maples, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Meale, Alan

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Ground, Patrick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Michael, Alun

  Hague, William

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  110

  Patnick, Irvine

  Steen, Anthony

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Stern, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Portillo, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Raffan, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thorne, Neil

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Trotter, Neville

  Robertson, George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Vaz, Keith

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Speed, Keith

  Speller, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Gwilym Jones, and Mr. Paul Flynn.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Short, Clare

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

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

  Fearn, Ronald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hood, Jimmy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lamond, James

  Mr. Alan W. Williams and Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

  Lewis, Terry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Bill to be further considered on Thursday 12 February.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  10.14 pm
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Sir Paul. It is difficult for us to hear what is going on with all the noise.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): May I ask those hon. Members who are not staying for the Committee stage of the Bill to continue their conversations outside?
  Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill
    Clause 6

      EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 42, leave out from 'to' to `and' in line 43 and insert
      'affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons'.
      The amendment converts the all-important proposed statutory instrument in clause 6 from a negative resolution—that is, from an order which is not usually debated unless it is prayed against—to an affirmative resolution, which is debatable.
      I thank the Leader of the House for including clause 6 in the Bill. With your permission, Sir Paul, I hope to speak to the structure of the clause and the nature of the order when dealing with the amendment and to turn briefly to some other aspect of this matter in the clause stand part debate. There have been negotiations or talks between the trustees of the House of Commons pension fund, but I stand in some representative capacity in my party and I wish to try to convey to the Leader of the House the strength of opinion on this matter across all parties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) may catch your eye on Third Reading, Sir Paul, to deal with that matter.
      If I speak with some feeling it is because one of the first constituency cases with which I dealt when I became a Member of Parliament over 20 years ago concerned the family of a former hon. Member. He was well known and well liked. Alas, he died unexpectedly in his late forties or early fifties. In his last illness, he realised that he would live only two or three weeks beyond the 10-year limit. When he realised that, he was thankful that the House of Commons pension fund would look after his wife and two children. Alas, however, a visit to the Fees Office a little later revealed that, although the former Member had completed 10 years and so many weeks' service, he had not taken into account the fact that the time during which the House had been prorogued would be deducted from his service. That hon. Gentleman and his family failed to qualify.
      Things have improved since then in the House of Commons pension fund, which looks after such cases, but those hon. Members who retired before 1964 find that, to some extent, that state of affairs still persists. We are all agreed that the benefits and the terms of the fund are not yet geared up to what hon. Members might expect if they had not been Members of this House and—more
      112
      importantly—to what their families, dependants and widows might have expected if the hon. Member had not been a Member.
      Therefore, although the increased benefits that we expect in another order that the Leader of the House is to lay at some stage are not part of this Bill, some aspects of the legislation give cause for concern. My concern is with the nature of the order. Clearly, we are in an unusual position, which is partly the nature of Parliament, but it is also constitutional. As employees of the public, we pay a proportion of our income—whether fixed or variable—into the fund. In a sense, the House itself or the public—it is certainly not the Government—also pay a certain amount as the employer. That mechanism is well known and I need not go into it now, except to say that there is dispute about the amount.
      My point about the statutory instrument that is proposed in the clause and which must have the approval of the Treasury before it is laid by the Leader of the House is that the provisions place the Treasury in a special position. I am not sure that I agree with that and we could have tabled an amendment starting, "After consultation with the Treasury", but never mind, those are the provisions. The Treasury, however, is the protector of the public. In the debate on 31 January, the Leader of the House properly reminded us that the taxpayer must be borne in mind, but the taxpayers—whether through VAT or income tax—are our employers. Who, therefore, is representative of our employers? Is it the Treasury? More importantly, is it the First Lord—or even the First Lady—of the Treasury? This matter does not concern only the Chancellor. We all know who the First Lord of the Treasury is.
      Or is the representative of the public the body of Members of the House of Commons? I should think that there is at least as strong a case for saying that those who represent the public are the members of the House of Commons in generality as there is for saying that it is the single individual who is the First Lord of the Treasury and Her Majesty's—or His Majesty's; we are thinking ahead—Prime Minister of the day. Therefore, is not it anomalous that not only does the Treasury have to give its consent—that means either the Chancellor or the First Lord or Lady and there has been talk about which it was in the past—but it makes the decisions? As the Bill is drafted, the order, because it uses the royal prerogative, will inevitably come into force unless it is negatived.
      Is not it inappropriate for this important matter to be more on the side of the royal prerogative, within the personal control of the First Lord of the Treasury, than in the control of the House? Constitutionally, some people might argue, as I would on another occasion, that it should be entirely in the control of the House, acting as a representative of both the employers and employees, but that might be pressing it a bit hard. I am not saying that it should be framed only in consultation with the Treasury. The Leader of the House has drafted it as an agreement, so that is how we have it. However, if that is not so, there is an equal and proper argument that the House should not lie back and wait for it, but should have to give its approval.
      After all, the proportions of contribution, whatever they may be in the future, will be made under a contract of the House with itself—Government, Members and First Lord together. It is not just one sided. I think that the Leader of the House will agree that, as drafted, the Bill

      113
      leaves everything on the side of the Government and of the prerogative and gives nothing to the House. For that reason, an affirmative order would be consititutionally more acceptable and fairer in terms of contract, if nothing else. I know that this is a late stage in the long saga of this matter. I may be only putting down a marker for some future debate when perhaps none of us is here. However, it is one of substance, it is constitutional, it is to do with contract and, on any objective basis, it would stand up for approval.
      Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As one of the managing directors of the pension fund, I should perhaps say something. This is a matter which we considered, but we came to the conclusion that it was not right to have an affirmative resolution. The matter was discussed four years ago and, at the express wish of the House, the procedure was changed from the affirmative to the negative resolution. On Second Reading, it was felt that the change from primary to secondary legislation might give the House further opportunities to amend and debate the scheme. That was put to the Minister who undertook to consider the matter. He said:
      "I am happy to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that time will be made available for a debate on an amendable motion before any regulations amending the scheme are made under clause 2. This would allow, for example, the sort of debate that we had in July 1983 on the recommendations of the TSRB which led to the changes to the scheme that were made in the 1984 Act. The arrangements will be similar to the procedure for determining hon. Members' pay and allowances."—[Official Report, 13 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 371.]
      It was because that change was made at the request of the House four years ago that, when we most recently considered the matter, the managing trustees agreed, without dissent, that they would leave it as it stood. They felt that it would not be in the interests of Members to change the procedure.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), after putting down his marker, will agree to withdraw the amendment. I feel that it would not fit in with the considerable amount of work that has been done by the chairman of the trustees, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who, alas, cannot be with us this evening.
      The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I shall refer to two arguments that were advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) before I deal with the substance of the amendment. My first response relates to the case to which he referred of an ex-Member and the tragic circumstances that surrounded him. I agree that in times past the House did not treat its Members well in respect of pensions and other matters. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is why we have the Members' fund—so that widows and others can be looked after. He will have noted that in clause 7 we have changed the wording relating to the Members' fund to enable the trustees—it is their responsibility—fully to exercise their discretion. The wording was worked out by the trustees and myself and I think that it is welcome to the House.
      It was because there are problems relating to those who were previously Members of this place that I announced during our debate on 31 January that we were increasing funding from public sources, from the Treasury, by
      114
      £100,000 up to the maximum to enable trustees to fulfil their responsibilities. I hope that that will help in dealing with those who were previously Members.
      Secondly, I take up the excursion of the hon. Member for Newham, South into the siding of the balance of interests and who represents the public. There is a public interest in the form of those who are contributing the public sector element. Those are taxpayers. That is why the Treasury has an interest. Equally, we as Members make major contributions to the fund and we have an interest to ensure that our pensions are reasonable.
      I would not agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South entirely and say that, because we represent the public as a whole, we can represent the public on this matter. There is a need to recognise that we have a vested interest. That is why we have the Top Salaries Review Body considering these matters and why, on the balance of contributions, I felt and the trustees agreed that the problem currently causing concern to Members should be referred to the TSRB.
      I shall explain to the hon. Member for Newham, South why I think that things are better as they stand than they would be if his amendment were accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) put the case well. As I explained on Second Reading, although regulations under the 1987 Act are subject to the negative resolution procedure, we are permitted, in line with an undertaking of the Paymaster General in 1987, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, to set down regulations before the House in draft so that the House can make its views known and have them taken into account. I think that it was agreed in 1987 that in that way the rights of Members would be fully protected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, the trustees find that satisfactory. That, of course, is what we have done. There would be little point, therefore, in holding one debate on an amendable motion on regulations and then a second under the affirmative resolution procedure.
      I assure the hon. Member for Newham, South and the House generally that we have promised that these matters will be debated. I think that the arrangement proved itself when we tabled our motion on the draft regulations, which improved the scheme and which we debated on 31 January. Although the hon. Gentleman suggested that everything might be on the side of the Government, I believe that practice has proved that that is not so. I hope that it is clear from the discussions with the trustees leading to the Bill and the regulations that there is proper mutual negotiation. That is also clear, I believe, following the decisions that we took on 31 January. On that occasion, I accepted on behalf of the Government an argument that was advanced in relation to MEPs, and that will be included in the final regulations.
      I reassure the House that any regulations that are made under the clause will be treated in the same way as we approached the regulations on 31 January. I believe, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate and I have said, will agree that this is a better way to proceed.
      For the sake of completeness, I should refer to a technically deficient part of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is not only to ensure that the affirmative resolution procedure is used, but to eliminate the role of the House of Lords in the approval of the regulations. I am

      115
      not sure that the hon. Gentleman intended that effect. As I am sure he knows, some members of the other place are in the parliamentary scheme. It would be wrong to exclude them from the parliamentary process. However, that is a lesser point, as it could be put right. The main point is the one that both my hon. Friend and I have made—that, from the point of view of the House, the proposal in the Bill is a more satisfactory way to proceed.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Spearing: I should like to respond at once to the Leader of the House's closing point. It was, indeed, realised that the amendment would cut out the other place. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that some Members of the House of Lords are former Members of this House. But there are many who are not and I do not see why their employment, casual though it may be, should be regarded, for these purposes, as being in any way different from the casual employment elsewhere of other past Members of Parliament. By custom and practice, the other place takes no part in financial matters. In my view, this matter should be covered by that custom. I plead guilty to having been very well aware of that aspect of the amendment.
      Past Members who suffer tragedy are covered by the Members' fund, but, in respect of these matters, the atmosphere that we have inherited is not always good. There are one or two points that I want to press home when we discuss the clause stand part motion. To some extent, we are still in a transitional situation. I do not think that we have achieved the ultimately desirable level of benefits.
      The Leader of the House said that, as there will be a debate, there is no need for my amendment. I freely acknowledge his undertaking, given on 31 January, that there would be a debate and that it would take place after the TSRB had made its recommendations. However, the right hon. Gentleman will not always be Leader of the House. Nothing that happens on this occasion may be taken as a guarantee for the future. That is why the affirmative resolution procedure would be more appropriate, especially in respect of these matters.
      I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for his remarks. His point is valid to some extent, but it comes into the category of the one made by the Leader of the House. He said that in 1987 it was agreed that there would be a debate and he referred to what has been custom and practice, but, as I have indicated, there is no knowing what will happen in the future. For the moment, the trustees may be quite satisfied. I bow to their judgment, but in principle I am a little wary of what has been said.
      Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. He and I have been Members of Parliament for about the same length of time. Both of us, when in opposition, have pressed Governments for certain undertakings. Once a Government have given an undertaking—something that is enshrined in Hansard—he, certainly, and I, so far as I know, have always accepted that it will be honoured by all Governments. We were given such an undertaking four years ago. The hon. Gentleman and I, good House of Commons men as we are,
      116
      ought to be satisfied by that. Very seldom do people question undertakings given on behalf of Governments and recorded in Hansard.
      Mr. Spearing: This is indeed a fascinating exchange. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know to what I am referring when I say that a very important undertaking concerning the examination of certain legislation was given. That was undermined in a written answer given on the last day before the summer recess. I understand what the trustees have done. I understand that discussions have taken place. I believe that I have made a constitutional point in this context. The arguments have been made. Having heard what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, for the management trustees, and the Leader of the House had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Spearing: I shall deal with not the structure of the clause and what it seeks to achieve, but the content. Again, we owe our thanks to the Leader of the House for the hard work that he has done. Having dealt with the complications of the common agricultural policy, waded through education in the United Kingdom and attempted to grapple with the procedures of the House of Commons, the simple matter of pensions should have been just a few moments of easy work. But alas, it is not thus. I imagine that the Leader of the House must have burned the midnight oil dealing with this extremely complex issue. Therefore, if what I have to say to him seems a little unfair, I hope that he will take it in good part.
      The Leader of the House has said—he certainly did so in the debate on 31 January—that we want a scheme that is fair to everyone, but I am not sure that the scheme will be fair on widows. He has said that we have a scheme which will pay five eighths, not two thirds, of the pension allowable to the Member who dies. I hope that the next time that we have a benefit updating round we can have a look at that. It is not even five eighths of the pension of a Member who reaches the age of general retirement. It is five eighths of something less. That is an illustration of the point that I made. We still have some way to go in respect of that scheme.
      I wish to deal with what is fair. I shall take the Lord President and hon. Members through a series of propositions with which they will not disagree. If any hon. Members disagree at any stage, they should please intervene. I have checked in various places and I believe that I have a watertight argument. It backs up the work of the chairman of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who is on the Front Bench.
      We all want the scheme to be fair. There is an anomaly in the way in which we are working up the scheme. It must be fair in that it is not a disincentive to a person becoming a Member. More importantly, there should not be a disincentive in respect of a person's family, dependants or potential widow. We all know that at present in comparison to other schemes our scheme does not fulfil that criterion.
      The scheme must also be fair to our employers, the taxpayers, as the Leader of the House has reminded us. But it must be fair to the Member. The proportion of

      117
      money that he has to pay from his salary should compare to what he, or other people in the public service, would pay if they were in a comparable occupation. I suggest that all those matters must be kept in some sort of equilibrium, together with what the benefit will buy or what the benefit level will be. We must watch that, too.
      One of our problems in this realm is that three elements have to be borne in mind and they are sometimes confused. One is the proportion of money in any one year or over a period which can be contributed in money terms by the Exchequer and by the Members. The Government Actuary says that half of the money must be raised in order to keep the fund in equilibrium. The second is the proportion of the Member's salary. The third is the ratio between the contribution of the Member and that of the Treasury.
      I suggest that those three elements, although related, are distinct. They are separate sets of variables, which can be moved together in more or less infinite combinations. Therefore, we have to decide on a system that raises enough money to reach the standard contribution, yet maintains equilibrium and fairness throughout the system.
      At present, as I understand it, the main bone of contention in the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is to present to the TSRB is that in public schemes employees pay broadly 5 or 6 per cent. of their salaries, and the employer pays roughly double that amount. That proportion is more or less fixed, which is why we have perhaps alighted on the advantage of a fixed proportion.
      However, the Leader of the House said in the debate on 31 January that there were disadvantages in a fixed proportion. If there is a change in demand in keeping up funds by the actuarial certificate—which is bound by some Acts of Parliament—while the hon. Member's contribution may be fixed, and we know how much the percentage will be for a long time ahead, the Treasury contribution could zoom up. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out in that debate that two or three years ago the Treasury contribution increased to about 18 per cent. The fact that it is now down to 4·4 per cent. is due to a notional surplus on the fund. But it is notional when compared to the benefits, because we know that the benefits are not what they ought to be.
      Therefore, the Treasury gets what the Leader of the House is pleased to call a "holiday"—it is probably a banking term in the City, I do not know. I understand that for the foreseeable future that 4·4 per cent. is unlikely to be increased if we keep to the present actuarial calculations. I suppose that it could increase years ahead.
      One of the problems that the Government Actuary and the House have is that membership can turn over pretty rapidly from one term to another—even more than redundancy. The age of Members of Parliament and the liabilities that they impose upon the fund can vary considerably. The actuarial calculations must be quite remarkable.
      The other factor that is often overlooked is the skill in managing the fund. If it is managed skilfully, Members of Parliament still pay the same amount, but the Treasury contribution goes down. Although it is nice to have a skilfully managed fund, it benefits the Exchequer rather than the hon. Member, his dependants or the fund. There is an inherent imbalance in the situation.
      In the previous debate on the subject the Leader of the House said that the scheme is quite good because if
      118
      Members of Parliament have to pay a fixed amount they are cushioned by Treasury liability going up or down. I agree with him in principle, but the trouble is that that fixed amount is 9 per cent. At the end of that debate the Leader of the House said that that amount could only be changed by statute. What are we about? The future regulation, which we have just debated in greater detail, could change that amount year on year. It can be changed within the resolution, although it is a negative resolution. So there is room for almost infinite flexibility, within the legislation before us.
      I suggest to the Leader of the House, and through this debate to the TSRB—to back up the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East and that no doubt given by the trustees—that perhaps the ideal scheme is one in which the Member of Parliament's contribution is fixed to perhaps around 5 or 6 per cent. in line with outside schemes and the Treasury makes up any deficit, perhaps within a fixed limit, but one which is not less than the amount paid by the hon. Member, and which is on occasion a great deal more. That would mean that the tax payer—Joe Public—would be ensuring that public servants and their dependants were properly looked after. At the same time, the order would go through year on year to keep the equilibrium.
      What is wrong with the present system is the 9 per cent., but it could surely be varied by clause 6. Therefore, I see no real difficulty for the future, provided the TSRB considers and reports on the points that I have been discussing. The structure might be equitable as long as the Member's contribution was equitable, but it is not. I do not think that the public could be regarded as a good employer if the contribution remained fixed at 9 per cent.
      I hope that in recasting the mechanism through this clause, which we all welcome, the Leader of the House and others will note the arguments that I have made. I hope that they have been logical, correct and fair. The Leader of the House can put me right on any matter that I have not got correct, and we can go on from there. This is a contribution to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, the work of the trustees and the midnight oil burned by the Leader of the House.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) covered two points. The first was on the five eighths widow's pension which has been agreed. The point to stress to the Committee is that it came about because of a negotiation with the trustees on using the surplus in the fund. The five eighths used up the balance of the surplus. That is why it was not possible to go further.
      There is, of course, a potential problem if there are not surpluses in the future. If we have a five eighths or a two thirds widow's pension, contributions may have to be raised in future to meet that if there is not a surplus in the fund. That is for the future. The point at present is that it was agreed that this was a sensible way to use the surplus. I accept that it is important to increase the widow's pension to get it closer to the levels of the best elsewhere. The point was agreed by the trustees with me and my predecessor in discussions.
      The second point raised by the hon. Gentleman relates to the balance of contributions, which was quite a feature in the debate on 31 January. He is right to recall that in that debate I outlined some of the reasons why the existing

      119
      method was reached and, indeed, recommended by the TSRB. I put those points to ensure that the House recognised that the arguments in favour of the change for which hon. Members were pressing were not all one way and that there were arguments in favour of the existing system. I stressed some of those in the debate in order to get the balance of the argument right.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, the balance of contributions is perhaps the biggest matter that I felt it right, and agreed with the trustees, to put to the TSRB to consider again. He will know that I announced that the Government accepted that the balance of contributions problem should be referred to the TSRB, as well as the resettlement grant about which hon. Members also felt strongly—I understand why. I indicated that I would put both positively to the TSRB. I wrote to the chairman of the TSRB on 4 February and the final text of the reference to the TSRB was published in Hansard on 5 February. I am glad to have the opportunity to restate that for hon. Members who did not see the written answer.
      Perhaps I may use the opportunity briefly to update the Committee on the position in relation to the TSRB. As I told the House on 31 January, I expect the TSRB to report on the resettlement grant during April and on the balance of contributions as soon as possible thereafter—some time in May. The TSRB has asked that written evidence from the Government, the trustees, political parties and, indeed, anyone who wishes to make written submissions should be with it as soon as possible. It is a tight deadline. We are all working hard to that deadline because it is in our interests. I understand that the TSRB is to meet shortly before the end of the month. It will no doubt be inviting oral evidence in March.
      We have set the TSRB a tight time scale for dealing with these important matters. I think the whole Committee will join me in expressing appreciation for the businesslike and brisk start that it is making. It is equally incumbent on us to express any views to the TSRB as quickly as possible.
      The short answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South is that he is perfectly free to make the points that he has been making about the balance of contributions to the TSRB, so that it can examine them in relation to all the other points that have been put to it. I hope that the House will now approve clause 6.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
      10.51 pm
      Mr. Stanley Orme: May I briefly underline the points made by the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the submissions to the TSRB regarding two vital points—the 9 per cent. contribution and the resettlement grant?
      I have already written to the chairman of the TSRB putting forward the views of the parliamentary Labour party and hope to give oral evidence in the not-too-distant
      120
      future. I welcome the timetable set by the Leader of the House and I am glad that the TSRB has started work already; I think that it will agree to that timetable.
      The Bill has had a chequered career. It has taken much longer to go through the House than has major legislation: I have seen three Leaders of the House while it has been progressing through its stages. I hope, for the purposes of the Bill and the findings of the TSRB, that the present Leader of the House will remain with us at least until the next election, although I will not speak about what may happen after that.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that the five eighths contribution to widows is not sufficient. The trustees want it to be three quarters, and we shall continue the pressure. The doubling of the death grant is welcome, however, as are other small improvements.
      Clearly this is not the end of the story, and we look forward to the report from the TSRB.
      10.53 pm
      Mr. MacGregor: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on the speed with which he has delivered his evidence to the TSRB: it is, I think, an indication of the importance that he attaches to the matter.
      During our debate on the draft regulations on 31 January I said that I hoped to be able to accommodate the many representations made—both before and during that debate—in favour of years of service as an MEP counting as service in the House for the purposes of the early-retirement scheme. I now confirm that the Government accept that the change should apply to all service as an MEP, with no cut-off date. It will benefit all former MEPs now serving as Members of the House of Commons. The Government also intend to bring forward similar changes to the pension scheme for MEPs, to ensure that the two schemes remain in step with each other. That is, I think, a demonstration of how well the procedure has worked.
      Drafts of the regulations were made available before the debate on 31 January. I hope to lay all the regulations, in final form—including those that provide for the increased death-in-service grant and the improved widow's pension—very soon. That is what impelled us to get on with it—that, in particular, there are increased death-in-service grants and improved widows' pensions which we are anxious to see in place.
      Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that they will be retrospective?
      Mr. MacGregor: They will be backdated to May 1988, as they were in the regulations.
      The Bill has been gestating for a long time. I am grateful to the trustees and all the others who have been involved in bringing it to this point. That includes the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and, in particular, the chairman of the trustees. I hope that the Bill will now be given a Third Reading. It has had a speedy passage, which is what all hon. Members wanted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Second Reading what day?
    Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      AGRICULTURE
      That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2), dated 8th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.

      ROAD TRAFFIC
      That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990, dated 19th December 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      AIR POLLUTION FROM DIESEL ENGINED VEHICLES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6701/90, relating to emissions of gaseous
      122
      pollutants from diesel engines for use in motor vehicles over 3·5 tonnes; supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from motor vehicles, taking into account the environmental benefits, the cost to vehicles operators and the need to set a stable standard for industry; supports in particular Her Majesty's Government's endeavours to delay the 1992 date as industrially impracticable; and in this connection expresses concern that the Commission has proposed that the Directive be based on Article 100A, rather than the more relevant Environment Article which is subject to unanimity.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Question agreed to.

    EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
    Ordered,
    That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft revised Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.[ Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That during the proceedings on the Matter of Rural Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Police and Fire Services (West Yorkshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Many of my hon. Friends with constituencies in west and south Yorkshire would have liked to take part in the debate, but because so many wanted to speak I have had to say to them all that I am not prepared to give way to any of them, due to the comprehensive nature of the subject and the short time at my disposal in which I want to make as many points as I can. My hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in particular expressed a special interest in the subject.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the Minister's attention the difficulties faced by the West Yorkshire police authority in determining its budget and, hence, the poll tax on the people of west Yorkshire for the coming financial year. The authority is facing extreme financial difficulties. It has a legal duty to provide an efficient police service, but it also has a duty to fix a budget within Government guidelines. The problem is that it is faced with the threat of poll tax capping at a level which would inevitably reduce its uniformed and civilian establishment.
  In considering the precept for 1991–92, therefore, the authority has had to be mindful both of the provisional proposals for charge capping and its statutory duty, under section 4 of the Police Act 1964, to provide an adequate and efficient police force for its area. The announcements made by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning his provisional capping proposals would allow the West Yorkshire police authority only a 7 per cent. increase on its current year's budget. Can this possibly be realistic when set against the background of inflationary trends as we know them today? Simply to stand still and do no more than attempt to maintain the current level of policing within the county requires a 12 per cent. increase in funding.
  Obviously no service wishes to stand still and the authority would have hoped to be in a position readily to accept the additional 14 police officers recently offered by the Home Secretary for appointment on 1 October next. The issue that concerns me and many others most of all is that with one hand the Government, through the Home Secretary, increases police establishments while with the other the Secretary of State for the Environment removes the ability to pay not only for those extra officers but also for at least 200 other officers who are already in post. The authority intends to continue its "civilianisation" programme, as actively encouraged by the Government—a policy pushed hard by west Yorkshire—which has already shown the benefits of additional police officers on the streets.
  I have been disturbed to hear that the police authority has already had to curtail the replacement of civilian staff who undertake duties essential to the running of the force. Those jobs will have to be done, and it will be necessary to take more police officers off the streets, thus reversing the Government's policy of maximising the availability of police officers by employing more civilians.
  There is a dilemma facing the authority—a desire to protect services, allow a little growth and respond
  124
  forcefully to an increasing crime rate in response to the often-voiced demands from the people of west Yorkshire. The capping proposals, however, restrict the authority's ability to respond to public demands. Despite representations from all groups within the authority and direct appeals to the Home Secretary and the Department of the Environment's senior people, the provisional capping proposals remain unchanged.
  The authority is fully aware of its responsibilities and the potential more damaging effects of poll tax capping, but its members are worried about the scale of the reductions needed to meet the proposed capping threshold—£12 million. By anyone's assessment, that is a serious problem, but one that a responsible authority must address.
  As you can well imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, officers and members of the police authority have spent a large amount of time on budget options for the coming year. Obviously, the formulation of means by which the budget submissions and the capping threshold can be bridged with the least operational and financial detriment has been of paramount importance.
  A small part of the chief constable's development bid has been retained within the budget package, primarily to allow the police authority to accept the increase in the police establishment and to fund priority improvements in the communications network. Those items have been retained only by identifying potential reductions elsewhere.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to inform the House of the potential situation in west Yorkshire should the provisional capping criteria not be changed by the Secretary of State. The catalogue of cuts that will have to be made is far from palatable. Let us consider them: 213 fewer police officers by the end of March 1992; 200 fewer support staff to back up the police officers; fewer traffic wardens and police cadets; no replacement of police vehicles, other than for write-offs; no new equipment; and only minimal provision for building maintenance. Allied to all that, the authority will have to find a further 10 per cent. reduction in expenditure in other areas.
  The authority has limited reserves available. They must not be used indiscriminately. It is vital that adequate reserves are available to support the budget to ensure that unforeseen operational demands—for example, policing of large demonstrations and protracted, complicated crime investigations—can be met. The police authority is a single service authority and has no opportunity to vire moneys from other budget heads to the police service to offset any problems that may occur.
  The police authority is faced with unprecedented external pressures in formulating its budget and precept for 1991–92. Set against the authority's desire to maintain the level and quality of services, the severe financial restrictions placed on the authority through the capping proposals can only serve to reverse growth trends of past years and have an impact on the scope of police development.
  The West Yorkshire police force is recognised as a progressive force which is at the forefront of new developments and initiatives. The budget that the police authority has to set will severely jeopardise the policing of the county of West Yorkshire.
  Peter Nobes, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, is so concerned about budget reductions that he has taken the unusual step of writing to the Home Secretary about

  125
  his fears for the future policing of west Yorkshire. He is not alone in his concerns; as hon. Members may be aware, all the chief constables in other major provincial forces have written echoing their concern about their own areas. The chief constable cannot understand how, with an increasing crime rate—in west Yorkshire it was 27 per cent. in 1990—he is expected to police the streets of west Yorkshire with fewer police officers. Furthermore, he points out that his officers increased their efficiency considerably last year and detected more crime than ever before-an increase of 12·5 per cent. on 1989. It appears that the West Yorkshire force is being penalised for increasing its efficiency.
  The chief constable is extremely concerned that he will not be able to replace any vehicles next year. Does the Minister realise that that will mean that the efficiency of the West Yorkshire force will be reduced considerably because it will be throwing money down the drain on repairing vehicles that must be retained beyond their economic lives? Vehicles will be off the road for longer, and that will store problems for years to come.
  My main concern is west Yorkshire, but I take the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House the corresponding difficulties faced by all the six metropolitan police authorities as a result of capping. The cuts faced by West Yorkshire are mirrored in the other five metropolitan areas. Can it possibly be acceptable for a Government who were elected on the promise of a strong law and order platform to be forcing such cuts on the police authority?
  The fire service in west Yorkshire is in a similar position. In the past four years, our local fire service has been buckling in the face of the Government's discredited and discriminatory method of calculating the standard spending assessment. Despite sympathetic mumblings in the Corridors here and in Whitehall, nothing has been done to adjust the fire authority's unrealistic financial targets. The fateful result has been that the authority is no longer able to set an adequate budget.
  That situation, in an essential public service, is untenable. Not only may lives be put at risk and jobs go to the wall but the authority may soon find itself in breach of its statutory obligations. By imposing a standard spending assessment which is a staggering £7·9 million less than the £52·9 million needed to pay for services in 1991–92, the Government display nothing but bankruptcy of financial thought. That £7·9 million represents hundreds of firefighters' jobs, the loss of vital fire-fighting appliances and equipment and the loss of nine special units. This morning, I visited Pontefract fire station and talked to fire officers and members of the fire service union, who spoke with one voice in expressing their concern.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lofthouse: I am sorry, I cannot do so because I have little time left.
  Three of the nine special units that will be lost are in my constituency. They carry specialised equipment such as a thermal imager, Viking suits, heavy cutting equipment, primary decontamination equipment, lighting generators, air bags for lifting equipment and paraguard stretchers. Those units are vital not only in my constituency, in which are situated the chemical plants of Hicksons at Castleford and Croda at Knottingley, large pits and the junction of the M62 and Al, but in constituencies throughout west
  126
  Yorkshire and elsewhere. The main loss will be the skilled and highly trained men who operate those necessary machines, and that is nothing but a scandal.
  If, as seems likely, the fire authority agrees to set a revenue budget at the maximum permitted to escape poll tax capping£49·9 million—it will still leave a £3 million shortfall. With recruitment already suspended and savage one-off savings made in premises and supplies, the cuts will bite hard. Yet West Yorkshire's level of expenditure is determined largely by the need to provide fire cover to Home Office standards. The fact that the SSA takes no account of the cost of complying with those standards illustrates the absurdity of the present Administration's approach to local government finance. West Yorkshire is effectively being penalised by one Government Department for doing the bidding of another.
  The need for a just formula for calculating SSAs that recognises Home Office approved establishment levels and local settlement patterns should be self-evident. Of course, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see, and there is genuine concern among many fire-fighters in west Yorkshire that Ministers have sought to squirm off the hook by exploiting the decisions of Her Majesty's inspectors, who have been investigating where cuts and efficiency savings could be made. I understand that in 1986 the Home Office revised the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate to require inspectors to make an assessment of "value-for-money" spending in brigades. In West Yorkshire, that has now led the inspectors to link underfunding of the brigade to a mysterious and hitherto undiscovered over-provision of fire cover. The future of five fire stations and a number of special appliances, such as emergency tenders and hydraulic platforms, was therefore called into question. It is rather strange that Her Majesty's inspectors should have called into question the need for such equipment.
  The Home Office has suggested that it will support west Yorkshire's case for proper funding if it firmly addresses HMI's concerns. In simplistic terms, via the HMI, the Government have found a way to justify their assault on the fire service budget. The minimum required to satisfy the HMI may be the closure of Sowerby Bridge fire station, the withdrawal of nine specials and the loss of 137 jobs—60 of them in my area.
  Given that the brigade is busier than ever and was established on a tradition of efficiency and thriftiness, I find it hard to accept that, overnight, surplus fat has appeared. Operational calls attended by the brigade increased by 30 per cent., from 29,027 to 37,967 between 1987–88 and 1989–90. In the same period, the number of fires increased by 38 per cent. to 16,845 and the number of people rescued by 35 per cent. to 104. Forty-five people lost their lives during fires in 1989–90—an 80 per cent. increase over the 1987–88 period.
  How can fire and police authorities be expected to maintain an effective service, in accordance with Home Office guidelines, and at the same time work within the present budgets and capping arrangements? In my view, and in the view of the fire service, if the Government's capping arrangements are rigid, there will be loss of life. On the police side, we shall see an increase in crime. We have seen what has happened in London today. We cannot afford to allow our police to run down.

  127
  On 13 February the Home Secretary sent a letter to police authorities. For the life of me, I do not know what the Government expect the police authorities to make of it. The third paragraph says:
  "It is now for each authority to set its budget. In doing so it should take into account all relevant considerations including its statutory duties, the approved level of police manpower, the Government's intended capping criteria, the need as appropriate for expenditure restraint, and the scope for greater efficiency. Within this context I expect metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at a level which maintains operational police manpower at the level which I and my predecessors have approved, and I do not expect this to be done by moving police officers into posts held by civilians. I also expect police authorities to pursue vigorously a policy of streamlining administration, cutting out waste, and maximising value for money."
  The Home Office is asking a chief constable and others to do precisely what the Home Office does not expect chief police officers to do.
  If the authorities budget over and above the capping guidelines, they will be threatened with capping. If they stick to their budgets and end up being capped, they must continue with the administration and circulation of the poll tax and that could cost each authority about £1 million. That money would be a complete waste. If the Minister cannot give me full assurances about the matter tonight, I hope that he will meet a small deputation from south and west Yorkshire and will give further consideration to our requests.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister fails satisfactorily to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), my hon. Friends will be pressing for a wider debate in Government time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  11.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on securing the debate. He made a courteous and powerful case on behalf of his constituents and I listened carefully to what he said about the police and fire services in west and south Yorkshire. It may help the House if I briefly explain how we have reached this position.
  I acknowledge fully the contribution of the skilled and highly trained policemen and fire-fighters throughout the country. My dedication to progress in both those services is beyond question. I have for many years as a constituency Member been keen to promote the interests of both those services and of the ambulance service in my authorities.
  During last year's capping round, many authorities suggested to us that in future we should make an early announcement of the criteria that we intended to adopt for charge capping for a year, well before authorities came to set their budgets for that year. This year we have done just that, as authorities requested.
  On 31 October last year, at the same time as he announced his proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92, my right hon. Friend the Member
  128
  for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced his intentions for capping in 1991–92. He made clear then that he was prepared to make full use of his powers to cap authorities' budgets if necessary, to ensure that the benefits of the extra £3 billion which we were making available for 1991–92 were passed on to charge payers, rather than to fuelling excessive spending. With such an advance indication of our capping intentions, any authorities which in the event would be capped would have put themselves in that position with their eyes open. I shall be delighted to meet this week hon. Members who represent the authorities concerned if the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford would be kind enough to contact me, and we can discuss the issues.
  Since October, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have on several occasions made it clear that the Government stand firmly by our capping intentions. I do so again tonight. I want also to remind the House how the capping machinery works.
  Having made clear our intended criteria, it is now for authorities to fix their budgets in that knowledge. When they have done so we must consider those budgets and make our statutory decisions on the criteria to be used. Those criteria will determine which authorities are capped.
  At the same time, we must propose the numerical level of the cap for each capped authority in the light of the information we have about its individual circumstances. That authority then has 28 days within which to accept the level of our proposed cap or to suggest an alternative. Only thereafter if an authority has not accepted our proposed cap do we bring forward to this House an order finally fixing the level of its cap.
  A number of metropolitan authorities have now set their budgets. Two fire authorities have now set budgets at or below the level of the intended criteria. Tyne and Wear fire authority has set it at the level and Greater Manchester has set it at about 2 per cent. below the level.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I again draw the Minister's attention to the letter in which the Home Secretary says that he expects metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at levels which maintain police manpower at the level which he and his predecessor had approved. Does that mean that if authorities set their budgets at levels which allow them to maintain that manpower they will not be capped?
  Mr. Key: My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment must bear that important point in mind. We must also pay attention to the Home Secretary's decision, and will do so. I shall shortly return to the principle of that point.
  I remind the House of the meaning of the intended criteria. They would mean that authorities that budget well above their standing spending assessments would be allowed a smaller budget increase than those budgeting nearer to their SSA before their budgets fell within the criteria. Most importantly, the intended criteria mean that no authority spending next year at or below its SSA will be capped. I remind the House that the settlement for 1991–92 which the House approved on 29 January means an increase of 19·4 per cent. in total SSAs, and an increase in total external support of 12·8 per cent., or almost £3 billion. This is generous and realistic.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe rose——
  Mr. Key: I shall not give way because the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford did not give way and explained why. It would be unfair of me not to follow his example.
  The House will wish to know what the settlement means for police and fire services. For the fire service, we have an increase in provision of 16 per cent. compared with 1990–91. For the police service the increase is approaching 12 per cent. These are not inconsiderable sums, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the levels of provision which the Government have made available for these vital services are appropriate and sufficient. The settlement demonstrates once again that we are committed to ensuring effective and appropriate police and fire services throughout the country.
  I should draw the House's attention to the fact that what we are providing takes account of increases in establishment approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For 1991–92 he has approved an increase of some 700 uniformed officers across the country. He did that on 20 December last. The House may wonder why, only two days earlier, the chief constables of the six metropolitan areas were suggesting that, even with spending above SSA, far from there being increases in staff, there would need to be reductions. I find this contradiction difficult to resolve.
  With this in mind, it is useful to look at the facts. Between 1979 and 1990, police strength in south Yorkshire increased by some 400 men and women to 2,969, while in west Yorkshire it increased in the same period by some 550 to 5,285. Yet we are told that it will be necessary next year to give up almost the whole of these increases achieved over 12 years. What, one may ask, could have led to such a drastic reversal of fortunes? The answer, we are told, is that it would actually be a result of being able to increase budgets by 7 per cent. in the case of west Yorkshire and 9 per cent. in the case of south Yorkshire.
  The 7 per cent. increase is not an allowance for inflation. The key is the starting point. We do not accept that we should simply take last year's budget for an authority and allow an increase for inflation. West Yorkshire's budget for this year is just under 10 per cent. above its SSA. That is the level of spending that we consider appropriate to provide a standard level of service.
  Many of the arguments advanced simply do not stand up. The House may wonder whether this is an example of the type of scaremongering story to which we have become accustomed from other authorities, but not, until now, from this quarter.
  During the debate on the settlement, my right hon. Friend graphically illustrated how this sort of thing has happened in the past. He quoted from the NALGO publication "Public Service". It had carried out a survey of what actually happened in some of the authorities whose
  130
  excessive budgets we capped last year. Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, with no compulsory redundancies. Bristol's budget cut was £7·6 million.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is about West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, not Rochdale or the other authorities that the Minister has mentioned. Will the Minister address the issue of the 10 per cent. cuts in West Yorkshire?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is in order.
  Mr. Key: Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, but with no compulsory redundancies, and Bristol's was cut by £7·6 million with no redundancies, no cuts in services and no charge increases. With this experience, the House may ask how can charge payers have confidence in their police and fire authorities?
  Let me continue with my explanation of what the settlement means for those authorities. As the House may know, detailed methodology for SSAs has been adopted only after extensive analysis and research and after discussions with the local authority associations. For police, the distribution is based on the authority's approved level of police manpower. For fire, there is a number of indicators in the formula, including population, fire and false alarm calls, density of population, and a measure of the proportion of the area with a high fire risk. In essence, the end result is that for each authority there is a figure representing the measure of expenditure which would be appropriate for that authority to incur, in its particular circumstances, to provide a standard level of service. We were satisfied when we took our decisions, and remain so, that the police and fire formulas for SSAs are fair and appropriate.
  When I meet the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford later in the week with his colleagues, I shall he glad to discuss these points. I very much hope that we can have a discussion. They will not be part of a capping delegation. We hope that by then his authorities will have set their budgets. I very much hope that we can continue to have confidence in the excellent service of the police and fire authorities in his constituency and across the country.
  It is important to stress that we consider the particular circumstances of each authority and are concerned to provide a standard level of service across the country. We remain satisfied about the decisions that we have taken, but we cannot make final decisions on capping until budgets are set—that is laid down in statute—and we shall do so with every consideration.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Attorney-General what provisions exist to ensure that solicitors engaged to represent DSS claimants on legal aid at early stages of appeal do not cease to represent them when their appeals reach critical stages and legal aid runs out; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Civil legal aid is granted by the legal aid board for most business in the county courts and the High Court subject to the applicant satisfying the board's financial eligibility and merits tests. The merits test is applied at the outset of a case to determine whether it is worth pursuing. Legal aid is not available for representation before social security appeal tribunals or the social security commissioners, but green form advice is available to prepare for the hearing.

ENVIRONMENT

  Accommodation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the number of people without permanent accommodation or temporary accommodation for each local authority area(a) in the last quarter of 1990 and (b) in January 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has no information on the numbers of people without permanent or temporary accommodation by individual local authority area. A count of persons sleeping rough is to be carried out in April as part of the 1991 population census.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the number of people in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation for each local authority area(a) in the last quarter of 1990 and (b) in January 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to secure accommodation for households who have been found to be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, under part III of the Housing Act 1985. Information on households dealt with under these provisions is reported quarterly to the Department.

  The latest available figures for the number of homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are for the end of September 1990. They appear in table 7 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1990. Supplementary Tables", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Private Sector Leasing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of people in private sector leasing provided by each local authority area(a) in the last quarter of 1990 and (b) in January 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities reported the number of dwellings leased by them with an original lease of less than three years in their annual housing investment programme returns for 1 April 1990. The information appears in "1990 HIP1 All Items Print", column A81, a copy of which is in the Library. My Department has no information on the number of people occupying these dwellings.

  Maybury School, Woking
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department first became aware of the appeal against his decision in favour of Woking borough council's compulsory purchase order on the former Maybury school site in Woking; and when he now expects to send instructions on this matter to the Treasury Solicitor.

  Sir George Young
  My Department was made aware of the appeal to the High Court against the decision to confirm the Woking BC (former Maybury County School Annexe) (No. 2) CPO 1989, by letter dated 25 October 1990. We have already instructed the Treasury Solicitor in the matter.

  County Council Staff
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list showing the number of full-time equivalent staff employed by each individual shire county in England during 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take immediate steps to facilitate the use of county hall, London, for sheltering the homeless during the winter months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The London residuary body is preparing to dispose of county hall at the earliest convenient opportunity. The suggested use would not be consistent with the discharge of LRB's statutory duty to dispose of surplus property. A total of 700 places in emergency shelters are available for rough sleepers in London and will remain open while the very cold weather continues. Most of the shelters have been full, but some still have free spaces for rough sleepers to use.

  Union Flags
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions there are on the circumstances and numbers of occasions on which union flags can be flown from civic buildings at the direction of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  There are no restrictions on the circumstances and numbers of occasions on which union flags can be
  3
  flown from civic buildings. It is for local authorities to exercise their discretion for which they are answerable to their electorates.

  Housing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Evironment what major research his Department has conducted or commissioned into the future housing needs in Britain.

  Mr. Yeo
  A significant part of the housing research programme is devoted to assessing the housing needs of specific groups. These include surveys of the housing needs of elderly and disabled people, of ethnic minorities, of low-income migrants and of those with AIDS and HIV infection. The Department is also examining the numbers and characteristics of those on local authority and housing association waiting lists compared with those who are allocated social housing and the needs and aspirations of concealed households and of those who share their accommodation.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been damaged or destroyed since the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and what is the total area of such sites.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to him on 10 December 1990,Official Report, column 267.

  Private Rented Properties
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide incentives to private sector landlords to improve the conditions of their properties.

  Mr. Yeo
  The main incentive a private landlord has to improve his property is that it will command a higher rent. If the additional rental income which can be expected is insufficient to pay for the works a house renovation grant may be available. A landlord will be entitled to such a grant if a repairs notice is served by the local housing authority.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to improve the minimum conditions standards for privately rented accommodation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The minimum standard of fitness of dwellings for human habitation in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 was replaced by an improved standard set out in paragraph 83 of schedule 9 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. This applies to all properties, including those in the private rented sector, and includes provisions relating specifically to buildings containing flats. There are no plans for further legislative changes at present, although the matter is being kept under review.

  Mortgage Possession Orders
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mortgage possession orders have been made in Coventry and the west midlands in each of the last five years to the latest available date and for each of the last 12 months.
  4
  Mr. Yeo
  Comprehensive information on mortgage possessions in the city of Coventry and west midlands conurbation, including properties surrendered without a court order, is not available. The available figures for possession orders made by the courts covering Coventry and the west midlands conurbation, not all of which are executed, are as follows:

  Mortgage possession orders

  Year

  Coventry

  West midlands conurbation

  1987

  385

  2,702

  1988

  536

  2,454

  1989

  500

  2,434

  1990

  325

  2,217

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the university of Aston business school to report on the national survey of parish and town councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  In the summer.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of reference given to the university of Aston business school for the survey of parish and town councils on behalf of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The aim of the survey is to produce a comprehensive picture of what parish and town councils are doing and how they are doing it, and what are their finances.

  Community Forums
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend community forums of those districts and city areas where there are no parish or town councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Secretary of State has power only to change the present coverage of parishes as a result of recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Other changes are within the scope of the current review of local government.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII vote 15 will be increased by £829,000 from £1,000 to £830,000. This increase is required because there will be no receipts from the sale of the Crown Suppliers' vehicle hire and maintenance business in 1990–91. This increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total published in the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each authority in England his estimate of the numbers who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme.
  5
  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 8 February 1991]: My Department does not hold community charge registers for individual authorities and I am not, therefore, at present able to make detailed estimates by local authority area. On the basis of information from the family expenditure survey, I estimate that more than 18 million charge payers in England should receive some reduction in 1991–92. Estimates for individual local authority areas will become available once local authorities make their grant claims in respect of 1991–92.

  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the percentage of the average rateable value for an area below which a two-adult household will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme, provided that they have not moved since 1 April 1990. This shows that, in most areas, couples with rateable values of less than 75 per cent. of the average for their local authority will have a reduction. In many areas, couples with rateable values well above the average for their area will benefit.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimates of the amount actually paid out in poll tax transitional relief in 1990–91.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 14 February 1991]: My best estimate, given in the Chancellor's autumn statement, is that charge payers will benefit from transitional relief by £320 million in 1990–91. I shall be in a position to publish a final figure for the amount of relief given when local authorities submit their final grant claims later this year.

  Housing and Urban Renewal
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available details of any contracts awarded by his Department to consultants to carry out work on housing or urban renewal projects, with information on the companies, principals involved, nature of project and value of project during 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: Details of contracts awarded by the Department in 1989–90 and to date in 1990–91 to bodies outside government for research and consultancy projects on topics related to housing or urban renewal have been placed in the Library. The cost of individual projects is in some cases commercially confidential and in others not finally known. The information gives approximate figures for the aggregate cost of groups of projects.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Authority

  Total value of projects in 1990–91 UP submission

  Total value of projects approved for grants 1990–91

  Ratio of approved to submitted

  UP Allocation 1991–92

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (Per cent.)

  (£000)

  Newcastle/Gatehead

  23,286

  18,645

  80

  17,096

  Hartlepool

  2,332

  2,030

  87

  2,012

  Langbaurgh

  2,737

  1,962

  72

  2,059

  Middlebrough

  7,108

  5,303

  75

  5,450

  North Tyneside

  5,423

  4,562

  84

  3,560

  South Tyneside

  5,683

  5,308

  93

  5,025

  Stockton

  1,765

  1,285

  73

  1,669

  Sunderland

  6,122

  5,345

  87

  5,332

  Manchester/Salford

  29,648

  26,375

  89

  21,749

  Blackburn

  4,500

  4,100

  91

  4,010

  Bolton

  4,848

  4,050

  84

  4,010

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action his Department is taking to reduce the damage to the ecology of the Bristol channel that may be caused by the current oil slick;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the ecological effects of the oil slick that is currently polluting the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: I understand that the oil slick observed on the Bristol channel this week has resulted from a spillage of approximately 20 tons of fuel oil from Llanwern steelworks. While it is too early to give an overall assessment of its effects, reports have been received of 50 to 100, mainly lightly, oiled birds. At present the slick does not appear to have harmed major wildlife sites, although mud flats and salt marshes may suffer some short-term damage. Any attempt to clean up in such sensitive environments is likely to cause more damage than leaving oil to weather and degrade by natural processes. The Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's adviser on wildlife, is closely monitoring the situation and the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit has provided advice on appropriate clean up techniques. The National Rivers Authority is leading the response to this incident together with the local authorities concerned and is currently working with the oil industry's oil spill service centre to recover oil at sea before it reaches the shore. There have been no reports of harm to the limited fishing grounds in the area.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban programme authority the total value of projects listed in their submissions for 1990–91 an 1991–92, the total value of these projects for urban programme grants and the ratio of bids to allocations.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The information requested is currently available only for 1990–91 and is shown in columns 1–4 of the table. Information for 1991–92 will be available only after all urban programme submissions have been received and the approval process completed. Column 5 of the table shows the recently announced provisional allocations for 1991–92 for each authority.
  7

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Authority

  Total value of projects in 1990–91 UP submission

  Total value of projects approved for grants 1990–91

  Ratio of approved to submitted

  UP Allocation 1991–92

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (Per cent.)

  (£000)

  Burnley

  2,770

  2,133

  77

  2,173

  Oldham

  4,368

  3,814

  87

  3,965

  Preston

  2,588

  2,405

  93

  2,461

  Rochdale

  4,739

  3,915

  83

  3,975

  Wigan

  2,630

  2,630

  100

  2,722

  Liverpool

  23,009

  19,296

  84

  19,115

  Halton

  2,140

  1,720

  80

  1,537

  Knowsley

  4,170

  4,027

  97

  4,177

  St. Helens

  2,280

  2,133

  94

  1,882

  Sefton

  2,124

  2,074

  98

  1,742

  Wirral

  4,165

  4,206

  101

  3,713

  Barnsley

  1,992

  1,832

  92

  1,832

  Bradford

  6,294

  4,910

  78

  4,711

  Doncaster

  2,539

  2,000

  79

  2,000

  Hull

  6,045

  5,131

  85

  5,120

  Kirklees

  1,602

  1,068

  67

  1,136

  Leeds

  5,922

  5,432

  92

  5,490

  Rotherham

  2,438

  2,000

  82

  2,000

  Sheffield

  8,038

  6,124

  76

  6,182

  Birmingham

  34,000

  23,530

  69

  23,535

  Coventry

  5,261

  5,084

  97

  4,772

  Dudley

  1,856

  1,489

  80

  1,637

  Sandwell

  5,419

  4,802

  89

  4,776

  Walsall

  2,347

  2,033

  87

  1,763

  Wolverhampton

  6,008

  5,563

  93

  5,398

  The Wrekin

  1,206

  1,145

  95

  1,009

  Derby

  2,095

  1,783

  85

  1,312

  Leicester

  5,321

  5,201

  98

  4,990

  Nottingham

  8,241

  7,236

  88

  5,350

  Bristol

  1,553

  1,473

  95

  1,715

  Plymouth

  1,537

  1,260

  82

  1,380

  Hackney

  9,393

  7,428

  79

  5,585

  Islington

  10,380

  9,628

  93

  9,240

  Lambeth

  15,998

  11,152

  70

  9,084

  Brent

  4,315

  3,037

  70

  2,680

  Greenwich

  1,844

  1,336

  72

  1,536

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  3,227

  2,726

  84

  2,625

  Haringey

  3,925

  2,228

  57

  2,865

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1,825

  1,630

  89

  1,860

  Lewisham

  2,660

  2,453

  92

  2,584

  Newham

  3,599

  3,560

  99

  3,061

  Southwark

  4,866

  3,340

  69

  2,816

  Tower Hamlets

  8,173

  5,915

  72

  4,910

  Wandsworth

  2,880

  3,267

  113

  3,180

  Total

  331,234

  274,114

  83

  257,568

  Snow
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to additional funds being made available to those local authorities whose areas have been hardest hit by the effects of the recent heavy snow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The information at present available to us does not suggest that local authority expenditure associated with the recent cold weather will have exceeded that for which prudent authorities could be expected to have budgeted. However, if any authority can demonstrate an undue financial burden as a result of recent weather conditions we will be prepared to consider whether special financial assistance should be given.

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the standard spending assessment for housing for Kirklees metropolitan council for 1991–92; and what it was for 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: There is no standard spending assessment for housing. Government support for local authority rented accommodation is provided directly through the housing revenue account subsidy system. Other housing costs which fall to be met by local authorities are taken into account within the all other services SSA element. These include the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the homeless, administration of housing benefit and the proportion of housing benefit payments not met directly

  9
  by central Government subsidy, management of housing improvement areas and the administration of improvement grants.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Technology
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export control regulations exist to cover trade in nuclear technology, equipment and materials; and what steps have been taken to inform United Kingdom companies of the arrangements covering nuclear exports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom gives effect to its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty through the Export of Goods (Control) Order. This requires a licence to export goods which are sensitive for nuclear purposes to any destination. My Department makes available to exporters guidance booklets describing the controls and how they are implemented. We have in addition organised a major programme of seminars to explain the control system to exporters.

  Eastern Europe
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to incorporate the eastern European countries within the portfolio of the Department of Trade and Industry's exports to Europe branch.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The exports to Europe branch deals with trade between the United Kingdom and EC and EFTA countries. It would not be appropriate to include other countries within its sphere of work.

  Bankruptcies, Wales
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have declared bankruptcy in Wales in the last 12 months, and what they were producing.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Guarantees Advisory Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the exact date of appointment of Mr. A. G. Gormly, the hon. D. Douglas-Home, Mr. S. M. F. Harris, Professor K. Scholes, Mr. D. G. Eustace and Mr. F. M. P. Riding as members of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council in 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is as follows:

  1988

  Mr. A. G. Gormly

  1 February

  Hon. D. Douglas-Home

  1 March

  Mr. S. M. F. Harris

  1 March

  Professor K. Scholes

  1 April

  Mr. D. G. Eustace

  1 August

  Mr. F. M. P. Riding

  1 August

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply of 11 February,Official Report, column 330, why Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to identify the nations from which supplies and expertise involved in the production of chemical and biological weapons, the preparation of nuclear weapons and the extension of Scud missiles in Iraq were provided.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is for each Government to monitor and control exports from its country. It would not he appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to comment publicly on the export policies of others.

  Timesharing
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Government are yet in a position to respond to the recommendations for legislation in the Director General of Fair Trading's report on timeshare of July 1990.

  Mr. Leigh
  Yes. The report was commissioned by my predecessor because of the number of complaints which he received about the marketing and selling of timeshare. The director general was asked to review the adequacy of existing controls. I should like to record the Government's appreciation for the thoughtful and thorough analysis which his report contained.

  Timeshare is making a valuable contribution to jobs and earnings in the tourism industry in the United Kingdom and in a number of other countries. The report does not question that many timeshare owners are satisfied with the product and the industry continues to grow. Its problems must therefore be kept in perspective.

  The report confirms the Government's original view that much of the complaint and concern stems from dubious marketing practices and high-pressure selling. Although existing legislation provides a measure of protection, the Government consider that it is at the marketing and selling end of the transaction where increased controls are needed. The director general made three recommendations for changes to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to tighten the controls on statements about services and to bring timeshare award schemes within the Act's powers. The Government accept these recommendations in principle. The detail of their implementation will be dealt with as part of the general review of the Trade Descriptions Act currently being undertaken.

  I am glad that the responsible majority of the industry has recognised that certain marketing practices are unacceptable. The Government welcome the formation of the new Timeshare Council which aims to represent all those with an interest in the industry, including owners. The council plans to develop a code of practice and has introduced membership criteria which seek to secure greater protection for buyers.

  This is very much a step in the right direction, but these efforts need to be backed by legislative measures which would ensure that every purchaser received a prospectus giving certain minimum information about the development before signing a contract; a cooling-off period in which to cancel the contract without penalty; and protection of deposit moneys through a bonding or escrow

  11
  arrangement. These measures were recommended by the director general. Most of the timeshares which people in the United Kingdom buy are in developments abroad and most of the selling takes place abroad, too. Much of the activity is therefore outside United Kingdom jurisdiction. United Kingdom legislation would not, therefore, on its own provide effective protection, and could simply push the unscrupulous operator off-shore. For these reasons, this is an issue which can effectively be approached only on a European Community basis, and I shall be taking it up with the EC Commission. The Commission has already recognised the need for a cooling-off period for timeshare contracts in its recently issued proposal for a directive on unfair contract terms.

  The measures that I have proposed are designed to ensure that anyone interested in buying a timeshare can make an informed and considered choice. I do not believe that it is necessary for Government to intervene further through legislation in the detail of timeshare contracts, for instance in relation to the holding of management fees or rental or resale moneys, as recommended by the director general. These recommendations represent good practice and I hope that the industry will follow them, but it is up to the consumer to make sure that the contract he signs includes sensible and reasonable terms on the future management and organisation of the development.

  Export Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in the Official Report all items of industrial dual-use equipment, materials and technology subject to control in connection with the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: The United Kingdom gives effect to its commitments as a member of the missile technology control regime through the Export of Goods (Control) Order. This requires a licence for the export to any destination of goods which are sensitive for missile technology reasons, a detailed list of which is published by my Department in "An Exporters Guide to Non-Proliferation Policy and Controls". I have placed the latest copy of the publication in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the reasons why China, Taiwan, Burma, Brazil and Cuba remain states subject to special licensing procedures for military sensitive exports from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: All military equipment listed in group 1 of part 2 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order is subject to special licensing procedures irrespective of destination.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Northern Ireland Councils (VAT)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the net yields of value added tax from each district council in Northern Ireland in the most recent financial year for which information is available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Local authorities receive funds of value added tax rather than producing a net yield because they are generally not involved in large-scale 12
  business activities. Information about district councils in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  1851 Exhibition
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the holder of his office last attended a meeting of the royal commissioners for the exhibition of 1851.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information on the date on which the holder of my office last attended a meeting of the royal commission for the exhibition of 1851 is not readily available and could be obtained only with a disproportionate expenditure of time and effort.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to introduce further valued added tax relief for organisations with charitable status.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the approximate total of VAT received from the sale of bloodstock horses in each of the years 1980 to 1990; and what VAT revenue arises from such sales in Newmarket.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Complete records of the VAT yield from all United Kingdom bloodstock sales are not available for the 10-year period 1980–90. The auctioneering sector of bloodstock industry generally is currently estimated to yield approximately £0·5 million VAT annually. Bloodstock sales in Newmarket give rise to a net payment of VAT from the Exchequer.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations apply to the levying of VAT on the breeding of livestock and the artifical insemination of pedigree cattle and bloodstock horses.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The VAT liability of supplies of breeding livestock follows the liability of the animals concerned. Supplies of breeding in connection with animals within the definition of item 4 of group 1 of schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1983 are zero-rated; others are standard-rated. The separate supply of semen or artificial insemination services is standard-rated.

  Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net borrowing requirement of the United Kingdom corporate sector in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The net borrowing requirement of United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies is given in the January 1991 issue of "Financial Statistics", table 8.3, available from the Library.

  Takeover Bids
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of takeover bid expenditure was financed(a) by shares and (b) by borrowing in the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, respectively.
  13
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information on expenditure by United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies on acquiring United Kingdom companies for cash or shares is given in table 3 of the business bulletin "Acquisitions and Mergers within the UK"—issue 9/91. No information is available on how the cash expenditure is financed. Analyses of types of transaction in cross-border acquisitions and mergers are given in tables 3 and 5 of the business bulletin "Cross Border Acquisitions and Mergers"—issue 96/90. Analyses comparable with that for acquisitions and mergers within the United Kingdom are not available. Copies of these two business bulletins are available in the Library.

  1978–79

  1988–89

  Thousands change

  Percentage

  Public sector manpower (excluding nationalised industries and the armed forces): total

  4,396

  4,254

  -142

  -3·2

  Civil Service manpower: total

  734

  574

  -160

  -21·8

  Source:Table 7.6, Public Expenditure Analyses to 1993–94 (Cm. 1520), February 1991.

  Agriculture and Manufacturing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the general Government expenditure and gross domestic product being spent on and arising from(a) agriculture and (b) manufacturing in both cash and real terms since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The 1990 edition of the "United Kingdom National Accounts"—otherwise known as the CSO Blue Book—gives the following information:

  (a) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at current factor cost for the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry and for manufacturing industries in Table 2.1;

  (b) GDP at constant factor cost by industry expressed in index form in Table 2.4;

  (c) General government expenditure at current market prices analysed by industry in Table 9.4.

  Industrial analyses of general Government expenditure in real terms are not available.

  British Rail Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the national economic cost of the failure of British Rail properly to run passenger and freight trains between 8 and 11 February.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked his Department to review, with British Rail, the causes for the recent disruption to services and see what lessons can be learnt.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department is about to undertake a series of major refurbishment programmes which will incorporate energy conservation measures such as that suggested. As a general policy, the Department continues to support cost-effective measures to obtain the benefits from more efficient use of energy.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply of 24 January,Official Report, columns 281–82, if he will give the figures for civil service manpower and public sector manpower changes in actual and percentage terms with the exclusion from the relevant figures of nationalised industries and the armed forces.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations concerning the implications of implementing article 5(a) of EC draft directive Com. 89/446 final on the possession of firearms by recreational shooters in(a) Wales and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received many representations about the draft directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons including representations concerning article 5 of the proposal.

  Following amendments agreed in the Council, the proposed minimum age limit of 18 years for the possession of firearms under article 5(a) of the directive would not apply in the case of hunting or target shooting. As the directive now stands, the current domestic position would, therefore, remain unchanged.

  However, the final content of the directive depends upon second reading consideration by the European Parliament and subsequent final consideration by the Council.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) boys and (b) girls under the age of 16 years being held in prisons in England and Wales on 11 February; and if he will list the prisons in which these people were held.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest readily available information about the number of boys under the age of 16 is given in the table. There were no girls under the age of 16 being held in prisons and remand centres on this date.

  Males aged under 16 held in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales on 30 September 1990 by establishment

  Establishment

  Number of males aged under 16

  Remand centres

  Brockhill

  7

  Cardiff

  2

  Exeter

  2

  15

  Establishment

  Number of males aged under 16

  Feltham

  2

  Glen Parva

  3

  Hindley

  1

  Low Newton

  4

  —

  Total

  21

  —

  Local prisons

  Hull

  3

  —

  Total

  3

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy of the Prison Reform Trust's report on the prevalence of HIV in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes. I am glad of the opportunity to refute the trust's suggestion that prisons policy is confused and in disarray. We first responded to the AIDS challenge in 1984 and a clear and coherent strategy has been developed progressively since then. We shall be responding in due course to the detail of the report. I will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the response and for one to be placed in the Library.

  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the probation officers' pay settlement will be announced.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our determination on the increase in probation officers' salaries effective from 1 July 1990 was announced on 6 February 1991.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  All prison establishments have been advised to change to low-energy electric lighting as soon as possible and funds have been made available for this purpose. It is expected that by April this year the great majority of prison establishments will either have changed to low-energy lighting or be in the process of changing to it. Guidance has also been circulated to staff responsible for other Home Office buildings on the benefits of low-energy lighting.

  Television Programmes (Local Papers)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to limit the charges which may be imposed on local papers for printing BBC and ITV programme schedules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes provision for the Copyright Tribunal to adjudicate in any case in which a publisher considers that the charge imposed for publishing TV programme listings is excessive.

  Strip Searches
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of the people strip-searched when visiting Franklands were from Liverpool, in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what information he has on the number of rub-downs and intimate body searches, as distinct from strip searches, carried out on visitors to prisons in England and Wales in the last three years;

  (3) how many strip searches were carried out on persons visiting prisons in England and Wales for the last three years for which figures are available;

  (4) what are the numbers of visitors strip-searched in each prison for the last three years for which figures are available;

  (5) what percentages of visitors strip-searched in England and Wales were found to be carrying unlawful substances.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available. Where there is reason to believe that a visitor intends to smuggle drugs or other contraband into a prison, the normal practice is to inform the police and ask them to attend to deal with the matter. The action needing to be taken by them in an individual case is a matter to be determined by the police in the light of the particular circumstances. In addition, prison staff have a power under rule 86(1) of the Prison Rules 1964 to search any person entering or leaving an establishment. A visitor may be given a rub-down search if the circumstances are considered to warrant such action. In an exceptional circumstance where there is reason to believe that an arrestable offence is involved and the police are unable to attend, a strip search may be carried out with the visitor's consent. There should be no question of a prison officer conducting an intimate search.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the years 1980 to 1989 inclusive, how many men were(a) convicted and (b) cautioned for procuring, attempting to procure or being party to the commission of (i) buggery or attempted buggery with another man and (ii) gross indecency or attempted gross indecency with another man, contrary to (x) section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, (y) section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and (z) any other legislation; of the sum total of these convictions and cautions, how many relate to offences which took place in (A) a private place within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and (B) a public or semi-public place within the meaning of the aforementioned legislation; and how many of these total convictions and cautions relate to offences committed by men (1) over the age of 21 years with men under the age of 21 years, (2) over the age of 21 years with other men also over the age of 21 years and (3) over the age of 16 years with other men also over the age of 16 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table gives information on the number of men, by age, cautioned and convicted of procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a man of an act of gross indecency with another man and procuring an act of buggery between two other men. Only the age of the offender is recorded for buggery offences. It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify where the offence took place.
  17

  Male offenders cautioned and convicted of specific sexual offences by age group 1980 to 1989

  England and Wales

  Offenders

  Statute

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Men of or over age 21 procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a man under 21 of an act of gross indecency with another man

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 13 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 section 3(2)

  Cautions

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  1—

  1—

  6

  Convictions

  25

  34

  25

  27

  18

  98

  37

  32

  45

  69

  Men of or over age 21 procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a man not under 21 of an act of gross indecency with another man

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 13 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 section 3(2)

  Cautions

  5

  5

  2

  2

  2

  9

  21

  1—

  1—

  22

  Convictions

  108

  80

  109

  89

  168

  237

  146

  196

  270

  265

  Men of or over age 17 procuring an act of buggery between two other men which by means of section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is not an offence

  Sexual Offences Act 1967 section 4(1)

  Cautions

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1—

  1—

  22

  Convictions

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1 Not available.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current staffing levels of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England; and what additions have been made for the general review of constituency boundaries.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The staff of the secretariat to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission has gradually increased from five, dealing with boundary work on a part-time basis, to 12 full-time staff, who will all be in post by 1 April 1991.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Field) of 7 February,Official Report, column 234, how many summonses have been issued by each magistrates court in relation to non-payment of the poll tax; and what subsequent actions have taken place in each magistrates court.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is available in the Library for the period 1 April to 30 September 1990 and information for the period 1 October to 31 December 1990 will be placed in the Library this week.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals the Press Complaints Commission has for publishing its draft rules and procedures and dealing with representations on them.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the commission intends to publish guidance on its rules and procedures shortly and will always be prepared to consider representations on them.

  Child Murders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce proposals to amend the law to alter the burden of proof against those accused of murder of children.
  18
  Mr.John Patten
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: No. It is a principle of our system of justice that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The high standard of proof is a necessary safeguard against wrongful conviction. Murder is the gravest of offences and it is right that the prosecution should be required to prove that the accused committed it.

  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities are to examine the law to ensure that the courts are not denied the opportunity to consider evidence and have appropriate sentencing powers. In the Criminal Justice Act 1988 we increased the maximum penalty for child cruelty from two to 10 years. The changes in our Criminal Justice Bill to the law about evidence and procedure in child abuse cases should help convict those guilty of these appalling crimes. But no such changes can avail where the difficulty is absence of evidence that a particular person committed the offence.

  Mr. Jamal Khafaji
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to respond to the inquiries of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill about Jamal Khafaji, who is presently held in Pentonville prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 11 February 1991.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  CAP Payments
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the total payments received by the agricultural industry in England were under the common agricultural policy in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Curry
  Total expenditure in the United Kingdom under the CAP in the last three years was:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,611·1

  1988–89

  1,362·9

  1989–90

  1,230·5

  19
  Although it is possible to identify some of the payments which have been made to the agriculture industry in England—details are contained in the annual appropriation accounts class IV—Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—it is not possible to disaggregate all United Kingdom CAP expenditure in this way.

  Gulf Oil Slicks
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's marine biology laboratories at Lowestoft have analysed the effects on the Gulf coral reefs of reduced exposure to sunlight arising from the extensive oil slicks in the Gulf.

  Mr. Curry
  The expertise and scientific programme of my Department's marine laboratory at Lowestoft are focused on the environmental conditions of our own waters. However, Britain is participating fully in the international effort to tackle the pollution in the Gulf, and my scientists stand ready to provide advice as necessary from within their areas of competence and experience.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the number of businesses receiving hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  I estimate that some 65,000 farm businesses in the United Kingdom will receive payments during 1991 under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme.

  Gulf Forces (Beef Supply)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why it has not proved possible for the intervention board to make a successful tender for the supply of British beef to the armed services serving in the Gulf.

  Mr. Curry
  The intervention board is required to sell beef on terms laid down by the European Commission, generally by inviting tenders from meat traders. The board does not itself engage in submitting tenders for sale. The arrangements for the supply of beef to the Ministry of Defence entail the submission of tenders by wholesale meat suppliers. Officials of my Department are in contact with the Ministry of Defence to examine whether changes are possible to the various arrangements which would facilitate access to intervention stocks by Ministry of Defence suppliers.

  Potatoes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of hectares registered with the Potato Marketing Board for potato growing, and the number of individual farmers registered, for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table shows the number of producers registered with the Potato Marketing Board and the basic area available for planting since 1980.
  20

  Registered Producers

  Basic Area '000 ha

  1980

  30,225

  192

  1981

  28,760

  182

  1982

  27,498

  172

  1983

  26,499

  169

  1984

  25,480

  168

  1985

  24,948

  165

  1986

  22,565

  161

  1987

  21,439

  155

  1988

  20,155

  154

  1989

  19,266

  152

  1990

  18,276

  153

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Namibia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the amount of aid contributed by the United Kingdom and each European Community member to the development of Namibia since that country's independence.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On Namibia's independence last March, I announced in the House that Britain would provide £10 million of bilateral aid for commitment over three years. Our best available information on commitments made by other European Community members is as follows:

  Denmark:

  40 million kroner for the three years following independence.

  France:

  100 million francs for the three years following independence.

  Germany:

  100 million Deutschmarks committed in 1990.

  Italy:

  US$12 million for the three years following independence.

  The Netherlands:

  5–10 million Guilders per year.

  Spain:

  US$700,000 in emergency aid for the first year following independence.

PRIME MINISTER

  The Gulf
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration Her Majesty's Government gives to public opinion on the Gulf war; and how Her Majesty's Government-imposed reporting restrictions relate to this.

  The Prime Minister
  Support from the British public remains very strong for the actions being taken by the allies to liberate Kuwait in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. The Government's policy is to allow all reasonable freedom and access for reporting, subject only to constraints essential to protect the safety of coalition forces and the security of allied operations.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his intention with regard to the award of a Gulf campaign medal.

  The Prime Minister
  The question of an appropriate medal for those serving in the Gulf is under consideration.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Minister for Sport
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the precise duties and responsibilities of the Minister for Sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  With effect from 3 December 1990, responsibility for sport and recreation transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science. I am responsible for sports matters generally and for sport and PE in schools. In addition, I am responsible for children's play; personal and social education, including health, AIDS, drugs and sex education; the youth service; energy conservation; and departmental purchasing. I also provide support on section 12 to 16 cases.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the policy of the Minister for Sport so far as regular meetings with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs is concerned.

  Mr. Atkins
  My predecessor as Minister for Sport had meetings with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. I will meet them as and when appropriate.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what scope remains for students to negotiate alternative contact names; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what were the reasons for the decision that applicants for student loans must now provide contact names of blood relatives.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The administration of the student loans scheme is the responsibility of the Student Loans Company. I am therefore asking the managing director of the company to write direct to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide the reference for the regulation allowing the Student Loan Company to require applicants to have a bank account capable of direct debit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 does not require the arrangements for administering the student loans scheme to be contained in regulations.

  The Act does, however, require regulations to provide, among other things, for the manner in which repayments of loans are to be made. Regulation 7(4) of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 therefore provides that repayments shall be made by direct debit from the borrower's bank or building society account unless the loans administrator agrees otherwise. Under current arrangements the loans administrator is the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what hardship provisions graduates with student loans may seek if supporting dependants, high rent, or mortgages renders them unable to make payment; and whether he will make a statement.
  22
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Borrowers under the student loans scheme whose repayment term has begun may defer making repayments where their gross income is less than 85 per cent. of national average earnings. Repayments of about £400 a year in 1990 prices should be manageable for borrowers whose income exceeds that threshold.

  The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 make further provision for borrowers who receive certain disability-related social security benefits. Those benefits are disregarded when assessing borrowers' income for deferment purposes. The Student Loans Company may also permit such borrowers to commence repayment at a later date than they would otherwise have to or to repay over a longer period.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will propose some remedy for applicants for student loans whose birth certificates have been refused by higher education institutions as adequate identification where their name has since changed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Regulation 11(4) of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 requires institutions to inspect the birth or adoption certificate of a student who seeks certification of eligibility for a loan, where that student was born in the United Kingdom. The Student Loans Company uses information contained on such certificates to identify each student individually. This helps to avoid confusion and to prevent fraud. It thereby protects both the taxpayer and the student.

  Because the information on a birth or adoption certificate does not change, it is particularly valuable where the student's name has changed since birth or adoption. In such cases, the student may also need to produce documentation showing that he or she is the person named on the birth or adoption certificate.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations the Student Loan Company has made to him regarding its delay in processing student loan applications; and whether he will make a statement on the rate of take-up of loans.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As at Thursday 14 February, more than 98,000 applications had been made to the Student Loans Company.

  The company aims to process loan applications within 21 days of receipt. In setting itself this aim, the company relies on students' institutions to forward eligibility certificates promptly and correctly completed. It also relies on students to complete their application form correctly and then to sign and return their loan agreement form promptly. Where these conditions are met, the company is achieving its aim.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what costs the Student Loans Company has incurred to date, separating out start-up costs and continuing operations; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The total costs of establishing the student loans scheme to 31 August 1990 were £9·3 million, exclusive of VAT. This figure includes costs incurred before the Student Loans Company was founded. Between 1 September 1990 and 31 January 1991 the company incurred operational costs of £4·64 million, excluding VAT.
  23
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to continue his policy restricting students in higher education to one application per academic year to the Student Loans Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Yes. Depending on the time in the year when students apply, they may ask the Student Loans Company to pay their loan in up to three instalments.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the interim report of the national curriculum working group for physical education will be published; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will publish the report tomorrow, together with my letter to the chairman of the group, Mr. Ian Beer. Copies of this initial advice, including my letter, will be placed in the Library.

  Youth Workers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out(a) the funds spent in 1990–91 through the local education authority training grant system on training of youth workers and (b) the funds available in 1991–92 under grants for education support and training for the training of youth workers.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: In 1990–91 local education authority training grants are available to support some £1·2 million of expenditure on training of youth and community workers. In 1991–92 grants for education support and training are available to support some £1·25 million of such expenditure.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of the National Youth Agency budget for 1991–92 will be spent on(a) initial youth worker training and (b) in-service youth worker training.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The National Youth Agency's budget for 1991–92 has not yet been decided. It will be determined on the basis of the agency's work programme which will be agreed with the Department.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether grants for education support and training may be used to finance training for volunteer youth workers.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The grants for education support and training programme for 1991–92 does not include grants which could support the training of volunteer youth workers.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he has given to the National Youth Agency in relation to its proposed role and functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: My right hon. Friend's reply on 5 April 1990 to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr.
  24
  Burt) described the proposed role and functions of the National Youth Agency. These functions were explained in greater detail in a letter to the chairmen of the youth service bodies in June 1990. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of the list of functions.

  Dual Use Facilities
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the reason for the delay in publishing the practical guidance booklet on dual use facilities; by what date the booklet will be published; if he will require specific responses to the guidance from all local education authorities, and particularly from those with responsibility for inner-city areas; and by what date he will publish an implementation timetable for proposed new schemes.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 December 1990, Official Report, column 514. The dual use guidance booklet is currently being revised with a view to publication in the spring. The Department will continue to monitor good practice in this area, but there are no plans to require individual responses to the booklet from local education authorities or to publish an implementation timetable.

  Child Abuse
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the changes he has introduced in the regime of independent schools as a result of the case involving child abuse at Crookham Court school in Berkshire;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to require head teachers always to inform the police and his Department when a member of staff is required to leave a school because of child abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to his answer, 22 January 1991, c. 121–23]: The Department is now consulting independent schools organisations and other bodies on amendments to the Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations 1982. The Welsh Office will consult in Wales.

  These amendments will require proprietors of independent schools to report to the Secretary of State where any person—not just any teacher as at present—is dismissed from employment for misconduct, or would have been dismissed or considered for dismissal had they not resigned. Proprietors will also be required to provide particulars of all staff, not just teaching staff, on application for registration and annually.

  The changes will enable the Department to consider placing independent schools' non-teaching staff on list 99, as well as teaching staff, and will make it possible to check regularly that no barred staff are working in independent schools in a non-teaching capacity.

  The closing date for consultation is 8 March and we plan to make amending regulations soon thereafter. In the meantime, the organisations consulted are being asked to invite any schools in membership to begin reporting voluntarily.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Women Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many women are employed in civil service grades 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

  Mr. Renton
  Currently, there are no women in the civil service at grade 1 level, seven at grade 2 level and 37 at grade 3 level.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to remove obstacles to, and restrictions on, the employment and promotion of people with disabilities in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  My Department is taking a range of initiatives to promote equality of opportunity for people with disabilities. These include support and advice to Departments and agencies in implementing the revised code of practice on disability.

  Public Relations Officers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service in what grades press and public relations officers are employed.

  Mr. Renton
  These officers are employed in a wide spectrum of grades, but most commonly information grades.

  Agencies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil service jobs are now performed by agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  More than 82,000 civil servants are working in the 34 "next steps" agencies now established. The Chancellor announced earlier this month that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise Departments are also to operate fully on "next steps" lines. This, together with the further 32 agency candidates which have been announced, covers over 280,000 staff.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether the creation of "next steps" agencies will affect the numbers employed in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  "Next steps" is designed to produce a better-managed and more efficient civil service responsive to the needs of Ministers and the public.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been set aside to pay additional housing benefit to housing trust tenants who require a decoder to receive satellite television.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Housing benefit is an income-related benefit intended to help meet reasonable accommodation costs. Broadly this means rent and any 26
  compulsory service charges related to the provision of adequate accommodation. It is for local authorities to determine what proportion of a rent is eligible for housing benefit in any particular case by reference to the housing benefit regulations. We are currently reviewing those regulations to ensure that they clearly prevent charges for satellite television relay from being met by benefit.

  Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are currently outstanding from the social security appeal tribunal; and what is the average time for those appeals to be dealt with at all levels.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of social security appeals lies with the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Holden. He has advised that the total number of appeals outstanding at the social security appeal tribunals, as at 8 January 1991, is 22,823.

  The latest figures available for processing appeals are those for the quarter ending 31 March 1990. The average times for that quarter were:

  (a) from lodgement to receipt of the submission by the tribunal clerk—10·2 weeks;

  (b) from lodgement to the date of hearing—23 weeks.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants in Birmingham for severe disability premium are(a) awaiting decisions of the appeal tribunal and (b) awaiting his Department's action following appeal tribunal decisions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The responsibility for social security appeal tribunals lies with the president of the social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Derek Holden. He has supplied me with the following information:

  (a) just over 700 cases held by the Birmingham tribunal concern the income support severe disability premium and are awaiting decisions, listing or the adjudication officer's submission;

  (b) the information is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the proportion of those receiving poll tax rebates in Wales expressed as a percentage of the total number of poll tax payers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 31 August 1990, community charge benefit was in payment to 24 per cent. of those liable to pay the charge in Wales.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will initiate a study into the relationship between the number of applications for special cold weather payments in any social security office area and the extent of local newspaper advertising of the relevant application forms.

  Mr. Scott
  The hon. Member's suggestion will be considered as part of the review of cold weather payments.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost each year to the Exchequer of giving those over 80 years of age an additional 25p a week pension; and what is the administrative cost of making these additional payments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated current cost of giving those over 80 years of age an additional 25p per week pension is over £26 million a year. As the addition is added automatically to the pension on the first payday after the pensioner's 80th birthday there is no additional administrative cost involved in making these payments.

THE ARTS

  Cultural Matters (EC Competence)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will be attending any future meetings of the intergovernmental conference on political union of the European Community to discuss the competence of the Community in cultural matters.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no plans at present to do so. The discussions of the intergovernmental conference on political union cover a wide range of issues, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is in the lead. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the treaty of Rome does not confer competence on the Community in the cultural area.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals there are to ensure that the fabric of museums and galleries is being maintained.

  Mr. Renton
  I have commissioned Arup Research and Development to conduct a study of the building renovation needs of national museums and galleries which I sponsor. I expect it to report to me in summer 1991.

  Scholarships
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many scholarships in the arts and in what main areas of activity are sponsored by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No arts scholarships are sponsored by the OAL. Many of the institutions sponsored by the OAL provide education, training, work experience, and so on, for their staffs. In addition, the national film and television school has a scholarship fund from which support is given to British students in need, developed with the aid of private sponsors.

  Funding, London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chair of Greater London Arts to discuss funding for smaller arts clients in London.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no such plans. The funding of arts clients in London is a matter for the Arts Council and for Greater London Arts as appropriate.
  28
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of central Government arts spending is spent within Greater London.

  Mr. Renton
  Nearly 37 per cent. of the Arts Council of Great Britain's total grant in aid in 1989–90 was allocated to clients in Greater London.

  Arts Council Grant
  Kim Howells
  35. Dr. To ask the Minister for the Arts how much of the Arts Council grant in England and Wales in 1989–90 was actually paid to artists, writers, musicians and those in the performing arts; and how much was absorbed by administration.

  Mr. Renton
  The total of the Arts Council's grant in aid spent in England and Wales in 1989–90 was £139,745,000. Just under £14·4 million was spent by the Arts Council of Great Britain, the Welsh Arts Council and the 12 English regional arts associations on operational services. The functions of these bodies extend well beyond grant administration and include arts promotion and marketing, other professional advice and support to client organisations, and development and planning work.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report the details relating to the flotation of the electricity generating companies on (a) the number of individuals who responded to the official advertising campaign and registered as prospective applicants in advance of the sale, (b) the number of those pre-registered who subsequently were not allocated any shares, (c) the value of the cheques received from those pre-registered who subsequently were not allocated any shares, (d) the date on which the cheques received from unsuccessful pre-registered applicants were encashed, (e) the date when the subsequent refunds were subsequently made and (f) the value of the interest generated by the encashment of cheques prior to refund to unsuccessful applicants.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The available information is as follows:

  (a) By midnight on 14 November 1990 the electricity share information office had received approximately 7·3 million applications to register;

  (b) Approximately 97 per cent. of registrants who duly applied as customers received an allocation. No figures are available in respect of registrants who applied other than as customers;

  (c, f) The systems employed to record applications and account for interest do not permit the separate identification of data relating to wholly unsuccessful and partially successful applications. The value of cheques submitted with wholly unsuccessful applications by registrants and of the interest earned on those cashed is therefore not available;

  (d, e) Cheques from the public in the retail offers were cashed principally in the week 10 to 14 December 1990. Refunds of application monies were dispatched by first-class post on a phased basis, principally from 16 to 19 December 1990. The majority of wholly unsuccessful application forms and their accompanying uncashed cheques were returned the previous week.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report details relating to

  29
  the information made available to the public in advance of the flotation of the electricity generating companies about encashment of cheques where no shares were allocated to them.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The prospectus for the 12 regional electricity companies share offers stated in chapter VII, paragraph 8 of the terms and conditions of application that the right was reserved to present for payment all cheques or bankers' drafts received. It also stated in chapter VI, section 2e that this would be avoided where practicable in respect of applications for which it was not expected to make an allocation.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the procedures used to refund money in the electricity generating companies flotation to those who had pre-registered but were subsequently allocated no shares; and whether he has any plans to use such a system in any future flotations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the case of the 12 regional electricity companies share offers, the procedures were designed to enable cheques to be returned to applicants receiving no allocation as quickly as possible; most received them before Christmas.

  For the minority of cases where no shares were allocated, but where it was not practicable to avoid cashing cheques, provision was made for refunds to be issued; this took place in the majority of these cases before Christmas.

  For the generating companies share offers the arrangements are much simpler, not least because, as only two companies are being offered together, it will not be necessary to cash cheques that are duly submitted with application forms unless it is expected that an allocation will be made.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what date he expects to publish the long-term safety reviews for Hinkley A, Trawsfynydd and Sizewell A nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate—NII—has almost completed its detailed assessment of the long-term safety review of Hinkley Point A. The HSE will publish the NII's findings later this year. The NII's examination of the long-term safety reviews for Trawsfynydd and Sizewell A are due for completion by late 1991 and the end of 1992 respectively. The HSE proposes to publish the NII's findings on these long-term safety reviews as soon as possible thereafter.

  Kansai Electric Power Station
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to consult his Japanese opposite number regarding the radiation leak at the nuclear power station of Kansai Electric; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has been informed of the incident at the Mihama-2 plant at Kansai Electric on Saturday 9 February by our embassy in Tokyo and has also received information from other sources including the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, to which the Japanese Government have supplied an account of events.
  30
  From the accounts that my Department has received, it would appear that the amount of radioactivity released was extremely small and that there is no reason to believe that it constituted any danger to the population or the environment. My Department has also been told that the incident was not serious and that the reactor was shut down safely by its own protective systems.

HEALTH

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of beds available within the South Manchester health authority area in 1980, 1985 and 1990; what is the current actual position; and what are the comparable figures for England as a whole.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of average daily available beds

  1980

  1985

  1989–90

  South Manchester DHA

  2,423

  2,277

  1,927

  England

  355,979

  325,487

  270,334

  Number of patients treated

  Finished hospital stays (discharge and deaths)

  Finished consultant episodes

  1980

  1985

  1989–901

  South Manchester DHA

  61,745

  69,361

  76,259

  England

  5,670,001

  6,353,812

  7,476,626

  1 Figures for 1989–90 refer to Finished Consultant Episodes and should not be directly compared with earlier figures (discharges and deaths).

  More recent information on beds and patients treated is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. P. Hadfield, the chairman of South Manchester health authority, for details.

  The Gulf
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made by his Department for the support of families and service men and women who are subject to trauma, stress and long-term mental illness arising from war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has issued advice to health authorities and social service departments about contingency planning arrangements for Gulf casualties.

  The families of all service personnel are entitled to national health service and social services in the same way as any other resident. It will be for local services to arrange appropriate long-term care and support for all in their area who are subject to trauma, stress and long-term mental illness.

  Mr. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into the use of psychotherapeutic treatment as against the use of drugs in the treatment for trauma, stress and long-term mental illness in the case of service men and women and their families consequent upon the war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Substantial research has been undertaken into the appropriate role of drugs and psychotherapy in
  31
  the treatment of trauma, stress and long-term mental illness in respect of previous conflicts. The war in the Gulf is of too recent origin to have permitted research in this area.

  Health Authority Funding
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the basis on which extra resources to enable health authorities to reduce creditor levels are being allocated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The basis for allocating this money has not been finalised. Each authority receiving some of this allocation will also be expected to contribute to reducing its creditor levels from within its own resources.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the secure establishments other than prisons in England and Wales where young(a) men and (b) women, under the age of 16 years can be held.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 31 January 1991, there were 36 secure units in community homes for children in England and Wales, all of which admitted young people under the age of 16. Details of them are given in the table. In addition, the Department runs two youth treatment centres—YTCs—Glenthorne in Birmingham and St. Charles in Essex. Both YTCs admit young people under the age of 16.

  Secure units in England and Wales open on 31 January 1991

  Local Authority

  Name of home in which secure unit is located

  Type of places

  England

  Avon

  Kingswood

  Boys

  Berkshire

  Brookside

  Mixed

  Birmingham

  St. John's

  Mixed

  Cambridgeshire

  Salters

  Girls

  Cheshire

  Redsands

  Mixed

  Coventry

  Stoke House

  Mixed

  Derbyshire

  Greenacres

  Mixed

  Derbyshire

  Moorfield

  Mixed

  Devon

  Northbrook

  Mixed

  Durham

  Aycliffe (2 units)

  Mixed

  East Sussex

  Lansdowne

  Mixed

  Greenwich

  Frant Court

  Girls

  Hammersmith

  Stamford House

  Boys

  Hampshire

  Fairfield

  Girls

  Hampshire

  Glen House

  Boys

  Hertfordshire

  Woodside

  Mixed

  Hillingdon

  Middlesex Lodge

  Girls

  Lancashire

  Briars Hey

  Girls

  Lancashire

  Red Bank (2 units)

  Boys

  Leeds

  Eastmoor (2 units)

  Boys

  Lincolnshire

  Kesteven

  Mixed

  Liverpool

  Blackbrook House

  Girls

  Liverpool

  Dyson Hall

  Boys

  Newham

  Little Heath Lodge

  Boys

  Northumberland

  Netherton Park

  Mixed

  Oxfordshire

  Thornbury House

  Boys

  Rotherham

  Keppels View

  Mixed

  Salford

  Park House

  Boys

  Southwark

  Orchard Lodge

  Boys

  West Sussex

  Beechfield

  Mixed

  Wales

  Gwent

  Ty Mawr

  Boys

  Mid Glamorgan

  Silverbrook

  Girls

  West Glamorgan

  Llwyncelyn

  Boys

  Hospital Closures, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have closed since 1979(a) nationally and (b) in the Doncaster area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are aware of 463 hospitals or facilities that have been approved for total closure from 1979 to 31 December 1989. Of these, two hospitals were in the Doncaster area.

  Over the same period, the NHS has increased in-patient treatment as follows:

  1979

  1988–89

  England

  5,400,120

  6,585,982

  Doncaster

  28,103

  41,969

  That is an increase of 22 per cent. nationally—49·3 per cent. in the Doncaster area.

  Day case treatment also increased as follows:

  1979

  1988–89

  England

  592,061

  1,016,327

  Doncaster

  2,909

  4,961

  That is an increase of 71·7 per cent. nationally—70·5 per cent. in the Doncaster area.

  From 1979–80 to 1989–90 expenditure on the NHS capital programme has grown by 55 per cent. in real terms.

  Census Data
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has now considered the British Computer Society's report on its independent review of the confidentiality arrangements for the computer processing of 1991 census data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report is contained in the White Paper "1991 Census of Population: Confidentiality and Computing"—Cm 1447—which is being published today by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland. The White Paper includes a statement by the Government and also sets out the Government's reply to the society's recommendations.

  The society's report contains the following summary assessment:
  "The Review Team has examined all relevant arrangements already in place, and the plans and stated intentions where preparatory work is still in progress. The Review Team can report that the arrangements made so far are, in its opinion, fully in keeping with the very high standards of confidentiality required; and that the plans and intentions current at the time of preparing this Report are consistent with that standard."

  In their statement, the Government welcome not only the society's conclusions and recommendations but the opportunity to reaffirm their determination to protect the confidentiality of the information about individual persons and households to be collected in the census on 21 April.

  Population Forecasts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are involved in making population forecasts in(a) the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys, (b) the Department of the Environment, (c) elsewhere in public departments and (d) in county authorities.
  33
  Mr. Dorrell
  Six people are employed in a unit at the OPCS the main task of which is preparing, publishing, and disseminating population projections.

  Four people in the Department of Environment spend part of their time working on the migration element of subnational population projections, including consultation with local authorities. In total, less than one person a year is spent in this activity each year.

  In the Government Actuary's Department three people are involved in making population projections. Information is not held centrally for people involved elsewhere in public departments or in county authorities and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of national health service acute beds are normally available for emergency admissions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. It is for each hospital unit to decide the proportion of its national health service acute beds to be made available for emergency admission. The proportion of all patients—in-patients and day cases—admitted immediately was 56 per cent. in 1989–90.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration is currently being given to the projected lengthening of surgical waiting lists resulting from national health service treatment of war casualties;

  (2) if he will instruct all regional health authorities to open, equip and staff wards and beds, previously closed for financial reasons, to meet the needs of Gulf patients and continued treatment of waiting list patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 17 January at columns 583–84.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, once Gulf casualties have been transferred to the national health service, hospitals will be responsible for dealing with relatives' inquiries and visits.

  Mr. Dorrell
  National health service hospitals treating Gulf casualties will deal with relatives' inquiries and visits in conjunction with the military administrative officers (civil hospitals).

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are available within English, Welsh and regional burns units to deal with serious burns.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Identification of the need for, and provision of, services for serious burns are matters for regions to determine. In the event of exceptional demand, consultants would be expected to exercise their normal discretion to seek inter-hospital transfer or to set up "satellite" units.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what training has been provided to national health service nurses on how to deal with the effects of chemical weapons upon patients;
  34
  (2) what advice has been given to national health staff about the possibility of contamination by chemical and biological agents when treating patients contaminated by such agents;

  (3) what experience existing national health service staff, not called for service in the Gulf, have in dealing with the results of chemical and biological weapons;

  (4) what information national health service hospitals have received concerning patients contaminated by biological agents as a result of warfare in the Gulf;

  (5) what proportion of persons suffering from the effects of chemical contamination in the Gulf are likely to be treated, in the longer term, by the national health service;

  (6) what number of chemical warfare victims can be dealt with by the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  NHS hospitals will treat all Gulf casualties admitted to them. Those suffering from the effects of chemical weapons will be decontaminated before being evacuated to the United Kingdom. There is therefore no threat to NHS staff from treating such casualties.

  I am advised that, after decontamination has taken place, the most likely effects of chemical weapons are similar to those arising in other circumstances, for which NHS staff are already trained. The experience which individual members of staff have depends on a variety of circumstances and is not recorded centrally.

  The NHS has not been asked by the Ministry of Defence to prepare for reception of casualties suffering from the effects of biological weapons. Should the need arise, such casualties would need immediate treatment and this would be given in the Gulf area.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to provide the levels of skilled staff required to expand regional burns unit capacity, should this be required.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Normal regional planning for contingencies, such as major accidents, includes taking account of the possible need to increase levels of skilled staff in burns units. National guidance has been issued to regions to supplement their normal planning arrangements in the event of casualties from the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what counselling and other support services will be provided to national health service personnel treating war casualties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provision of counselling and other support services for NHS personnel treating war casualties will be determined at local level.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to regional health authority press officers concerning casualties from the Gulf treated in the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has issued advice on how to deal with issues likely to arise.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of psychiatric services will be made available to personnel returning from the Gulf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Personnel returning from the Gulf and referred to the NHS will have available the full range of normal NHS psychiatric services for treatment as appropriate.

  Constituency Electorates
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many forms RPF 29 have been received by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys detailing the electorates of parliamentary constituencies for 1991, at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  By 13 February, 197 electoral registration officers in local authorities in England and Wales had submitted RPF 29 returns containing 1991 electorate figures to OPCS: 206 were outstanding.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what matters were discussed at the meeting last week between Mr. John Yates of the Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy Company and the Minister of State; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what reasons have been given to him by the Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy Company for its withdrawal from the Government's initiative on reduction of hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Mr. Yates was invited to explain the decision to withdraw from the agreement with the Department to carry out studies of long waiting lists in 1991–92. We are determined to reduce the number of long-wait patients. We expect to use outside help to carry this important work forward.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions have been given to health authorities with regard to the reduction of hospital patients' waiting lists; and what targets have been set for achievement by March 1992.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the NHS management executive, has written to general managers to say that targets will be agreed with each of the 14 regional health authorities for substantial reductions in the number of patients who wait more than one year for treatment. As a minimum, no patient should have to wait more than two years by March 1992. The £35 million waiting list fund for 1991–92 will be deployed to help regions achieve their targets.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of those on the NHS waiting lists in the Greater London area; and what the figure was in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 January 1991]: Figures for March 1990, the latest available centrally, and the previous five years are given in the table. What matters is the time patients wait, not the total numbers on the list. In the 12 months to March 1990 the number of patients waiting over one year for in-patient treatment in the Greater London area health authorities fell by 14 per cent.

  London Health Authorities: Waiting lists at 31 March (in-patients)

  Total (excluding self-deferred cases)

  1985

  107,951

  1986

  121,412

  1987

  125,077

  36

  Total (excluding self-deferred cases)

  1988

  124,661

  1989

  130,482

  1990

  126,616

  Source: SBH2O3 1985–1987.

  KH06/7/7A 1988–90.

  NHS Personnel (Gulf War)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service(a) doctors, (b) surgeons and (c) nurses are presently serving in the Gulf; and what proportion of the total number of national health service doctors, surgeons and nurses this represents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Iran-Iraq War Casualties
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons injured during the Iraq-Iran war were treated in the United Kingdom; and how many of these were affected by chemical and biological weapons.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by(a) regional and (b) district health authorities on building nursing and residential homes for (i) the elderly, (ii) the mentally ill and (iii) the disabled in each of the last five years; and what was the average cost per place in each category.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Water-Borne Pathogens
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there has been evidence of increased reporting of any potentially water-borne pathogens in the Severn-Trent area in the last three months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such evidence has been recorded by the public health laboratory service.

  Cold-related Deaths
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will produce a table to show, for each month of the last five years, the number of men aged 65 years and over, and women aged 60 years and over, who had died from(a) cold-related causes and (b) all causes, and for each of the last 20 years, for each quarter, the same information.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hip Replacement
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of in-patient treatment per hospital bed per week for a hip replacement operation; what is the total spent on such operations in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
  37
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: The cost of a hip replacement is estimated to be £2,780 at 1989–90 prices. Since this cost is dependent on the length of patient's stay no meaningful average hospital in-patient cost can be given. During 1989–90 some 45,000 hip replacement operations were performed at an estimated total cost of £125·3 million.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Northern Ireland Environment Minister has reached an agreement or understanding with the Irish Republic's Environment Minister regarding the siting of a hazardous waste incinerator at Maydown.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on whether planning permission would be given to any hazardous waste incinerator in Northern Ireland without referral to a public inquiry.

  Mr. Needham
  Each planning application is treated on its merits depending on the scale and type of development proposed. A planning application for a major development involving a hazardous waste incinerator would not be determined without a public inquiry being held under the terms of article 22 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will seek to have higher costs to pensioners living in Northern Ireland reflected in higher pension rates for Northern Ireland pensioners.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. It is the Government's policy to maintain social security benefits at the same level throughout the United Kingdom.

  Disabled Workers
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employers with 20 or more people employ a 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled people.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: In June 1990, 291 employers with 20 or more people were known to employ a 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled people.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants are available for employers in Northern Ireland to enable handicapped people to operate machinery.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The adaptations of premises and equipment scheme administered by the disablement advisory services of the Training and Employment Agency, provides financial assistance to those employers who need to make essential alterations to machinery and equipment to facilitate their disabled employees.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Social Services to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 7 February 1991,Official Report, column 251, whether the changes to the cold weather payment scheme apply to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: I am glad to be able to confirm that payments of £6 will be made on the same basis as in Great Britain.

WALES

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in each of the past three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for European regional development fund assistance committed to Wales in each of the last three years are as follows: 1988 £63·3 million; 1989 £28·8 million; and 1990 £27·4 million.

  Recession
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the current recession on business and employment in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is encouraging that the Government's policy of fighting inflation is working and although the economy of Wales, like the rest of the United Kingdom, is experiencing a difficult time at present, all the indications suggest that the medium to long-term prospects for the Welsh economy are as good as ever.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with the implementation of the national curriculum in respect of the Welsh language.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Implementation of Welsh in the national curriculum is proceeding to timetable.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers are employed full time in Wales teaching the Welsh language to adults; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total annual expenditure incurred by public authorities in Wales in teaching the Welsh language to adults.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the expenditure by local authorities on Welsh classes for adults is not held centrally. However, in 1990–91 Welsh Office grants worth £428,000 were made available to a range of organisations to support activities in this field.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is proposing to take to implement the draft
  39
  Welsh Language Bill prepared by the Welsh Language Board, and which has been submitted to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board's proposals for legislation will be carefully considered and the Government's response will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies have been undertaken by the Welsh Office of techniques and methods of teaching the Basque language to non-Basque-speaking adults in the Basque country.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  CBI
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he plans to meet the CBI in Wales to discuss the economic situation in the Principality.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I meet representatives of the CBI in Wales regularly to discuss a wide range of issues relevant to the development of the Welsh economy.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are now out of work in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In January 1991 there were 11,383 and 101,452 unemployed claimants in Clwyd and Wales respectively.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest percentage figures he has for unemployment in the Wrexham travel-to-work area and in Wales as a whole.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Unemployment in the Wrexham travel-to-work area currently stands at 6·4 per cent. of the work force compared with a figure in Wales as a whole of 7·8 per cent.

  Investment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of the major clearing banks to discuss future investments in companies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I meet the major clearing banks periodically to discuss a range of matters, including progress of the Welsh economy.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what amount inward investment in Wales has increased over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There has been a 75 per cent. increase in the number of inward investment projects secured for Wales over the past five years. In 1990, 142 projects were secured, promising some 16,000 jobs and capital investment of almost £640 million.

  Renal Units
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to develop the services provided by renal units in 1991–92.
  40
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Following wide consultation on the future of regional services in Wales, the development of renal services will, from April, fall to district health authorities subject to monitoring by the Department.

  Hospitals (Construction Projects)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the major construction projects on district general hospitals, currently under way or due to start, which are funded wholly or partly by moneys allocated to district health authorities by the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of projects is shown in the following table:

  Major construction projects costing over £1 million on district general hospital sites

  Health district

  Project

  Under construction, Clwyd

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—Phase 2

  Ysbyty Maelor Wrexham—Phase 2

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General Hospital—Upgrading

  Mid Glamorgan

  Prince Charles Hospital—Phase 2

  East Glamorgan General Hospital—Geriatric Unit

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales—

  Paediatric Cardiac Unit

  Cardiac Catheter Laboratories

  Upgrading Intensive Care and Coronary Care Unit

  Replacement Energy Sources

  West Glamorgan

  Singleton Hospital—

  West Ward Block Staff Residences

  Morriston Hospital—

  School of Nursing

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils from state schools in Wales passed with A, B or C grades in French, German or Spanish A-level in each of the years 1987 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1990 a total of 614 advanced-level certificates were issued by the Welsh Joint Education Committee in grades A to C in French, German and Spanish to school pupils in Wales.

  The detailed information is as follows:

  Grade

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  French

  A

  61

  67

  91

  92

  B

  111

  93

  109

  144

  C

  132

  124

  184

  207

  German

  A

  27

  33

  24

  39

  B

  53

  49

  39

  42

  C

  35

  36

  40

  65

  Spanish

  A

  6

  9

  9

  8

  B

  10

  11

  18

  11

  C

  10

  12

  8

  6

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made during this financial year in reducing hospital waiting lists.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Detailed information on waiting lists at September 1990 will be published soon which I fully expect to show that Welsh hospitals continue to treat record numbers of patients. Since 1979 in-patient and out-patient attendance has increased by some 34 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he plans in the method of distributing transitional payments for poll tax reductions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans for changing the arrangements for distributing the relief payments totalling £62 million under the community charge reduction scheme, which I announced in the House in my statement of 17 January. These arrangements, taken together with the realistic local government finance settlement for Wales in 1991–92, represent an excellent deal for the Welsh charge payer.

  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to announce his decisions on the allocation of the £18 million additional resources he announced on 17 January.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall he announcing today details of an £8·14 million increase in local authority capital provision.

  I propose to allocate transport grants totalling £6 million for road improvements in Mid and West Glamorgan. PRNI (projects of regional and national importance) funding of £400,000 will also be made available for new rolling stock on the city line in Cardiff.

  I have also decided to provide substantial additional resources for the urban programme. A further £1,745,000 will be directed to a range of projects including £275,000 each for the establishment of small business units at Shotton enterprise centre and provision of an all-weather playing surface at Deep Duffryn. A total of £250,000 will be spent on road improvements at Crumlin and £345,000 for highway and environmental programmes in Cardiff. I shall also be providing £100,000 for the purchase of land and the construction of factory units at Holyhead. Finally, I have been encouraged by the excellent response we have received to the valleys community revival scheme. I have therefore decided that, in order to make room for further, worth while projects, an extra £500,000 should be awarded under the scheme.

  I shall announce further details of local authority capital provision as soon as possible.

  Housing, Swansea
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will discuss with Swansea city council special assistance towards the problems of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses, in particular, and the future housing role of Welsh local authorities.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I understand that a consultants' report on the matter has only recently been made available 42
  to the council for consideration. I have no doubt that discussions involving my officials will follow. I look to this local authority and to all others to act as effective enablers in tackling housing functions working in close partnerships with housing associations and the private sector.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the payment to farmers of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I announced the substantial increases proposed for HLCA rates—worth an extra £4·7 million to Welsh farmers—on 11 February. Claim forms have previously been issued to farmers and my officials will be giving the highest priority to the processing of these claims. Subject to parliamentary approval of the new rates and the necessary checks farmers in Wales will receive their money as quickly as possible.

  Dairy Cattle
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy cows there were in Wales in 1988 and 1989; and what information he has on the corresponding figures for the Irish Republic, Denmark and Spain.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  thousand head

  Number of dairy cows in December

  1988

  1989

  Wales

  336

  331

  Irish Republic

  1,387

  1,400

  Denmark

  764

  770

  Spain

  1,741

  1,822

  Common Agricultural Policy Payments
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the total payments received by the agricultural industry in Wales were under the common agricultural policy in each of the last three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Total expenditure in the United Kingdom under the common agricultural policy in the last three years was:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,611·1

  1988–89

  1,362·9

  1989–90

  1,230·5

  Although it is possible to identify some of the payments which have been made to the agriculture industry in Wales—details are contained in the annual appropriation accounts, class XVII, votes I and II, Wales—it is not possible to disaggregate all United Kingdom common agricultural policy expenditure in this way.

  Export Clinics
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the export clinics held under the Welsh Office valleys export service have been held in the Llanelli travel-to-work area.
  43
  Mr. David Hunt
  Thirty-three export services clinics have been held in the valleys programme area: three of them have been held within the Llanelli travel-to-work area, with two further clinics at Pontardulais, which is easily accessible to companies based in the Llanelli area. A further clinic at Llanelli itself is scheduled for the programme in the coming quarter.

  Valleys Loan Scheme
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many projects located in the Llanelli travel-to-work area have benefited from the Welsh Development Agency valleys loan scheme for small businesses.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There have been no applications from the Llanelli travel-to-work area for the Welsh Development Agency's valleys small loans scheme. Other Welsh Development Agency loans in the Llanelli area since the inception of the valleys programme total £36,000.

  Hospitals (Postal Services)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan health authorities concerning the frequency of misdirected post, samples and medical records between the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, the Prince of Wales hospital, Bridgend and the Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the health authorities concerned which advise that they are not aware of any such problems.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if any changes have been made or are proposed to the criteria for determining the capacity of schools as laid down in Welsh Office circular 20/88.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Welsh Office circular 20/88 includes a suggested method for determining the capacity of primary schools. We are currently consulting education interests in Wales on draft proposals to introduce more open enrolment into primary schools from the start of the 1992 school year. The proposals include an alternative formula for calculating the capacity of primary schools. More open enrolment for secondary schools was introduced with effect from 4 August 1990. Welsh Office circular 47/88 contains an annex suggesting a method for calculating capacity in these schools.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the current level of surplus places in each local education authority in Wales separately distinguishing primary and secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Surplus places

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  11,151

  2,913

  Dyfed

  9,178

  2,089

  Gwent

  10,009

  10,527

  Gwynedd

  4,469

  4,412

  44

  Surplus places

  Primary

  Secondary

  Mid Glamorgan

  13,663

  7,556

  Powys

  3,096

  1,477

  South Glamorgan

  12,196

  8,907

  West Glamorgan

  14,213

  7,496

TRANSPORT

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the numbers of random breath tests required to detect each week(a) 1,000 drivers above twice the legal alcohol limit, (b) 1,000 drivers above the legal limit but below twice the limit, and (c) 50,000 drivers below the legal limit.

  Mr. Chope
  Data from the roadside surveys undertaken by the transport and road research laboratory in 1990 indicate that the following numbers of tests would be required:

  (a) 625,000

  (b) 116,000

  (c) 50,500

  These surveys were carried out on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights—the high-risk periods for drink-driving. They are, therefore, likely to underestimate the number of tests required to detect drivers over the legal limit at other times.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which of those organisations that responded to the consultation document of 20 September 1990 were in favour of tighter MOT emission standards than those outlined;

  (2) further to his reply of 22 January, Official Report, column 111, if he will discuss with the European Commission the future introduction of MOT motor vehicle emission standards based on individual manufacturers' specifications.

  Mr. Chope
  A number of those consulted suggested tighter emission standards than those proposed or limits based on manufacturers' settings. The EC type approval directive on emissions precludes the setting of standards which are stricter than those to which vehicles were required to conform when new. But, as many vehicles are capable of achieving emission levels well within the limits which will be set in the regulations, we have made it clear that motorists should aim to have their vehicles tuned to manufacturers' settings wherever possible.

  The standards we have proposed are intended to be a first step in in-service emissions checking, and standards will be progressively tightened in the future. The European Commission has already initiated discussions with member states on harmonised standards for emission testing. If resulting European legislation permits us to test to manufacturers' settings we shall consider the matter further.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) further to his reply of 22 January,Official Report, column 111, when he now plans to sign enabling regulations relating to MOT motor vehicle emission standards; and if he will make a statement;
  45
  (2) what assessment he has made of MOT vehicle test emission standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on 13 February, at column 464.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will incorporate manufacturing design standards into a servicing schedule for cars;

  (2) if he will introduce an effective system for checking pollution from vehicles on the road, including those under three years of age.

  Mr. Chope
  Proper engine tuning is important for all vehicles, including those less than three years old. All motorists are well advised to ensure that their engine tuning is checked when they have their vehicles serviced. We are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to consider including engine tuning in routine service schedules.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what roles he has assigned to(a) local authorities, (b) the vehicle inspectorate and (c) the police in on-the-road checks for pollution control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The new in-service emission standards will be enforced primarily at MOT tests under the supervision of the vehicle inspectorate. In due course I envisage an increasing role for both the vehicle inspectorate and the police in roadside spot checks on emissions.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to ensure that dedicated equipment for carbon monoxide testing is used in MOT testing; and if he will introduce a British standard for such equipment.

  Mr. Chope
  We are making arrangements to ensure that all types of emission-checking equipment which will be used in MOT testing have been certified to appropriate standards. As there is currently no British standard for such equipment, we are requiring that equipment should be designed and certified to the established international standard or an equivalent. I hope that the United Kingdom will play an active role in any further development of current equipment standards. Emission-checking equipment will not have to be dedicated to MOT testing, but we shall expect MOT test stations to have approved equipment available in MOT test bays whenever tests are being conducted.

  Trains, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the current extent of one-person operation on the trains of the British Railways Board in the London travel-to-work area, the changes that have occurred since 1979, and those projected by the board.

  Mr. Freeman
  Many trains on routes into London and elsewhere are now one-person operated. Further extensions of one-person operation are an operational matter for the board and depend on various factors including the availability of suitable rolling stock and associated safety features such as cab radio.

  Racism
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from London Underground Ltd. on its response to the findings of the Commission for Racial Equality about the use of racist tests in appointing middle managers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that London Underground Ltd. has already revised its selection methods and introduced equality targets for ethnic minority representation at all levels in the company. The Commission for Racial Equality has commented:"The solutions introduced by London Underground serve a possible model for other employers".

  Railway Drivers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request Her Majesty's railway inspectorate to survey the incidence of resignation or early retirement of railway drivers over the last 10 years, together with any matters related thereto.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for railway operators.

  Driving Tests
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that only Department of Transport-approved driving instructors will be allowed to undertake the retesting of convicted drunken drivers.

  Mr. Chope
  Our proposals for the retesting of certain disqualified drivers are set out in the Road Traffic Bill. The new extended tests will be carried out only by the Department's driving examiners.

  Private Contractors
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much private contractors are charged when their construction and demolition work for private concerns blocks or hinders the public highway and pavements.

  Mr. Chope
  Under part IX of the Highways Act 1980, any person carrying out building or demolition work who places any scaffolding, other structure, hoarding, fence, builders' skip, or building materials which obstructs the highway is required to obtain a licence, permission or consent from the highway authority, and to comply with its terms. The highway authority does not have power to charge for occupation of the highway. The New Roads and Street Works Bill before Parliament includes an amendment to the Highways Act 1980 which would enable fees to be prescribed for the occupation of the highway in such circumstances.

  Parking
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation governs the illegal parking of vehicles partly or wholly on pavements; what the maximum penalty is for committing such an offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  There is no uniform national provision which prohibits pavement parking.
  47
  The parking of heavy goods vehicles over 7·5 tonnes gross weight on the pavement, except when necessary for loading or unloading is an offence under section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and is subject to a standard fixed penalty notice—£16—or a maximum level 3 fine. London and a few provincial cities have taken equivalent local Act powers to extend this offence to other vehicles.

  The latent power in paragraph 22 of schedule 2 to the Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 which, if commenced, would introduce a new national offence of parking a vehicle, other than a heavy goods vehicle, on the verge of an urban road, or on the footway or on any land situated between two carriageways on an urban road is being repealed by the Road Traffic Bill.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 11 December 1990, at column 344.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects construction of the east London river crossing to start; and what is his latest estimate of the construction period.

  Mr. Chope
  The programme for construction depends on completion of the statutory procedures. Subject to that, the current timetable is for construction to start in 1992 and finish by 1996.

  Blighted Homes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the use of his discretionary powers to buy, in advance of statutory blight provisions becoming operable, homes that are blighted by the announcement of proposed new road works; and what criteria he adopts in deciding which homes he will buy.

  Mr. Chope
  Where there is a genuine possibility that any part of a property may be required for one of our highway schemes, we are empowered to consider advance acquisition under section 248 of the Highway Act 1980. For owner-occupied residential property the criteria against which each application for purchase is considered are:

  (a) a compelling reason for wishing to sell immediately, other than the prospect of the highway scheme;

  (b) the reason why a sale cannot be achieved except as a discount is because of the road proposal; and

  (c) serious financial hardship would result if the Department did not buy.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what statutory powers his Department is currently purchasing homes that are blighted by the proposal to widen the M20 between junctions 3 and 5.

  Mr. Chope
  The majority of properties have been purchased under the blighted land provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contained in paragraph 16 of schedule 13. A few have been the subject of discretionary purchase under section 248 of the Highways Act 1980.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether personal hardship is a factor that he takes into account in deciding whether to use his discretionary powers to buy, in advance of statutory blight provisions becoming operable, homes that are blighted by the announcement of proposed new road works.
  48
  Mr. Chope
  Yes, for those homes where there is a genuine possibility that part of the land may be required for proposed new road works.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify the legislative provisions that give him statutory powers to buy, in advance of statutory blight provisions becoming operable, homes that are blighted by the announcement of proposed new road works.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 248 of the Highways Act gives my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State power to acquire, at his discretion, property not immediately required for road purposes but which in his opinion may be so required.

  Cyprus Airways
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of free sale arrangements offered by Cyprus Airways, as a result of subsidies by the Cyprus Government, on British operators;

  (2) what discussions have been held with the Government of Cyprus on the implications for fair competition of the subsidy given by that Government to Cyprus Airways.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department holds regular talks with representatives of the Government of Cyprus on all aspects of our bilateral aviation relationship. We are always prepared to consider any complaint from British airlines who believe they may be facing unfair competition.

  Airline Companies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will approach the European Commission to seek assistance for airline operators in Europe in order to survive the impact of the Gulf war, to be given in such a way as to ensure that British companies are operating on a level playing field both inside and outside Europe.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The EC Commissioner for competition has already indicated that if Governments wish to make subsidies available to their airlines, the Commission will be concerned to ensure that competition is not unduly distorted to the detriment of consumers and of airlines whose governments do not think that giving subsidies is an appropriate response to current problems. The Government welcome this approach.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what processes are available for reconsideration of licences where a foreign government are subsidising their national airline in such a way as to offer unfair competition to United Kingdom operators.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Within the European Community, subsidies are governed by the treaty of Rome rules. Outside the EC, the effect of subsidies to national airlines on competition would fall to be considered under the terms of individual bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and other countries.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the Government subsidy provided to the airline Sabena during
  49
  the Gulf crisis on (a) British airlines with which it is in competition and (b) the creation of a level playing field in air transport within Europe and worldwide.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that while Sabena has said that it would like a subsidy, the Belgian Government have not announced that they will give one. Any proposal for state aid by EC member states to national airlines would have to be notified to the EC Commission, which would be concerned to ensure that there is no undue distortion of the competition in the aviation market.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will make arrangements(a) to facilitate extended credit for United Kingdom air operators and (b) to provide direct financial assistance to small airlines to enable them to absorb the impact of the Gulf war;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on (a) fair competition and (b) British air operators of fuel subsidies offered by foreign Governments to their operators; and if he has any plans to help United Kingdom operators in this respect.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is for airlines themselves to respond to changing market conditions in the light of their commercial judgment.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will arrange for Civil Aviation Authority charges to be waived or deferred in order to safeguard the position of United Kingdom operators during the Gulf war.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have no plans to do so.

  Semtex
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the security systems installed at United Kingdom airports to which he refers in his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 8 February,Official Report, column 255, are able to detect Semtex explosives in addition to detonation devices in bombs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am not prepared to reveal details of security systems or their capabilities.

  Showmen's HGVs
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific restrictions in respect of the carriage of goods apply to vehicles in taxation class, "Restricted Showman's HGV".

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: A showman's goods vehicle is a vehicle permanently fitted with a living van or some other special type of body or superstructure, forming part of the equipment of a travelling show. The vehicle must be registered in the name of a person who follows the business of a travelling showman and used solely for that purpose. This means that the only goods to be carried must be directly related to the occupation of travelling showman. The restricted showman's HGV class applies to such vehicles which, although over 3,500 kg gross vehicle weight, cannot be taxed according to their plated weight because they are exempt from plating and testing.

  MOT Test
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the categories of road vehicles exempt from the three-yearly MOT test.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: Exemptions from the MOT test are listed in regulation 6 of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulation 1981, No. 1694, as amended. I refer the hon. Member to page 7524/1 of the "Encyclopedia of Road Traffic Law and Practice" volume 3, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the details he has received of a proposed alternative route for the Greater Manchester northern and western relief road.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on 11 February at column 308.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) on what basis briefings are made on a Privy Council basis;

  (2) on what basis decisions are made on a Privy Council basis that are not subsequently explicitly approved by Parliament.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not the practice to disclose information on this subject.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Video Facility
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make immediate temporary arrangements to enable hon. Members to have access to a dedicated video viewing facility whenever the House is sitting.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It has been agreed by the Services Committee that a dedicated video viewing facility is to be established in the House and will be run by the Library. That facility is expected to be available in the autumn. It is unlikely that any arrangement, other than that which already exists in the television viewing rooms, can be identified before that time.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made in respect of Georgy Molodchikov of Kiev who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union;

  (2) what representations have been made in respect of Emil Tsilpen of Moscow who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union;
  51
  (3) what representations have been made in respect of Ruben Ustayev of Tashkent who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can certainly raise these cases with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Elena Morgulis of Sverdlovsk who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mrs. Morgulis' case has been added to the list of cases which we regularly raise with the Soviet authorities. We shall continue to press all these cases until a satisfactory outcome is achieved.

  United Nations
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the United Nations optional protocol on civil and political rights.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As we have accepted the right of individual petition under the European convention on human rights and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court, we have accepted the strongest available mechanism for individual petition available to us and therefore need not accept that offered by the optional protocol.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests for action to be taken have been made to the Security Council of the United Nations, under chapter VII of the United Nations charter, following the allied bombing of Iraqi nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Foreign Visitors (Safety)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's embassies and consulates are taking to assure intending visitors to the United Kingdom and tourist operators that it is safe to come here.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British missions overseas are advising intending travellers that it is safe to visit the United Kingdom although visitors should of course take all normal precautions. Posts are reassuring travellers that security precautions have been increased, particularly around airports.

  Disarmament Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government's representatives to the conference on disarmament concerning the consequences of military attacks on civil nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  International Labour Adviser
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will publish the manning level of the international labour adviser's Department and the comparable figures for five, 10 and 25 years ago;

  (2) what are the functions of the international labour adviser in his Department;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the future of his office's international labour adviser's Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The manning levels including support staff, for the office of international labour adviser are as follows:

  Staff

  1991

  3

  1986

  3

  1981

  5

  1966

  8

  Two reviews have recently been carried out on the need for a separate office of ILA. The conclusion endorsed by Ministers was that retention is no longer justified.

  The function of the ILA has been liaison between United Kingdom Government Departments, overseas posts, FCO departments and British trade union organisations on international labour and social questions, and to offer advice as necessary.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the extent to which the Israelis are using the cover of hostilities to increase the settlement of the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information to suggest that settlement activity has intensified since the beginning of hostilities.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the living conditions in the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have seen a worrying decline in living standards in the occupied territories since the Gulf crisis began. We are particularly concerned at the impact of the continuing curfew and have made our views known to the Israeli authorities.

  Equatorial Guinea
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made since 1979 to the Government of Equatorial Guinea concerning the abuse of human rights in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom and Equatorial Guinea do not maintain resident missions in each other's capitals. Relations are minimal and contacts few. We have made no representations to the Government of Equatorial Guinea on human rights.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that the extra costs incurred by the BBC World Service in performing additional tasks as a result of the Gulf war will be met by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 1 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) which stated that the cash limit for class II, vote 3 (external broadcasting and monitoring) would be increased by £4,760,000. Of this sum £1,160,000 will be devoted to extra expenditure incurred in this financial year as a result of the Gulf war. The remaining costs of extra broadcasting to the end of this financial year are being met from existing Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy objectives with regard to the Gulf war have been discussed with or agreed with Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our objectives are those of the United Nations Security Council; to eject Iraqi forces entirely from Kuwait; to restore the legitimate Government of Kuwait; and to restore international peace and stability to the region. We believe the Israelis share them.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the considerations underlying the policy of deferring steps to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute until the conclusion of the conflict in the Gulf.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iraqi occupation of Kuwait has created a situation in which it is not realistic to expect progress on Arab-Israel. We regret this. But it is the fault of Saddam Hussein, who has gravely damaged the Palestinian cause. We shall return to this problem with renewed vigour as soon as Iraq has left Kuwait.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the economic effects on less-developed countries of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 3 December 1990 at coloumn 18. The assessment is still complicated by uncertainty over the future level of oil prices, which have fallen significantly in recent weeks.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure humanitarian needs within Iraq can be met by international agencies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I informed the House on 8 February, we have been in close contact for several months with the United Nations humanitarian agencies and with the International Committee of the Red Cross about contingency planning for the Gulf crisis.
  54
  The United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation has co-ordinated contingency plans fsor dealing with refugees and displaced persons from Kuwait and Iraq with the other relief organisations. We have pledged some £3 million to this and the International Committee of the Red Cross's appeals, further to the £11 million pledged bilaterally and through the European Community last year.

  The International Committee of the Red Cross has sent two consignments of medicines to Baghdad. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF are sending further medical supplies.

  It is for the United Nations Sanctions Committee to determine whether a humanitarian case for food supplies for Iraq (and Kuwait) exists. So far the sanctions committee has been unable to take a position due to the lack of an independent assessment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further information he has about atrocities committed by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Recent information from inside Kuwait shows that the Iraqis continue to carry out a regime of arrests and tortures similar to that graphically described in the Amnesty International reports of October and December last year. Kuwaiti and foreign residents, including women and children, are being tortured and executed for offences such as carrying opposition literature or refusing to display portraits of Saddam Hussein. Recently reports have been received of an incident involving the hanging of a number of women.

  Weapons Technology
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts to reach an accord that would effectively prevent European firms from providing technology and equipment that would enable another country to acquire weaponry of mass destruction.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our partners in the Twelve regularly discuss measures to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The European Council in Rome in December 1990 identified non-proliferation as a possible area for intensified co-ordination among the Twelve.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many spot checks have been made by the Hong Kong authorities on ivory-holding premises since 19 October 1990; and if any irregularities were discovered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: A total of 142 spot checks have been made by the Hong Kong authorities on ivory-holding premises since 19 October 1990. No irregularities were discovered.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current number of possession licences issued to holders of ivory stocks in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991: As at 31 January 1991, there were 983 possession licences held by 868 commercial ivory stockholders in Hong Kong.
  55
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current total of all ivory known to be held in Hong Kong; and on what date it was assessed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: When last assessed on 17 July 1990, the total commercial ivory stock held in Hong Kong was 463 tonnes to the nearest tonne.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the information on countries of origin of tusks held in Hong Kong has been forwarded to the World Wide Fund for Nature.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: Information on the countries of origin of tusks held in Hong Kong was forwarded to WWF Hong Kong on 1 February 1991.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any ivory has been confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities since 17 October 1990; and if any prosecutions for illegal export have been entered since that date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991: A total of 20·1 kg of worked ivory was seized by the Hong Kong authorities between 17 October 1990 and 31 January 1991. This ivory will be confiscated if the prosecutions to be entered result in convictions. During the period, one prosecution for illegal exportation involving 10,091 pieces of ivory name seals and blocks seized in Japan was entered and was successful.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of ivory exported from Hong Kong since midnight on 17 July 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: Since midnight on 17 July 1990, Hong Kong has fully complied with the requirements of CITES in respect of trade in African elephant ivory. Since that date there have been no exports of ivory except as expressly provided for under the convention.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of items from endangered species seized by the Hong Kong authorities in the second half of 1990 and the prosecutions arising from such seizures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: In the second half of 1990, the Hong Kong authorities seized a wide variety of specimens of endangered species, from which 54 prosecutions arose. Details are as follows:

  Seizure of Endangered Species (1 July 1990 to 31 December 1990)

  Species

  Mammal

  Felidae (wild cats) skin

  349 pc

  Elephant—Ivory

  94·3 kg

  Monkey (live)

  6 hd

  Slow Loris

  9 hd

  Gibbon

  3 hd

  Pangolin: live/stuffed/carcass

  3 hd

  meat/scale

  9·6 kg

  56

  Species

  Bird

  Bird of prey/owl—live/dead

  10 hd

  meat

  0·3 kg

  Parrot

  54 hd

  Reptile

  Reptiles: skins

  695 pc +

  10,000 pairs of watch straps

  live/stuffed/carcass

  7 hd

  Sea turtle: scale

  52 pc

  live/stuffed/shell

  103 hd

  Tortoise

  9 hd

  Amphibian

  Giant Salamander: live/carcass

  2 hd

  Fish

  Asiatic Bony Tongue

  45 tails

  Arapaima fish

  558 tails

  Insect

  Mounted butterfly

  5 pc

  Corale

  500 kg

  Plant

  Orchid

  2,269 pc

  Total Number of Seizures: 166

  East Timor
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) the United Nations Security Council, or (b) the European Community Council of Ministers last discussed (i) the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and (ii) the killings of the East Timor people and enforcement of United Nations resolutions on this matter.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: The last discussion in the United Nations Security Council of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor was on 22 April 1976. These matters have not been discussed by the Economic Community Council of Ministers.

Employment

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to place a copy of the new training and enterprise council operating agreement and operating manual for 1991–92 in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I intend to place a copy of the TEC operating agreement and the TEC operating manual in the Library during March. These documents will reflect the new flexibilities and responsibilities which TECs will have from April 1991.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the funding available to the training and enterprise councils may be spent on(a) administration and (b) promotion and advertising.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: Budgets are allocated to individual TECs on the basis of

  57
  proposals set out in their business and corporate plans. The proportion of funding allocated to promotion and advertising and administration varies between TECs.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether training and enterprise councils are in 1991 guaranteeing every school leaver at age 16 years a suitable youth training place before Christmas.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils are contracted to meet the Government's guarantee of the offer of suitable training for all under-18s who have left school, are not in a job and who are seeking a place on youth training. The guarantee applies continuously to young people in this situation until they reach their 18th birthday. The guarantee is their top priority within youth training funds and their business plans are closely scrutinised to ensure that they have made sufficient provision to meet it.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the employment service in Pickering and Malton, North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Jackson
  I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in whose constituency Pickering and Malton lie, on 13 February, to inform him of the plans for the future of the employment service in Malton and Pickering. The employment service is developing an enhanced service at Malton and plans to transfer the services from Pickering to Malton between the end of March and mid-April and to close the pan-time offices at Pickering.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date he received the second corporate plan of South Glamorgan training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Jackson
  As in the case of other TECs, my officials received several drafts of the corporate plan for South Glamorgan TEC.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he took into account the discussions between his area director for Wales and the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC concerning the desirability of William Cowlin and Sons proceeding with its tender for the new TEC building, before approving its corporate plan.

  Mr. Jackson
  The William Cowlin and Sons tender to refurbish premises for South Glamorgan TEC had been withdrawn before the plans were submitted for my right hon. and learned Friend's approval.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date he approved the South Glamorgan TEC corporate plan.

  Mr. Jackson
  I approved the corporate plan for South Glamorgan TEC on 23 January.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed by the Department in jobcentres in(a) Gwynedd and (b) Ynys Mon; and of that total how many are able to speak Welsh.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on a comparative basis of the average earnings of skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled men, and women, in manufacturing industry in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, at the latest convenient dates and five years ago in £ sterling equivalents and purchasing power equivalents.

  Mr. Forth
  The only information available is published by(a) the Statistical Office of the European Communities on the average gross hourly earnings of manual workers by industrial groups, in "Earnings: Industry and Services, No. 1 1990", a copy of which will be available shortly in the Library of the House; and (b) the International Labour Office on average wages by industry for OECD and other countries in "Yearbook of Labour Statistics 1989–90", a copy of which is available in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Neil Duncan
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to the Exchequer of the police inquiry into the case of Neil Duncan and others.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The total estimated police cost was £65,000, of which the Exchequer share, En the form of police grant, would be £33,150.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the levels of investment by the Scottish Development Agency in the Paisley, South constituency since 1983.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Agency expenditure (excluding running costs) on projects in the constituency is set out in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure

  £

  1983–84

  12,000

  1984–85

  251,000

  1985–86

  355,000

  1986–87

  86,000

  1987–88

  224,000

  1988–89

  236,000

  1989–90

  206,000

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to encourage employers to recruit more disabled employees.
  59
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No

  CAP Payments
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the total payments received by the agricultural industry in Scotland were under the common agricultural policy in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total expenditure in the United Kingdom under the common agricultural policy was:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,611·1

  1988–89

  1,362·9

  1989–90

  1,230·5

  Details of schemes with identifiable expenditure in Scotland are given in the annual appropriation accounts volume 9: class XVI Scotland. It is not possible to disaggregate all United Kingdom CAP expenditure in this way.

  Local Health Councils
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likely effectiveness of local health councils which are appointed by the health boards they are empowered to monitor.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The role of health boards is changing. Increasingly they will be concerned with strategic issues and with the procurement of services to meet the health needs of their areas. Councils are likely to concentrate on the services provided. The two roles are mutually compatible and supportive.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budgeted expenditure per head of population of each of the Scottish regional councils in 1990–91.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The information is set out in the table:

  1990–91 Budget Estimates per head of population

  £

  Borders

  850·13

  Central

  775·74

  Dumfries and Galloway

  816·00

  Fife

  819·06

  Grampian

  761·23

  Highland

  1,017·12

  Lothian

  829·85

  Strathclyde

  855·50

  Tayside

  819·12

  Note:

  Figures have been calculated using total relevant current expenditure including loan and leasing charges and population figures at June 1989.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the income per head of each of the Scottish regions from the Scottish Office, revenue support grant and non-domestic rates in 1990–91.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The information is set out in the table:
  60

  1990–91 Revenue support grant per head of population

  1990–91 Non-domestic rates per head of population

  £

  £

  Borders

  558·71

  96·85

  Central

  383·71

  175·41

  Dumfries and Galloway

  510·77

  122·23

  Fife

  374·05

  202·40

  Grampian

  435·25

  161·82

  Highland

  613·28

  178·23

  Lothian

  315·13

  206·88

  Strathclyde

  450·68

  174·67

  Tayside

  445·83

  149·25

  Enterprise Ayrshire
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allocation he has made to Enterprise Ayrshire for training for the coming financial year; what is the allocation to the existing equivalent programmes for the current year; what estimate he has of the reduction in training places as a result; what effect it will have on permanent and temporary employees inherited by Enterprise Ayrshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: There is no specific allocation of resources to individual training programmes in the current year in respect of the area for which Enterprise Ayrshire will be responsible for organising Government-financed training provision from 1 April. The allocation of resources for 1991–92 to individual local enterprise companies is a matter for Scottish Enterprise rather than my right hon. Friend. The number of training places to be provided next year in individual local enterprise company areas is a matter for consideration by the relevant local enterprise company, in consultation with Scottish Enterprise. It depends upon a wide range of factors and is not the subject of estimates by the Scottish Office. Staffing complements are also a matter for consideration between local enterprise companies and Scottish Enterprise. However, it is important to be clear that local enterprise companies do not directly inherit any staff. Staff from the Training Agency and the Scottish Development Agency have the statutory right to an offer of employment with Scottish Enterprise. Any arrangements to second staff to local enterprise companies do not detract from that statutory right.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution he made towards the cost of the management consultants' reports on the parallel business plans for a national health service trust and managed unit within the health board for the South Ayrshire hospitals; what was the total cost of the study; and who else contributed towards it.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) at volume 185, columns 87–88.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the study being undertaken into a national health service trust for
  61
  South Ayrshire hospitals; what has been the nature of such representations; and what action he proposes to take as a result.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: I have received a number of representations concerning trust status for South Ayrshire hospitals. all of which will be given careful consideration.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many research projects on food poisoning the Scottish Office is funding in Scotland; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The following research projects in Scotland relevant to food poisoning are being funded by the Scottish Office.

  1. Rapid methods of determining bacterial numbers in milk and milk products.

  2. The properties, particularly in respect to pathogenicity, of spore forming organisms in milk.

  3.The source and factors controlling the growth of Listeria spp in milk and milk products.

  4. Quantify the routes and describe the factors regulating the transmission of micro-organisms in eggs.

  5. Biochemical activity, virulence factors and food chain distribution of Yersinia enterocolitica.

  6. Listeriosis: A case control study to test the hypothesis that the consumption or handling of "high risk" foods are risk factors in acquiring infection.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of food poisoning were detected and treated in Scotland in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The numbers of confirmed notifications by doctors to health boards of cases of food poisoning in these years were 2,998, 3,197 and 3,037 (provisional) respectively. Information about the treatment of individual patients is not held centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) under 25-year-olds, (b) 25 to 35-year-olds and (c) over 35-year-olds are unemployed in (i) Scotland, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Glasgow; and how many in each age group have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The available information for those aged under 25, aged 25 to 34 years old and aged 35 years or over can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

DEFENCE

  Welsh Service Personnel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish figures outlining the number of applicants and entrants to(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and (c) the Royal Air Force who (i) were born in Wales and (ii) who are normally resident in Wales;
  62
  (2) of those members of the United Kingdom regular forces serving in the Gulf, how many are normally resident in Wales; and if he will publish separate figures for (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

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

  The Gulf
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of deaths of(a) military personnel and (b) civilians that have occurred as a direct result of the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of military casualties to date in the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to provide an overall estimate of the number of people killed so far during hostilities. The United Kingdom has no personnel confirmed as killed as a direct result of hostilities.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on how many civil servants have been called up as reservists for service in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement on the effect of such calls-ups on their pay, posts and promotion prospects.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The civilian employment of reservists called out for service as a result of the Gulf conflict is not centrally recorded. Reservists called out from the civil service will be paid the military pay appropriate to their service rank. If necessary, under established balance of civil pay procedures, they will also receive additional payments from their previously employing Department to bring total emoluments up to the level of their civil service pay. Posts will be kept available for reservist staff called out for service and their promotion prospects will be unaffected.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the resolution of the House of 21 January on the Gulf represents Her Majesty's Government's policy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps have been taken to minimise civilian casualties in the Gulf conflict wherever possible; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what advice he has issued to British commanders on how minimising civilian casualties should be interpreted;

  (3) what consideration has been given in authorising the use of B-52 bombers by the allied coalition to minimising civilian casualties wherever possible;

  (4) what is his latest estimate of civilian casualties to date in the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Allied pilots have instructions only to attack targets which could pose a threat to allied forces or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. These attacks are carefully planned, with the aim of minimising the risk of causing civilian casualties. Iraq has made varying claims about the number of civilian casualties, but we are unable to verify these claims.
  63
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what losses have been suffered to date in the middle east by(a) the allies and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the air campaign so far, six RAF Tornado GR1 s have failed to return from missions over Iraq. A further Tornado GR1 was lost following a mechanical failure immediately after take-off. The United States announced on 15 February that, in addition to the United Kingdom losses, coalition forces have lost a further 22 aircraft to enemy action.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action the joint information bureau has taken to police and enforce the media ground rules for reporting the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The allied joint information bureaux provide contact points for journalists and as such do not directly police and enforce the ground rules for reporting. Responsibility for policing and enforcing these ground rules falls to various authorities, including individual national staffs who man the bureaux. British authorities in theatre routinely raise with journalists aspects of compliance with the ground rules. In certain cases the Saudi authorities will take direct action.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis(a) war facts and information are withheld and (b) disinformation released.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's policy is to allow all reasonable freedom and access for reporting, subject only to constraints essential to protect the safety of coalition forces and the security of allied operations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made for the long-term management of sewage and waste oils from military operations arising from the British forces in the Saudi Arabian desert.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In desert areas sewage is incinerated, while waste oil is drained into drums carried for this purpose and removed to a civilian disposal facility.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what protective measures have been taken to protect British forces in the Gulf from being bitten by the camel spider, scorpions, the carpet viper, the black desert cobra, the horned viper and desert ants.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All personnel moving to the Gulf are briefed on the particular health risks associated with the local environment, including those posed by arachnids, reptiles and insects. Normal military clothing and footwear are considered sufficient protection in normal circumstances and we have no knowledge of any specific problems concerning the species mentioned.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of the Royal Air Force operating in the Gulf in regard to targets of opportunity; and what guidance is given to pilots to judge whether such targets are civilian.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Allied pilots have instructions to attack only targets which could pose a threat to allied forces or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.
  64
  On occasions, aircraft have returned with their bombs because their crews have been unable to identify their target clearly.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy of the account of Mr. Ramsey Clark concerning the damage caused to residential areas in Iraq from allied bombing raids.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are unable to confirm the claims made by Mr. Ramsey Clark about damage to residential areas in Iraq.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are available in Bundeswehr hospitals for Gulf wounded.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to use Bundeswehr hospitals for the treatment of British personnel wounded in the Gulf.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the effect of the interdiction of Iraqi logistic systems on the non-Iraqi population of Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The people of Kuwait have had to suffer over six months of occupation and ill-treatment by Iraq. Conditions for the Kuwaiti people will improve only when that occupation is ended, which is the aim of the allied military campaign.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military objectives in the Gulf have been discussed or agreed with Israel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aims of the coalition forces are those laid down by the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the level of civilian casualties to date in Basra.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Iraq has made numerous claims about civilian casualties resulting from the allied air campaign, including in the Basra area. We are unable to verify Iraq's claims.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the military purpose served by the destruction of the justice and local government ministries in Baghdad.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The justice and local government ministries form an integral part of the national command and control structure of Iraq.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the Patriot missile launchers are located in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Deployments of Patriot missile launchers in defence of Israel are a matter for the Israeli Government.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the length of time in which the Al-Amerieh bunker had been used as an air raid shelter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The bunker attacked in Baghdad on 13 February was constructed in the early 1980s during
  65
  the Iran-Iraq war, but, as the United States has said, it was converted to a military command and control facility in the late 1980s.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a detailed inquiry into the alleged destruction of a civil air raid shelter in Baghdad, and review procedures required to minimise the risk of any similar occurrence.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the bombing on 13 February of Iraqi civilians sheltering in the Baghdad air raid shelter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The allied aim remains to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. The United States has made it clear that the bunker would not have been attacked if it had been known that the civilians were inside. The United Kingdom has the same policy.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that contracts for passenger and freight air transport during the current period are directed to British firms which have been subject to financial pressures due to the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While reserving the right to secure charter air transport services by open competition, some 95 per cent. of Ministry of Defence contracts arising from the Gulf situation and related activities have been let to United Kingdom firms. A further 3 per cent. related to requirements which could not be met in the United Kingdom market.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans exist to deal with large-scale contamination by anthrax spores of personnel serving in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A range of counter-measures have been taken, or are available, to deal with the possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our forces deployed in the Gulf. For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to comment on specific agents or countermeasures. We have made it clear ther Her Majesty's Government would view any use of such agents with very grave concern.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We welcome the continuing improvement in United Kingdom-Argentine relations and the contribution which this makes to security in the south Atlantic. The measures agreed between both Governments at Madrid last year for reciprocal consultation on military movements have helped the confidence-building process. We remain fully committed to the defence of the Falkland Islands and to maintaining adequate forces there for this purpose.

  Incubators, Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the effect of the war upon the usability of incubators in Iraq to save babies' lives.
  66
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Allied forces have not attacked hospitals and there is no reason to believe that Iraqi hospitals have been unable to continue to function. By contrast, evidence was given to the United Nations Security Council on 27 November 1990 of the deaths of 120 new-born babies in a Kuwaiti hospital when they were taken from their incubators by the Iraqis.

  RAF (Training)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much military low flying in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years was by non-RAF pilots; and from which nations these pilots came.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As I indicated in my answer of 7 February to the right hon. Gentleman,Official Report, column 219, low flying by aircraft of other nations, apart from United States air force aircraft based in this country, amounts to less than 2 per cent. of total low flying activity over the past 10 years. Central records do not distinguish the individual nations concerned and it would involve disproportionate cost and effort to try to establish this information.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts or agreements Her Majesty's Government have entered into over the past 10 years for the Royal Air Force to train foreign pilots in low flying.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the right hon. Gentleman on 7 February,Official Report, column 219.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries' nationals have received pilot and navigational training by the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to give details of military assistance provided to individual countries.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice to operators of fishing vessels his Department has issued pending the introduction of electronic identification equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  When submarines are operating on the surface normal "rules of the road" apply. In the case of dived submarines, it is the responsibility of the submarine's captain to keep clear of surface craft. In addition, designated submarine exercise areas are clearly marked on all Admiralty charts and fishermen are advised to keep special watch for submarines on or near the surface while transitting these areas. In the Firth of Clyde, where submarine movements are most frequent, mariners are given advance warning of the times and general areas in which dived submarine operations are planned.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects electronic identification equipment to be made generally available for use on fishing vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Trials of these devices have not yet been completed. It is too early to say when they may become generally available, but I hope that commercially produced models will be ready later this year.
  67
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trials have been undertaken by his Department into the use of electronic identification equipment on fishing vessels operating in waters used by submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Initial trials involving a static device took place last summer and trials of a towed device were carried out in December. Further trials involving a range of commercially produced devices will take place in the near future.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the electronic identification equipment tested by his Department costs per unit; and whether he intends to make it available free of charge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It will not be possible to estimate the cost of these devices until the trials programme has been completed and the specification for the devices has been finalised. No decision on funding has yet been taken.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any trials into the use of electronic identification equipment on fishing vessels have examined their effect on the behaviour of marine life.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The purpose of the trials being conducted by the Ministry of Defence is to establish whether net pingers provide an effective means of improving a submarine's ability to detect fishing nets.

  Gulf Forces (Food Supplies)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards purchasing food for the forces from outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In accordance with Government policy, the Ministry of Defence aims to secure best value for money in the purchasing of food for the armed forces. This means that having specified what is required in terms of rigorous quality standards, the Department seeks competitive tenders whenever it can.

  Under EC directives the Ministry of Defence is obliged to advertise the majority of its forthcoming purchases in the Official Journal of the EC. To date there has been very little response from overseas companies, and almost all the Ministry's contracts for food for the armed forces are placed with firms in the United Kingdom. These firms in turn obtain their supplies from normal trade sources in this country and abroad. We do not seek to influence the selection by companies of their sources of supply any more than is necessary to ensure that the required quality standards are met.
  68
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount and cost of(a) butter and (b) beef which has been bought by him for the forces from (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) other countries, listing the countries in each case, for 1990 and to date in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The value of butter and beef purchased by the Ministry of Defence for the services is as follows:

  Butter

  Value

  £

  1990

  200,000

  11991

  8,000

  1 To the end of January.

  Beef

  £ million

  1990

  13

  11991

  1

  1 To the end of January.

  Details of supplies by country of origin are not available. However, it is estimated that approximately 95 per cent. of purchases of beef in 1990 came from South America, mainly Uruguay, with the remainder from the United Kingdom, and that all butter came from the United Kingdom.

  Military Manoeuvres
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what definition of the term military manoeuvre is used when considering the applicability of the Manoeuvres Act 1958 to military exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer Monday 11 February 1991]: There is no statutory definition of the term "military manoeuvre", but in common service usage the term would be used to describe the strategic or tactical movement of a military force.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions during the last 10 years when a Manoeuvres Commission has been appointed under the provisions of the Manoeuvres Act 1958.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer Monday 11 February 1991]: On no occasion in the last 10 years has a manoeuvres commission been appointed under the provisions of the Manoeuvres Act 1958.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

NHS Facilities for Mentally Ill Offenders
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will institute inquiries into the circumstances in which a woman patient at the North Wales Hospital, Denbigh, charged with offences of arson, was remanded in custody on six occasions because of a lack of facilities for mentally ill offenders in the National Health Service.
Lord Reay: My Lords, since criminal proceedings in this case have yet to be concluded, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the particular circumstances at this time. However, it is the policy of the Government to ensure that mentally disordered offenders receive suitable and timely placements, and where possible are dealt with without resort to the courts, or failing that, the penal system.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that I welcome very much, as I am sure all noble Lords do, the latter part of his reply? Is he further aware that this lady, who was a patient in a mental hospital and was charged with setting fire to her bedding and a tea towel, has been in a remand establishment since last November? In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear on a number of occasions that it is wholly wrong to have mentally ill patients in Prison Department establishments, can the Minister explain why this woman has not been found a place in a mental hospital as she was a patient at the time of this episode?
Loral Reay: My Lords, the woman referred to in the Question has not yet been sentenced and therefore comment on her case is sub judice under the Contempt of Government Act 1981. I understand that she appeared in court again today and is due again in court on 13th May. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has established an All-Wales Advisory Group on forensic psychiatry. This is currently considering how the specific needs of Wales for medium secure psychiatric units should be met within the context of the All-Wales Mental Illness Strategy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is deep concern in Wales about the serious shortage of secure accommodation in mental hospitals in the Principality? How many of these units are currently available and how does provision compare with 1989–90? What is the current level of local government expenditure on the provision of secure accommodation? Is the noble Lord further
302
aware that I fully agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris? This case is causing profound concern in Wales.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government acknow-ledge that we need medium secure units in Wales. There is a lack of this type of facility but that situation is now being addressed through the advisory group to which I referred in my reply just now. While this study is going on, work on an interim secure unit at Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend, has commenced with a view to admitting patients towards the end of this year.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is an intolerable situation? This unfortunate woman will now be in Risley, which does not have a very attractive reputation, until May and will have been kept for six months in those circumstances. Surely there must be some hospital in Wales in which she could be accommodated rather than in that remand centre.
Lord Reay: My Lords, according to my information, the woman will be in Ashworth Hospital until she appears again in court.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, following the incident, the hospital at which the woman was a patient has refused to take her back? Is he further aware that the chairman of the magistrates' court made it clear how concerned was the Bench that no facilities were available for this woman and that that was why she was remanded in custody? Is he finally aware that the Bench also pointed out that there had been a serious delay in the preparation of psychiatric reports? How can that possibly be justified?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I must repeat that it is not proper for me to say anything more about the case at this time. On the broader question, I acknowledge that there is a lack of these facilities in Wales. There need to be more. The problem is being addressed and the advisory group will be putting forward some proposals.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, when the noble Lord referred a moment or two ago to the Contempt of Government Act, was that a Freudian slip for the Contempt of Court Act? Is it the Government's fault and not the fault of the hospital that this lady has been held in prison for so long? What do the Government propose to do about it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I should have said the Contempt of Court Act. He asked what the Government propose to do about it. I have already said what the Government propose to do about it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but is it not a fact that the lady has pleaded guilty to this offence and that therefore the sub judice aspect becomes rather different?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the case is at present sub judice because the lady in question has not been sentenced. For that reason I should not comment any further on the matter.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some idea of when the advisory group will report? Is he aware that with a most uncharacteristic lapse of memory he has failed to answer the first part of the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, may have asked me about local authority resources. I do not have the answer to that question but I shall look into the matter and let him know. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked when the report is expected. It is expected some time in the spring.

London Underground Limited: Finances
2.43 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current financial position of London Underground Limited, and whether they are satisfied with this.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced in another place on 14th February, the Government have decided to increase London Transport's external finance limit and grant for 1990–91 by £62.55 million to £510.55 million. This will allow London Underground to meet its immediate cash requirements.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very interesting Answer. However, can he say whether the Government are really happy about the financial management of this company and whether they have in mind appointing someone with financial experience to the board of London Underground Limited?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; the Government are not entirely happy about the position. London Transport has accepted that, as well as unforeseen economic circumstances, failures in financial control have contributed to its problems. Revised financial systems are being put in place. The finance directors of both London Transport and London Underground Limited have been replaced.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, despite all the criticisms which have been made about the finances of London Underground, does the Minister agree that it is still the finest system of its kind in the world and that it is run efficiently and well? In my view it is a great pity that some people do not spend a little more time praising it rather than denigrating it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain as to whether it is the finest system in the world. In my answers to my noble friend I suggested that there are certain aspects of the system which could be better run and I outlined the steps which we are taking to ensure that that happens.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a statement which was made by the chairman of London Underground about the inadequacies in accounting systems in which he said of the retiring financial director that:
"the gentleman concerned had many talents, but one of his talents was not controlling cash!"
Can the Minister tell the House whether the result of the increased grant aid which is being given to London Underground Limited by the Government will result in their meeting in full the recommendations and requirements of the Fennell Committee as regards the King's Cross accident? If not, what points will not be met, notwithstanding the Government's increased grant aid?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, that is presumably why that particular finance director has been replaced. As regards the second part, the addition to this year's EFL, which has just been announced, is to enable London Transport and London Underground Limited to maintain safety, and to allow the quality of service standards to continue along with the committed investment projects. Safety remains London Transport's and the Government's top priority; there is no question of skimping.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of that answer, is the Minister aware of the increasing number of lost time accidents shown as having occurred on London Underground during the past year? Further, on a slightly different matter, if the gentleman referred to was appointed, can the noble Lord say who nominated him? Do the Government have no responsibility in such matters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government's responsibility so far as concerns London Transport is to appoint the board, to set the external finance limit and the financial targets, and to set the quality of service targets.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, if it is the Government's responsibility to appoint the board and the board appears to have failed in the matter of the appointment of those who are responsible for the finances, what are they doing about the composition of the present board?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as I am aware, neither the present board nor the present chairman has been in post for very long. It is up to the present chairman to put the situation right. I hope that he will do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's two previous answers, will he now answer my question as to whether the Government are contemplating the appointment of someone of financial standing and experience to the board of London Underground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much hope that such a person is already a member of the board of London Underground; indeed, that certainly should be the case.
Lard Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister translate hope into action so far as concerns this matter? Further, can he give the House some indication of the likely rise in fares for consumers as a result of the current financial position and the action which the Government have taken?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are discussing with London Transport its financial projections for 1991–92. No decisions have yet been reached. Decisions about further increases are taken each year in the circumstances which prevail at the time. The level of fares for 1991 has already been settled, but no decisions will be taken about 1992 for some time.

Medical Negligence: Compensation
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to restrict claims for cases of medical negligence and compensation in the light of the size of recent claims in some other countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government fully accept that when a person has suffered harm as the result of negligent actions he or she is entitled to claim, and be awarded, compensation from the person or body responsible for that action. The Government are not taking any action to restrict such claims.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I should like to ask her two further questions. First, does she appreciate that the tabling of my Question, just two days before a major debate on the subject is due to take place, was entirely fortuitous and that it was not a planned action? Secondly, do not the Government agree that we must at all costs avoid travelling down the same road as the Americans where negligence is merely a wrong diagnosis and where doctors' fees are probably 40 per cent. more than they would otherwise be to cover the necessary insurance?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, to the first question. I am aware of, and look forward to, the debate in two days' time on the wider aspects of the subject. We do not expect to see the American experience replicated in the United Kingdom because in this country an award of damages is the result of a careful computation by the presiding judge. That assessment by an experienced professional is based on the needs of a claimant to overcome the precise damage paused and alleviate its financial implications. In the United States, awards are made by juries and may include amounts designed to be punitive rather than restorative. The two systems are vastly different.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a genuine danger that consultants' and surgeons' fees generally will escalate unless something serious is done to check the trend? Is
306
she aware that in the United States about one-third of surgeons' fees now goes towards their insurance policies to protect them against those punitive damages? Is she further aware that there is a tendency in our courts for such damages to escalate and that it is necessary to take effective action to check that trend?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of the need to take effective action. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has offered to take steps, in addition to the measures already under way to provide access to health records and improvements to court procedures, which will move forward our practice and understanding in that area; for example, discussions with interested parties to see whether an arbitration procedure could be established within the NHS.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is it not extremely difficult in practice in this country for a patient who has been injured by a mishap in the NHS to establish liability? Does that not suggest to the Minister the need for no-fault compensation for patients and their families who can suffer severely from mishaps in the NHS?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government fully accept that where negligence is involved no-fault compensation should follow. Where medical treatment has been given with the best will and skill in the world, but has still not produced the expected benefits to the patient or, even worse, has resulted in deterioration, I question whether it is appropriate to divert money into compensation. After all, the first duty of the NHS must be to give treatment to patients in need.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has a much wider dimension? Does she agree that it is not limited to the NHS, but is of general application and spills over into defensive medicine, as was pointed out by another noble Lord?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, recently a variety of anxieties have been expressed about the general effectiveness of damages for personal injuries. That point was the subject of reviews by the Law Commission in 1973 and the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Pearson in 1978. I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been discussing with the Law Commission the possibility of instituting a new inquiry into personal injury damages.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her most important reply was that which confirmed that no patients will be restricted from taking action when they think that they have a case. That is a vital right which must be protected. I hope that the Minister will take appropriate action should that right be interfered with in any way.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord because his supplementary question gives

307
me the opportunity to say that in any event we estimate that 95 per cent. of all medical negligence claims are settled before a court hearing.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been some large claims by severely disabled people but that they have been necessary? For instance, some young women who were paralysed by epidural injections have to raise young children and they may need a new house and a car. Life can be exceedingly expensive if one is seriously disabled.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. As I hope I explained when responding to the comparison with the United States, the aim of our system is that where negligence is proved the claimants should as far as possible be put in the same position as if they had not been injured.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory? It is a sort of lottery for patients. If they can afford to bring a case and succeed they may sometimes receive a large sum. In most cases they cannot even afford to go to court. Does that not argue the case, as my noble friend said, for some type of no-fault compensation system which is fair to all and does not discriminate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no-fault compensation is not a straightforward or easy option. Serious problems would remain. For example, claimants under a no-fault scheme, although relieved of having to prove negligence, would still have to establish causation, and that could be just as difficult. That scheme could also be seen as being unfair to those who suffer equal disabilities but who fall outside its provisions; for example, the congenitally disabled and those suffering as a result of a progressive illness. A new bureaucracy would be created as a result of many more claims being received. That would lead to an increase in the amount of time spent investigating cases, with skills and resources being diverted from patient care which I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to see.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the Minister believe that a system of no-fault liability would remove the risk of defensive medicine, to which she referred?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is a difficulty on the subject of defensive medicine. Anxiety about its increase is to some extent misplaced. As recently as December of last year the Royal College of Physicians reported,
"there is as yet little hard evidence to support the view that defensive practices are increasing".
We therefore still base our case on proof of negligence.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there not a difference between the case of a doctor who in all good faith makes a mistake in the diagnosis or treatment of patients and one where a doctor is negligent in the way that he handles the materials at his disposal? Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong for the doctor in the first case to be made liable in damages?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. The noble Lord has given an excellent reason for supporting the negligence system.

NHS: Erythropoietin Availability
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether arrangements are being made in the National Health Service in England, Scotland and Wales, to make Erythropoietin available to patients with kidney failure for whom there is no alternative treatment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, like other new treatments, Erythropoietin is being introduced progressively across the health service. National Health Service funding is increased to take account of such new treatments. It is for each region to assess its patients' requirements for the drug and to make appropriate plans to ensure that that need is met.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Recognising that this is an effective new drug which is also expensive, are the Government giving advice, through the respective departments of health, on priorities for its use?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no. As always, prescribing is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying that in one case it was a decision of the doctor concerned to stop a number of patients on renal dialysis from receiving that drug? Will she say who it was who took the decision and how many patients were denied that drug while still on renal dialysis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could furnish me with further details of that case.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this drug makes people feel so much better that they can go back to work when they have been away through illness? Does she agree that its use would be cost-effective?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, clearly the evidence is that the effects of the drug are extremely beneficial to the quality of life of people with kidney problems. However, as with renal services as a whole, we believe that health authorities are not only sufficiently responsible but are also best placed to decide what is needed. Over the lifetime of the Government real resources for renal services in hospital and community health care for the whole country have increased by about 30 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government taken into account the clinical trials in a Dundee hospital which demonstrated that a relapse can occur when the drug is withdrawn from patients? That may be the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred. I understand that it was a deliberate clinical trial.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it appears that that was the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred. I understand that patients given Erythropoietin will always relapse if the product is withdrawn because it is a synthetic hormone, replacing one naturally deficient in patients. However, patients who participated in the Scottish clinical trials will continue to be provided with the treatment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the total bill for the drug to each district health authority amounts to only £70,000 per year? As this is such an important advance, surely it is up to the local and regional health authorities to make sure that the drug is given?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend points to the practice of leaving the decision to the medical profession.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3 30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Gulf.

Horseracing Industry
3.3 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue rose to call attention to the situation facing all involved in horseracing; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must offer to the Chief Whip our great thanks for giving us a day of government time in which to hold this debate. I should say how encouraging it is to see many distinguished Peers with great experience in racing taking part in the debate.
My own role is more modest. I cannot pretend to match the expertise of other noble Lords present. I have simply had a lifelong love affair with racing for 45 years since, as a young boy at the end of the war, I walked from my Northamptonshire village to Lord Hesketh's charming Towcester racecourse.
I also declare an interest today as a member of a highly successful and very good value syndicate in which I own a small part—perhaps near the tail—of several remarkable animals currently catching swallows on the gallops, though as yet untested on the course. I also feel that I am personally a major contributor both to the revenues of the levy board and the huge profits of Ladbroke's.
I propose today merely to try to give a general introduction to our subject, raising the issues currently of most concern. Noble Lords will contribute their expertise to particular issues in greater detail. I shall not mention bloodstock and the curse of VAT as I know that my good and noble friend Lord Carnarvon and others will speak on it.
We all look forward to the maiden speakers who should not, in my personal view, feel too constrained by this House's usual conventions of being non-controversial. Today is a completely non-party
310
occasion and we welcome strongly held views on the subject. Even summarising it is daunting, as the landscape of horseracing is complex and full of differing, sometimes contrasting colours. Racing contains many interrelated businesses, trades and occupations based on the approximately 60,000 racehorses running each year at 1,100 fixtures. Racing involves racecourse operators, horse breeders, owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff, with various ancillary trades such as vets, farriers, auctioneers, bookmakers, journalists from newspsapers and television; and last but not least it involves the punting public.
Racing is a major leisure industry employing over 100,000 people, so it is one of the top employers in Britain. One of its great attractions is that it cuts across classes. The aristocracy and the working classes —if we may still use those terms of distinction—have always shared a mutual passion for racing. Occasionally, the non-conformist bourgeoisie—sadly represented in my own party—disapproves, but we can live with that.
Naturally, many component parts have their own interests which do not always coincide. We accept that they have different voices but it is important that today we move forward together towards an industry-wide consensus on what are the basic choices in solving the problems of racing, but with a common desire for the future prosperity of the industry.
There has been much debate on whether there is a crisis in racing; "crisis" is an over-used word and we need not waste time on semantics. The point is that racing is unquestionably in serious financial difficult-ties. Strictly, it is not financially viable. That has nothing to do with the current economic recession, although it highlights the difficulties. The basic problems are more fundamental; they have long been here and are worsening. These problems are graphically illustrated by the fact that for the average owner there is no prospect whatever of an economic return. We look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland; he has pointed out that owners pay out over £200 million a year in training costs, while receiving, I believe, only £22 million in prize money. He can correct me if those figures are wrong.
In the UK prize money covers only 20 per cent. of costs compared with over 40 per cent. in France. It should be over 50 per cent. It is estimated that a horse must win on average six times to recover its costs. Not surprisingly, over 90 per cent. fail to do so and also not surprisingly, 25 per cent. of owners drop out each year.
There are not only problems for owners. Something like one-quarter of training yards are said to be for sale, and 50 out of 59 racecourses are said to be loss-making without levy support. Speaking as an investment manager, I ask who would risk investment on such a prospectus? Already an increasing number of our horses race abroad. Ahead lies the freer Europe post-1992. There is a grave danger that British racing will drop out of the international first division.
Racing in Britain continues because it is subsidised not by the Government who benefit from £400 million

311
in tax receipts; not by the levy, which is not a subsidy —it is a recycling of racing's own money; and certainly not by the bookmakers who contribute little. The subsidy is from within: from owners with little hope of return; from trainers who barely cover their costs and especially the stable employees who work long hours for unacceptably low wages; and from the punters who pay the levy which was originally meant to be paid by the betting industry. Yet this is an industry which generates £400 million to the Exchequer and over £4 billion in betting turnover. It is indeed a rum world.
What is the scale of the problem? The Jockey Club estimates that the industry needs £100 million to be recycled back into racing. That seems modest. It still leaves little return for those in racing except the love of it, and we do not underestimate that. The key question is how to raise £100 million as the present levy system has almost certainly reached a ceiling at around £40 million.
The Jockey Club has made an interesting proposal to the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, which has stimulated wider support. It argues that racing has a unique product—the provision, organisation and regulation of competitive horseracing. That product costs some £250 million a year to produce. Others, particularly the betting industry, exploit that product for enormous profit, at present without paying for it. It is therefore suggested that betting should pay commission—a kind of copyright royalty—as happens in other industries and services. That seems fair and reasonable.
How much commission should be paid? Two and half per cent. is suggested. That seems modest. Australian, Japanese and French racing receive respectively 3½ per cent., 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. of betting turnover. British football receives 2¼ per cent. of football betting. Certainly, the current yield of 0.9 per cent on the present yield is ludicrously low, though we are grateful for the magnificent job done by the levy board hitherto. We shall be interested in noble Lords' views on that proposal.
Certain related questions arise. Who should pay? The present levy is paid by the punter. Can we find a framework which ensures that the betting industry pays? Can we discover the profits of bookmakers as they do not publish meaningful figures and the allocation of overheads can always disguise profits? Bookmakers bring choice to the betting public. In my view they deserve a reasonable return. They have always been the most professional body in racing at presenting their case. However, it is surely unacceptable that the bookmakers contribute so little to the racing industry from which they take so much.
If others are to contribute more financially they have a right to ask what is racing doing to set its own house in order. Is the present governance of racing adequate? Are racecourses managed and marketed in a sufficiently professional and commercial manner? Should the government of racing be left with the Jockey Club or should all sides of the industry be integrated into a single racing authority?
The criticisms of the present arrangements from various quarters are well known. It has been said that the industry is too fractured and that the Jockey Club is too complacent, too remote, does not consult sufficiently, is too amateur, too uncommercial and its membership too narrow and unrepresentative. There is much history to support those criticisms and not much time to correct them. However, the criticisms do not seem to me to apply to the new team of the noble Marquess, Lord Hartington, and Mr. Christopher Haines, who have made a most encouraging start. Secondly, the importance of that role in organising racing and guaranteeing the honest administration of racing—its integrity—should never be underestimated. Thirdly, their proposals to reform the levy board provide the vehicle for improving the government of the industry by opening it to wider representation.
The latter point is most important since it potentially bridges the difference with those such as the Racecourse Association who have supported the new single authority originally proposed in the Rothschild Report. It will be interesting to hear how far the Jockey Club proposes going in that desirable process of widening representation in the governance of racing. If it is flexible we may construct a consensus. If it is not and the new regime fails to deliver, more radical solutions may prove irresistible.
Of the other reforms being aired at present, reform of the tote is usually prominent. Many would, in principle, prefer a tote monopoly. The majority of the racing world has such a monopoly. Certainly the £170 million the Pari Mutuel contributes to French racing dwarfs anything that we have here. We do not have a tote monopoly and it may be a waste of time discussing it. Maybe we would prefer, as the Irishman said, not to start from here, but we are here.
Taking a more pragmatic approach, we must ask the Minister, who has a great deal of knowledge of racing, what the Government propose for the tote, whose 5 per cent. of betting turnover and £6 million contribution—a great improvement on earlier years —is still clearly unsatisfactory. If the Government propose privatisation, can the benefits be kept in racing? Will they publish the ageing and very expensive Lloyds Merchant Bank report? Can the tote be made more aggressive with a more commercial board, possibly establishing national pool betting on a major scale? Surely it needs more capital, more commercial management and perhaps to be removed from Home Office control—the mentality that supervises Pentonville is not most appropriate for the tote, although too many of its investors may end up there.
It is also said that racing needs fewer fixtures and fewer racecourses. Reducing fixtures would certainly save some levy expenditure. However, I am wary of a contractional spiral. Marginal racecourses cost little and once closed are never re-opened. It is more important that there should be better management of the courses we have, improved facilities, more sponsorship, and Sunday racing, perhaps with no off-course betting.
Finally, I turn to the Minister for the Government's role in the future of racing. It is true that racing must initiate its own revival. But the Government have a vital and sometimes essential role as legislation is required. There are a number of questions for the Government. Will they assist in providing a new framework to raise revenue from the betting industry, including any necessary statutory change to the levy board? Will they take a decision on the tote, again with any necessary statutory changes? Will they re-open the question of Sunday racing? Will they allow betting shops to open in the evening? Will they consider—though I would not press this—reducing betting duty, as they did with football, to provide capital for investment in better facilities?
We have a great opportunity to make the necessary changes to restore the viability of racing. The timetable is tight. By the summer we need to have agreed a pattern for change in racing. What noble Lords say this afternoon and the undoubtedly positive reply from the Minister will help to shape racing's future prosperity.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
The Marquess of Zetland: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the eloquent way in which he introduced the debate. As a first-time speaker in this House I hope that your Lordships will treat me with your usual indulgence.
I wish to declare a number of interests in the racing business in that I am a chairman and managing director of one of our racecourses and a director of two others. I was until recently the chairman of the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association. That position gave me a seat on the Horseracing Advisory Council. I am also a member of the Jockey Club.
Today we are discussing the state of a proud and noble sport, and one in which we have led the world for three centuries and more. It is beyond dispute that horseracing in this country is still looked up to and admired by racing people all over the world, both for the integrity of its administration and for the sheer quality of its bloodstock. That is something of which we can all be extremely proud. Yet hardly anyone who works in the industry would deny that we face a serious and growing financial problem. British racing is grossly underfunded. There is nothing particularly new in that situation. British racing has always been short of money. However, the difference now is that the world is shrinking and we are falling behind. Nowadays it is impossible to visit the other major racing nations in the world such as Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, South America, America and even France, without returning feeling thoroughly de-pressed by the growing difference between those countries and us in terms of infrastructure, facilities and prize money.
It is most important here to emphasise that a proper level of funding in racing terms is not just a matter of increasing prize money, important though that is. It is also a matter of the level of stable lads' wages; the standard of facilities at our racecourses;
314
standards of hygiene, of horse care; and of maintaining and improving the quality of all the 100,000 jobs in the racing industry. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the latter point. In short, we must improve the whole infrastructure of the racing industry. Frankly we are beginning to fall desperately short of our international competitors in this respect.
I mentioned prize money. Without owners there would be no racehorses. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, we have now reached the stage where £22 million of prize money is annually chasing over £100 million of training fees. A one in five chance of breaking even is not a very encouraging prospect for the new owner. There is clear evidence now that owners in this country are beginning to drop away from the sport at an alarming rate. I believe that that trend can only increase over the coming years. The danger is that Britain, which was once the proud world leader, will find itself becoming a second class racing nation. That would never do.
There is really only one source of serious revenue in any racing industry and that is the off-track betting market. In this country we are talking of a market dominated by the bookmakers. The volume of bets struck during a year amounts to some £4.3 billion. From that sum the Treasury takes 8 per cent.—nearly £400 million a year. It is suggested that the bookmakers take roughly £180 million in net profits. The whole of our racing industry exists on just £40 million a year—that is, under 1 per cent. of turnover —in the form of the levy. One might consider that rather a lopsided arrangement.
One cannot help but be struck by the stark contrast between the state of racing in the other major racing nations of the world and the situation in Britain. In almost every case in those other nations the totalisator, or the pool betting system, dominates the off-course market. As noble Lords will know, profits from totalisator operations, unlike those made by the bookmakers, find their way back into the racing industry.
It is easy to define the problem, but finding a solution is certainly not easy. There are probably only four ways of creating a satisfactory level of funding for our racing industry under the present structure. The answer may be found in one, some, or all of those ways. First, one could reduce the rate of betting duty and return that saving to the racing industry. Secondly, one could charge the punter more. Thirdly, one could divert some of the bookmakers' profits back into racing. Fourthly, one could massively increase the presence of the totalisator, or pool betting system, in the off-course market.
That is as far as I should go within the constraints and conventions of a maiden speech. The last thing I want to do is to run the risk of treading on any of your Lordships' toes. However, I wish to float one thought before your Lordships. During the past week there has been talk of the possible introduction of a national lottery in this country. If that were to come about and if, as I assume, tickets were sold in the high street, a form of legalised gambling outside of licensed betting shops would be introduced. One might then ask

315
oneself whether totalisator betting could not equally become available in the high street, perhaps under the same umbrella and via the same equipment. After all, the tote is totally accountable to government for its returns. With a potential market of perhaps another £3 billion or even £4 billion a year in due course, both the Exchequer and the racing industry might benefit dramatically from such a development.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer briefly. It concerns the serious question of VAT on bloodstock. I know that other noble Lords will speak on this matter in much greater detail later in the debate. As I am sure most of your Lordships are aware, when we finally join the single market in 1993, VAT on bloodstock sales will no longer be payable in the country of the purchaser but in the country of the seller. With VAT rates at 15 per cent. in this country but only 2.3 per cent. in Ireland and 5.5 per cent. in France, it is quite clear that buyers and sellers will desert our markets for the differential of 12.7 per cent. available in Ireland. Furthermore, Tattersalls, the most important and influential sales company in Europe, will almost certainly be forced to move its operations to Ireland where it already has a complex up and running.
The devastating effect that all this will have both on our hard pressed breeders and on the town of Newmarket and its associated trades and professions can only be guessed at. However, the potential effects are catastrophic. We have two major problems facing our racing industry and our breeding industry. Both of those problems need to be addressed urgently if we are not to lose our place permanently to our world and European competitors.
3.28 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, your Lordships would wish me to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that all your Lordships will wish to see him here frequently on future occasions. I should like to underline and elaborate on the point about value added tax that the noble Marquess has raised. However, before doing so, I wish to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, the gratitude felt by those involved in racing and breeding for this debate on racing today.
I also have to declare an interest as a breeder. I have twice been president of the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association. If today one wishes to buy a race horse in England—I hope people wish to do that—one has to pay 15 per cent. VAT. If one buys the same horse in Ireland and brings it back to England, one has to pay the same level of tax. However, in two years' time if one goes to Ireland and buys a similar horse, the tax will be 2.3 per cent. and one can take it wherever one wants without having to pay any further tax within the European Community.
The changes will be more far-reaching as they relate to the English market, which is the leader in Europe. It will no longer be possible for any European to buy a racehorse in England and either race it here or take it home without having to pay VAT at 15 per cent., so
316
in future he will buy elsewhere at a lower rate of VAT. That is an example of what will happen in 1993. It follows that the market will develop where the tax rate is lowest, which will be Ireland. The problem will affect the sellers of racehorses—that is, English breeders. They will need to sell where buyers are keen to go, which is where the price is most attractive —that is Ireland.
The introduction of the single market in January 1993 will trigger off the changes. What is most important is that the final tax paid by the buyer of the racehorse (which your Lordships may or may not know is treated as a hobby for tax purposes) will, following the abolition of fiscal frontiers for trade between European Community countries, be the tax applied at the place of sale. There is an additional category of buyer who will also be affected—the flat rate farmers—comprising many breeders, particularly in Ireland and to a lesser extent France.
We all understand the Government's policy of allowing market forces to resolve problems of competition. Faced with that tax differential, it is beyond the ability of those affected to adjust their prices to remain competitive. The rate of VAT is only 2.3 per cent. in Ireland, giving a difference of 12.7 per cent. between their rate and our 15 per cent.
One may ask why the problem should be so critical now as we have lived with VAT since 1973. The answer is two-fold. The single market means the abolition of fiscal frontiers and the loss of the majority of reliefs, such as export undertakings, which have alleviated the problem until now. I am assured by those who have been negotiating on behalf of the bloodstock industry that the Government's representatives, who have been most understanding of the position, are in accord with them as to the extent of the effects due to take place in January 1993.
I must emphasise that if no remedial action is taken by the Government soon, not only will Tattersalls leave this country and go to Ireland, as the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, has already said, but we shall also see many other related businesses being forced to concentrate their activity in that country, such as bloodstock agents, transporters, shipping agents and insurance agents—all to the detriment of our export trade. The Government will undoubtedly lose tax revenue and see a further increase in unemployment as ancillary bloodstock services leave these shores. Once the move has been made it will be virtually impossible to reverse. It is important to remember that about 40 per cent. of breeders who sell in the English market comprise overseas vendors, principally Irish.
I am speaking of an uniquely British industry which for over 200 years has prospered and earned much money for this country and has never asked for favours or special treatment. All it asks for is the opportunity to compete without an enormous tax disadvantage.
I urge the Government most sincerely to have the courage and foresight to grant the bloodstock industry a special rate of value added tax, say, 5 per cent., on the sale of bloodstock and related services.

317
That decision may reduce the present level of tax income but will at least ensure the Government receive some tax.
I and all those for whom I speak in the bloodstock industry most earnestly ask the Government to accede to that proposal. I would be extremely grateful if the noble Lord the Minister in his reply would give some indication of his support for the proposal, which would remove a serious problem for the British thoroughbred breeding industry.

The Gulf War
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the Gulf which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I shall make a Statement about the Gulf.
"The announcement by the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council on 15th February stated Iraq's readiness 'to deal with Security Council Resolution 660 with the aim of reaching an honourable and acceptable political solution, including with-drawal'. The announcement clearly and explicitly links an undertaking by Iraq on withdrawal to a series of conditions. These include the withdrawal of Israel from occupied Arab territory, the withdrawal of coalition troops from the Gulf within one month, reparations for damage done to Iraq, the cancellation of Iraq's debts, the repeal of all Security Council Resolutions passed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the guarantee of Iraq's territorial claims.
"It is clear that the Revolutionary Command Council's announcement does not commit Iraq to unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait as required by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 660 nor to the implementation of the other resolutions passed by the Security Council since 2nd August. The announcement was rejected by the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Syria and the Gulf Co-operation Council in Cairo. It was also rejected by the overwhelming majority of speakers in the UN Security Council on 16th February. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, it was totally inadequate as a basis for ending the war.
"The aggressor cannot expect to set conditions for remedying the aggression.
"What the world now requires is an unequivocal commitment by Iraq to withdraw its forces fully and unconditionally from Kuwait. When the Iraqi government are ready to comply with the mandatory resolutions of the UN Security Council they should say so unambiguously and match their words with decisive and irreversible proof by ordering their troops to begin withdrawing as quickly as possible.
318
"Today, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mr. Tariq Aziz, is in Moscow. Mr. Gorbachev has made clear that the Soviet Union stands firmly behind the coalition and the Security Council resolutions. I hope that Tariq Aziz will take back to Baghdad the clear message that only Iraq can decide when the fighting will stop.
"The Security Council will continue its deliberations after Mr. Tariq Aziz's discussion in Moscow. I urge the Iraqi leadership quickly to put an end to the anxiety and suffering which their continued intransigence is causing to the people of Kuwait, to the people of Iraq themselves and indeed to the whole world".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. It deals with the Iraqi offer of withdrawal from Kuwait, which momentarily raised our hopes on Friday morning but which also dismayed if not entirely surprised us when we heard the long list of conditions attached to the offer set out in the Statement. Some have pointed to the fact that this is the first time the Revolutionary Command Council has mentioned Resolution 660, or indeed Kuwait as a state. Do the Government think that there is any possibility that Saddam Hussein would contemplate withdrawal followed by negotiation on certain of these issues? I agree that this is a matter for considerable doubt, but would he be prepared to withdraw if, for example, the Palestinian problem was put on the agenda for a major conference?
The Statement goes on to mention the current talks in Moscow between President Gorbachev and Mr. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister. It states that it is most unlikely that Mr. Gorbachev would support any moves which departed from the Security Council resolutions. We hope that that will be the case.
Does the noble Earl agree that by now Iraq's infrastructure has been substantially damaged and that, while understandably concentrating on military targets, special care should now be taken to avoid bombing heavily populated locations? I make that point while not dissenting from the conclusions in the Statement itself.
Finally, is the Minister aware that we much admire the patience, common sense and courage displayed day by day by our forces in the Gulf?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. I should also like to associate myself with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said. In responding to peace initiatives of this kind—and there may well be others in the future—we must bear in mind the whole time that, although we may be winning the military battle, it is not so apparent that we are winning the battle for men's minds, certainly the minds of men in moslem states. It is extremely important for winning

319
both the military battle and the peace that will follow that we win the political battle and the battle for men's minds.
With that in mind, though I am aware that his right honourable friend is thinking about peace terms, does the noble Earl consider that the time has come to specify rather more clearly than hitherto the kind of peace terms which we hope to establish after the war? I believe that establishing clearly in people's minds what we are fighting for will help us win the battle for men's minds which is so important.
Those issues should include, first, the establishment of long-term stability in the area and, secondly (which is of the utmost importance), the establishment of the authority of the United Nations. It was to establish the authority of the United Nations that we went to war. Thus, it seems to me that this is a UN war and we must make it clear that we want a UN peace. Finally, one of our peace aims—perhaps the most difficult of all to achieve—is to resolve the Palestinian problem and at the same time ensure the security of Israel.
Those are ambitious aims. They will be difficult to fulfil but I feel that unless we make clear—I should like to know how the noble Earl responds to this suggestion—that it is for those that we are fighting, we may not win the battle for men's minds.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, have said. It is debatable whether indeed any of the conditions would be negotiable if they were not linked so specifically, as they were by the announcement. But that misses what I believe to be the main point, which, as I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will be the first to agree, is that Iraq must unconditionally leave Kuwait in line with the Security Council resolutions.
I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that any killing or maiming of civilians by the bombing is to be regretted. But this was a matter which Iraq took into its own hands when Saddam Hussein committed the atrocity of going into Kuwait. Since 2nd August he has had the opportunity to look at the 12 resolutions mounted against him. He has had plenty of time to withdraw. He can still withdraw now. I saw on television this morning, as I am sure did many of your Lordships, that he was promised safe passage if he withdrew.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised the point that we were winning the hostilities but not men's minds, certainly not the minds of the moslem nations. We have won many minds in the moslem states. The Gulf Co-operation Council was absolutely solid in rejection of the Revolutionary Command Council's announcement last week. However, I agree with him that with some of the media coverage it is difficult to get across the point.
I have spelt out clearly, as has my noble friend the Leader of the House, the aims of the action that we are taking. They are clearly set out in the Security Council's resolutions. As to the long-term planning, it
320
would be wrong to suggest that we could insist on a solution from here. It can only be a lasting solution if it is worked out with all the countries in the area.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any conclusions or recommendations that flow from the meetings between Tariq Aziz and Mr. Gorbachev must be within the mandate of the United Nations resolutions—briefly, unconditional with-drawal from Kuwait and no concessions to Saddam Hussein. Those are still our objectives and those of the 28 nations in the coalition.
I should like to ask the noble Earl a question about the Iraqi-controlled reporting of its propaganda to which reference was briefly made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Is he aware that public opinion declares that our newsmen in Baghdad are Saddam's stooges and that we now have a fifth column operated by the British media undermining the morale of our forces, giving succour to the enemy and aiding and abetting a split in the coalition? What good is such biased and slanted commentary? Does it not itself demean the British reporter, to the delight of Saddam Hussein? I ask the Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to bring this state of affairs to the attention of the heads of our newspapers and the broadcasting services?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the first question referred to the meeting today of Tariq Aziz and Mr. Gorbachev. We look forward to receiving the details of the Soviet proposal. We welcome any initiative aimed at bringing this conflict to an end on the basis of the full implementation of the Security Council resolutions. We have absolutely no reason to doubt the Soviet commitment to the Security Council resolutions.
With regard to media reporting, the MoD has established reporting ground rules for journalists operating in that theatre. We hope that the media make clear the limitations of their reporting both in terms of Iraqi censorship and what they physically are allowed to see. We know that that puts a heavy responsibility on both the correspondents in the field and editors who are fully aware of the criticisms that have been made. We must remember that we have not seen any television reports of the atrocities in Kuwait.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, a few weeks ago President Bush made his usual State of the Nation speech. It was conveyed to the American forces in the Gulf. Apparently it did them the world of good. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State or indeed the Prime Minister also to make a public statement designed specifically to acknowledge the magnificent work that our services are doing in the Gulf?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has recently been to the area and made a broadcast while he was there. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Lord opposite, will my

321
noble friend make quite clear to the BBC and the other broadcasting media that broadcasts from Baghdad, which in the nature of things are trimmed to suit the Iraqi position, and are not free, ought not to be broadcast at all or at least not transmitted without specific and full-length warnings on every occasion that they are not full or balanced accounts? Is he aware that many people in this country, particularly those who have relatives serving in the Gulf, are becoming very angry indeed about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am fully aware of the concern felt by people. I hope that the media and editors take note of what has been said and is being said by your Lordships today. The one aspect that would be very detrimental to press reporting would be for any reports to be made which put in danger the lives of our allies.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, are the Government aware that many of us are extremely confused by the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that we must win the minds of the Moslems? Bearing in mind that they are under a vicious dictatorship, I cannot see how they can ever exercise their minds. It is only people like us, who are fortunate enough to live in a democracy, who can talk such peculiar rubbish about someone like Saddam Hussein and get away with it.
Is there any record in history of a pause occurring in the middle of a war? I was a historian and I must confess that I cannot remember one. Are we or are we not at war; or are we just playing at it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that there was a cessation of hostilities in the war between America and Vietnam which led to a regrouping of the Vietnamese. There is no such proposal now.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl expand on a matter that he mentioned in his reply to the Front Benches? I assume that Her Majesty's Government wish to see the cessation of hostilities at the first possible moment, subject to the carrying out in full of Resolution 660 of the United Nations. That includes, above all, the total withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait without conditions.
However, there is a logistical problem to which I believe the noble Earl referred. If Her Majesty's Government wish Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait, it is obvious that those forces must be assured from the highest authority that they will be free to do so, and encouraged to do so, without being attacked. Will the noble Earl state categorically on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that that is the Government's policy? Are the Government ensuring, via leaflets or any other psychological means, that Iraqi forces know that they are free to move northwards back into Iraq without risk of losing their lives? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that as soon as the withdrawal is seen to be accepted by Saddam Hussein, and is put into practice by his commanders, the Iraqi forces will move without being attacked?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made plain on many occasions that should there be an
322
unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait by the Iraqi forces—that is, fully out of Kuwait—then they will not be attacked. However, we first need confirmation of such withdrawal.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend again revert briefly to the question of the media. Will he take note that it is not only in this country that the operations of reporters have effect? I have recently received a letter from Portugal asking whether some of the coverage provided by the British media is treasonable. I hope that my noble friend is aware of the considerable pressure of concern, on these Benches at least, not only about the source of the information brought from Baghdad but also the editorial handling of it. When the media, in referring to a recent event, does not report that the Americans represent that the killing of civilians was a result of Iraqi activity but that the Americans "try to suggest" that it is, that is a subliminal inference which I believe is propagandist in its nature.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly take note of my noble friend's remarks. I assure noble Lords that I shall draw the whole of this short discussion on the problem to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the BBC, before putting out broadcasts from Baghdad, always reminds viewers and listeners that the broadcasts are made under conditions which are very limiting. I believe that I am correct in saying that that warning is always given.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. I have heard those warnings on occasions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl did not fully answer my question. I do not believe that he can expect the Iraqi forces to move out of Kuwait before they are given an assurance that if they move out they will not be attacked. I understand that there is a report that General Schwarzkopf stated this morning that they would not be attacked. A clear declaration by the governments of the coalition is required if they wish the Iraqi forces to leave.
Is that the position of Her Majesty's Government? Once the Iraqi leadership states categorically that its forces will withdraw from Iraq, will the coalition say, "When we see your forces withdrawing from Iraq they will not be militarily attacked"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the exact operational details of how the matter will proceed. However, I assure noble Lords that when we receive a firm commitment that there will be a total and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait arrangements can then be made for safe passage.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one final question. Is it right to be allowed to withdraw not only with the equipment with which one went in, but possibly with loot which one acquired during the occupation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to war reparations, that is covered by one of the 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Horseracing Industry
Debate resumed.
3.56 p.m.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for initiating the debate. It is a subject close to my heart and one in which I should declare an interest. I have a thoroughbred stud in Scotland; I have horses in training; and my family also owns Kelso racecourse.
When a two year-old races for the first time, he is often over-excited, becomes fractious in the stalls and runs out of steam before the end. That is precisely how I have felt all day. I only hope that I can last out my speech rather better than the two year-old his one minute.
It may be only a coincidence that your Lordships are debating the critical state of the British racing industry at a time when this country and many others are at war with Iraq. The fact that time has been found for the debate indicates the weight of the problems that face racing in Britain. It is unfortunate that the debate takes place at a time when the country is in the middle of the worst recession in the last decade: the problems of the racing industry existed long before the recession. Those problems are deep-rooted and radical measures will be required to solve them.
The most fundamental problem is chronic under-funding. I support wholeheartedly the Jockey Club and the Horseracing Advisory Council when they argue that British racing should receive a royalty from the bookmakers which reflects a proper price for the product. I was interested to hear the suggestion on Thursday by a leading bookmaker that the Treasury should look into a fundamental change in the way off course betting is taxed in Britain, although it is difficult not to believe that the bookmakers would be the main beneficiaries.
I have long thought that the Jockey Club and the HAC should commission a report to look into the overall effects of, say, 1 per cent. of betting tax being returned directly to racing. In no other industry is the return from a royalty as derisory as the 0.9 per cent. which racing presently receives for the provision of services to the bookmaking industry.
In the past I have been disappointed to hear that the Government do not accept the argument that a comparison should be drawn internationally between Britain and the other major racing countries. British racing has always been held in great esteem overseas. The quality and competitiveness of racing here is second to none; latterly that has been thanks to the large sums of money spent by the Maktoum family and others. However, if that is to continue and if British racing is to compete with France and, in particular, America, greater funds must be made available to improve the facilities on British racecourses for the racegoer and to increase prize money to levels comparable with those elsewhere. It is
324
a pity that in their submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee the Jockey Club and the HAC did not identify those areas which urgently require the extra funds they seek.
The royalty idea may be one very important change. But racing must also seek other avenues to help itself. It already receives funds from television fees, gate money, sponsorship, charges to betting shops for live commentary services, and fees from SIS. An avenue which should be pursued again is the introduction of racing on Sunday. Again by international comparison, it must surely be wrong that with the exception of New Zealand Britain remains the only major racing country where racing is not allowed to take place on one of the two major leisure days in the week. In France the number of people who go racing on a Sunday is more than three times greater than the daily average for the rest of the week; in Ireland Sunday racing has also proved extremely popular. Racing has to compete with other sports such as cricket and football for the public's leisure time. It must be allowed to do so on equal terms.
I appreciate that the proposal was fully debated in this House a few years ago but that it failed in another place. The Jockey Club and all sections of the industry advocated the introduction of racing on Sunday and still do so. The Government's objection was that it would encourage illegal betting, assuming that betting shops were not allowed to open on Sundays. There is little evidence to substantiate that. Indeed, evening racing already takes place on 130 occasions each year after betting shops have closed at 6.30 p.m. and there have been no complaints of illegal betting. If on-course betting only were allowed it would naturally bring bigger crowds to the racecourse and give racecourses the opportunity to market themselves to the expanding Sunday leisure field and to encourage families, in particular those with young children, to attend. The original Jockey Club plan was for racing at three meetings on each of 12 Sundays; hence 36 fixtures out of a total of 1,100. As there are 59 racecourses in Britain it is unlikely that any racecourse will have more than one fixture. Therefore, any local disruption will be minimal. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's views on that matter.
There are many other problems, especially those confronting owners and breeders, which I shall leave to noble Lords who are far more qualified to debate them. I shall merely reiterate the views of my noble friends Lord Zetland and Lord Carnarvon and say that the implication of the VAT position after 1993 is the most serious problem facing the bloodstock industry. As was said by the senior steward at the recent industry question time:
"If the racing industry does not receive a VAT concession from the Government, then talk of crisis will not be misplaced".
That could not be more true.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe on behalf of the whole House. He made an impressive speech on a subject to

325
which he had given much thought. I was reminded of a most enjoyable visit to Kelso, which comes within his ownership, and of the beautiful countryside of the Borders. I am sure that all noble Lords look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for initiating the debate, which comes at an opportune time. However, I must first declare an interest. I was chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board from 1974 I o 1982. Secondly, and more importantly, I must apologise to the House because I have a longstanding engagement which, I fear, will necessitate my leaving before the end of the debate.
The situation now facing everyone involved in horseracing is not dissimilar to that which existed in 1979. However, then there had been a five-year period of rising inflation which had eaten into the ability of the levy, together with contributions from the Horserace Totalisator Board, to meet all the legitimate demands made upon it. Moreover, against a background of steadily increasing costs, it was clear that the recipients of a levy board support could not expect the real value of that support to be maintained in all areas. It was than apparent that, as with every other business, the income was insufficient to meet the overheads and the business must be slimmed down so that essential activities could be maintained and other sources of income encouraged. That view might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, as an investment manager. The noble Lord urged us all to be mildly controversial.
The situation today cannot be said to be so bad. Inflation has only recently reared its ugly head and has not reached the same height as it did in 1979; indeed, it is now falling. In recent years new sources of income have become available to racing. The country experienced boom conditions which resulted in the levy increasing by 115 per cent. during the period 1980–1990 while the RPI rose by 70 per cent. During the 10 years 1981–90 the levy board's contribution to prize money increased by 140 per cent.
However, one significant new overhead has appeared in the form of the Taylor Report. It will involve racecourses in varying degrees of expenditure which in some cases is said to reach £1.5 million. That is money which they are being forced to spend but which they can ill afford. Football clubs which are in a similar position are being helped considerably by the Government's decision to forgo 2.5 per cent. of pool betting duty and return that money to the sport in order that the report's recommendations can be implemented. I believe that the sum amounts to more than £100 million. A precedent has been set and racing must surely have a justifiable case for government assistance.
In order to meet the situation facing all involved in horse racing, in 1979 a committee of inquiry was set up jointly by the levy board and the Jockey Club to review the way in which the levy board's funds were used to support British horse racing. With respect, I suggest that all concerned should study that again as the conclusions are as valid today as they were then. I shall not go into the details now but basically the committee recommended that levy board funds
326
should be used more selectively and not merely to provide protection against certain elements of racing going into insolvency. I do not say that more money is not needed but I do not see what can be gained by the racing industry making demands for an enormous increase—2.5 times the present levy—without first making sure that it is spending its present income more selectively and efficiently.
In the past few years a buoyant national economy and the introduction of television into betting offices has contributed to a period of relative prosperity within the racing industry. That has enabled it to expand with more fixtures, prize money and capital investment than ever before. Now for the first time for some years betting shop turnover is growing at less than the rate of inflation, which has suddenly brought to an end the period of expansion. Racing is faced with a slow-down in growth and income. That is no different from any other industry, particularly in the leisure sector. Is this really the time to ask the Government to come to the rescue, except in regard to the Taylor report, and to put right the extraordinary anomaly as regards VAT and horse breeding?
I believe that a positive and constructive approach to the current situation within the present broadly satisfactory legislative framework is now needed, with the interdependent racing and bookmaking industries working sensibly and quickly together to minimise the impact on the long-term future of racing. In that way full advantage can be taken of the upturn when it comes.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Rathcreedan: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for bringing to the attention of the House the serious situation facing horseracing at present. In speaking to your Lordships for the first time, I am conscious of the need to be brief and should just like to put forward a personal plea to all those involved in this large and diverse industry to work together with the help of the Government to maintain Britain's status as a major racing power.
I speak with no significant financial involvement in the sport but for several years have acted as a steward at three racecourses—Kempton, Newbury and Bath—and for more than 30 years have had a fervent and absorbing interest in racing under both flat and national hunt codes. I am sure that in this I am not alone among Members of this House and that these feelings are shared by many thousands of enthusiasts throughout the land who love the sport, not solely for the opportunity of financial gain through betting but to see top class thoroughbreds competing against each other. The substantial underfunding in the industry at present would appear to seriously threaten Britain's standing in the international arena.
Although not the total cause of racing's ills, a good proportion of the current malaise is attributable to the present economic situation which is apparent in all walks of life. The word "recession" seems to be a stock word in our vocabulary these days. Some trainers have told me of their difficulty in finding new owners and keeping a number of their present owners. The owner

327
with four horses in training two years ago is not necessarily replacing those which finish their racing careers, and the owner with a single horse is very likely not an owner any more. These single owners, many of whom possibly only have a small share in a horse, are not necessarily the people in the minds of those who condemn racing's rulers as whingeing about lack of sufficient prize money in racing to subsidise their wealthy colleagues. They are people who have spent hard earned wages in experiencing the excitement of owning the whole or part of a racehorse. We must make sure that when more prosperous times return, those people will once again wish to return to racehorse ownership. For them to do so, however, horses with any ability will have to be capable of covering their expenses with prize money more easily than they do today. As has been pointed out, a horse must win several races each season before it can cover its costs.
If competitive racing is to continue, the owner must be attracted to the sport in order that trainers can survive economically and, through them, stable staff can earn a wage commensurate with their hard work, skill and devotion to the animals in their charge. Racing will have to be seen to be progressing and not stagnating. Racecourses will have to be well run and go out of their way to attract the racegoer and make him feel welcome once he is there with first-class viewing, catering, betting and information facilities. A race meeting should be a first-class family day out with every grade one track and possibly more besides having child-minding facilities such as only a few courses have at present. Ascot being a notable exception.
Others now have such facilities and I believe that more racecourses will have them in time. That will encourage families to go racing. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe, said, Sunday racing will help to make more possible such a family day out.
Noble Lords may be thinking that all those requirements are very obvious, but how are they to be achieved? As noble Lords who have already spoken have said, they will be achieved only by racing receiving a proper payment from the off-course betting industry for the services provided by racing on which it totally depends. The bookmaking industry has stated an unwillingness to pay any more than it does at present and has threatened that any increase in the levy will be passed on to the punter. That does not seem likely to stimulate betting turnover, and we have seen no substantial evidence from the bookmakers to show that they are unable to contribute any more in the cause of saving the sport on which the majority of their income depends other than a continued statement of their entrenched position and a tendency to mock those who oppose them in any way. In any case, the proposed royalty payment suggested by the Jockey Club and the HAC in their joint submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee last week would be a fair price that the industry should expect for providing the racing framework. Moreover, the figure of 2½ per cent. compares very favourably with the 2¼ per cent. paid in similar circumstances to the sport of
328
soccer and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, suggested that it is considerably less than that forthcoming in other countries. A healthy racing industry will benefit everyone from trainers, jockeys and stable staff to racecourse staff and other associated industries.
However, fundamental to the whole sport is the horse itself, and we must ensure that the breeder of the horse is adequately catered for in any new blueprint. The current downturn in bloodstock values is serious, and brought about by both recession and overproduction. Overproduction happens periodically in breeding any form of livestock, be it cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or even llamas. A period of prosperity will lead to lack of culling, breeding from inferior strains, and new people being encouraged into the industry, many without sufficient skill and knowledge to carry out the task properly. Every so often the sieve is shaken, to the detriment of the efficient breeders, who find the price of their quality product temporarily affected, but eventually the chaff falls through, and things improve. On this occasion, other clouds are on the horizon for bloodstock breeders. As the practice of breeding racehorses is so similar to breeding other species of farm livestock, and the land used in their production is in many cases agricultural land, I make a plea to the Government that they should consider treating racehorse breeders as farmers for the purposes of taxation. That is particularly applicable at the present time in view of the forthcoming single European market and the question of VAT which the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, dealt with so well a moment ago. I know that other noble Lords will speak on that very important subject.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that if this recessionary period has brought any benefit, it is that it has made us examine the sport in detail, and we hope that answers will be found to the many questions posed. There has been an enormous amount of carping criticism and backbiting in the media between the many factions involved. However, I urge all those in positions of power within the sport to forgive any former inadequacies, forget past differences and try to work together in harmony to maintain British racing in a pre-eminent position.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it is a special pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, on what may be described as an excellent maiden speech. He possesses two of the great qualities for addressing your Lordships' House. First, he has considerable experience in the subject on which he is speaking—not something I claim for myself this afternoon. Secondly, he expressed himself with great confidence and showed that he should speak to the House again; we shall greatly welcome the opportunity when he does so.
I must deeply apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for two errors of both etiquette and behaviour. First, I did not arrive in time to hear his opening speech. I do not believe that I can be blamed for that. I am not sure who should be blamed.

329
However, seven hours in a train from Cumbria is a long time. I suspect I know whom I should blame but it would be outside the debate if I were to say so.
Secondly, much to my regret, I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. That is a practice I much dislike, and I always declared my dislike of it when I was Leader of your Lordships' House. However, on this occasion the debate was fixed on a day when I have two prior commitments. In one I must be in the chair. At this stage it would be extremely difficult for me to cancel the engagements. I therefore humbly apologise for my absence.
I was sorry to miss a large part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Zetland, for whom I have a particular affiliation. He comes from the North, and voices from the North are music to my ears in your Lordships' House. I have also a family connection close to his own part of the world which I greatly cherish. I am therefore sorry that I did not hear what he had to say.
I feel that I owe your Lordships a few thoughts on this important subject. I do not speak with any personal interest nor real first hand experience of racing. It is true that on one or two occasions for a limited period of time I shared in the ownership of a number of somewhat undistinguished race horses. That minor experience only served to teach me that the ownership of race horses, even in part, is likely to prove both a disappointing and expensive amusement. I am not sure that in the rest of my life I shall be tempted, as the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, said, to enter into this field again. I enjoyed my time when I was there, though usually with disappointment.
My reason for speaking to your Lordships is that when I became Home Secretary 12 years ago I decided to take upon myself the ministerial leadership of the Home Office responsibility for the racing industry. I did so because I believed that a successful racing industry is of considerable importance to the nation. It gives leisure and enjoyment to many people. It provides substantial employment in racing stables and racecourses throughout the country. It is of vital importance to a successful horse breeding and bloodstock industry which in its turn provides considerable employment and financial benefit to the nation.
Today's debate is most welcome. The racing industry faces longstanding difficulties—as my noble friend Lord Roxburghe said in another excellent maiden speech—which need to be addressed, particularly in regard to finance. I do not believe in spoiling a good case by exaggeration. I was therefore glad that the excellent new chairman of the levy board, Sir John Sparrow, when addressing the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, insisted that racing was not in crisis. However, he stressed rightly that the various sections of the industry were experiencing a hard time. So are many other people in our country in this time of recession. In seeking solutions to improve the situation, I shall begin with what is often the most important answer of all: what we should not do.
First and foremost, I am strongly opposed to that well-known palliative, a wide-ranging inquiry. Again I
330
agree with what Sir John Sparrow said; it will go over the ground already well traversed by the Rothschild Royal Commission; it will be repetitive, and produce nothing that sensible co-ordinated discussion could not produce more quickly. That is where I start. I do not want to concentrate on detailed solutions. Others with more experience have already spoken and will speak better than I of what those should be and what action they should like to see from the Government. Instead I want to concentrate on the organisation required for a sensible co-ordinated discussion which could lead reasonably quickly to action, whether by the industry alone or with the Government. Those are matters to be worked out. It is on organisation that I wish to address my remarks.
I am totally convinced that the Jockey Club should remain officially responsible for the proper organisation, administration and control of horse racing in Britain. The Jockey Club has the great merit of being an independent body and not an interest group. As a result, its decisions are taken by the stewards in the interests of racing as a whole. As a regulatory body it has to take difficult controversial decisions which on occasions are inevitably the subject of criticism. But I ask what regulatory body in any other field or walk of life is not placed in that particular position. Against that background, I do not believe that the integrity of the Jockey Club and its members can fairly be criticised. Nor have I noticed any substantial comments which suggest that it is.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will permit me, I should like to say that, speaking as a fellow former Home Secretary and, like him, somebody who held that office twice, in my experience, while the Jockey Club may seem an anomalous way of running a major sport, in my view it conducts its difficult duties with conspicuous integrity and considerable efficiency.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I am delighted that I agree with him. A long time ago I was the Opposition spokesman for home affairs when he was Home Secretary. I agreed with him far more often than we ever disagreed. That has continued throughout our political lives. I am not sure that it does either of us any good to say so, but it is true. On this occasion we can profoundly agree; I am sure that we would both say that that is something we found at the time we were Home Secretaries, and it is an important factor.
I should like to add another point at this stage. From what I hear and read, the present senior steward of the Jockey Club, Lord Hartington, is much admired and respected in the racing world. That also is extremely important. Therefore with the Jockey Club in the lead it is vital that all the bodies concerned with racing come together in dealing with the problems, particularly of extra finance. During my time as Home Secretary a horseracing advisory council was set up to help in the process of co-ordination. I trust that it is doing that job effectively and will continue to do so.
The Horserace Betting Levy Board has had considerable success in organising money for racing

331
under its successive chairmen; for example, my noble friend Lord Plummer who has already spoken in the debate. The late Sir Ian Trethowan, whose love of racing and courage in carrying on with that job when stricken with a tragic illness produced great admiration in many people. Now we have Sir John Sparrow, to whom I have already referred and in whom I have enormous confidence, as I made clear.
Therefore, my first conclusion is that we have the right regulating bodies. We need to encourage and support them and not at this stage try to change them with endless arguments. Time is wasted in arguing about changes. In any event, I do not believe that changes are necessary, so I hope that we shall continue on the present course.
It is important to say that if all of those bodies are to carry weight for the industry, and indeed for the Government, they must come up with solutions which, if possible, can be jointly agreed. That is the only way to get the Home Secretary in a position where he can argue effectively with his colleagues. If he has to put forward a case to the Chancellor of The Exchequer based on disputed proposals, I can only say from experience—not in the racing field but in many others—that you will get nowhere unless the proposals are strongly backed by those who are going to be particularly affected. So I hope that those bodies will get together with the betting organisations, with the tote and the bookmakers, to put forward such proposals. Surely that must be the first and most essential factor. When they have done so, I trust that they will put them forward to the Home Secretary of the day.
There is a final point which I wish to put before your Lordships. These proposals must be put to the Home Office. In my judgment, that is the right department to deal with racing. It has the standing in Whitehall, which is very important; it has done the job for a long time; and there is no reason at all why anybody should seek a change. All sorts of people produce ideas for changing government departments; but in the end, if I may humbly say so, they never seem to work quite as was expected in the first instance. I remember that in the past I advocated amalgamations of departments which not very long afterwards were very properly put apart; so I am not in favour of that process either. I trust the proposals will be put to the Home Office.
It is even more important that the Home Secretary of the day deals with the problems personally, because he alone in the end has the standing and position to put forward the proper arguments and to fight the battle with the Treasury. Of course there are battles with the Treasury. With all the pressures on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, every government department that wants to get something through needs to have a very good case, to present it sensibly and carefully and not to exaggerate it. Nothing is more dangerous than going to the Treasury with a very exaggerated case. They are experts in writing down and getting rid of cases which are exaggerated. They have been at it for years, and they know exactly how to deal with such matters. The only
332
way is not to put forward exaggerated cases but to put forward a good case on a united basis. I know that the present Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Kenneth Baker, intends to do all that, and I applaud his interest.
I believe that we have the right organisation for the future of the racing industry. I trust that all those who are connected with it will therefore work closely together and put forward the proposals which are needed for the future; but the proposals must be well thought out, well prepared and well presented. If they are, the industry and the Government will be able to get together to help the industry; and that is much in the national interest.
4.30 p.m.
The Duke of Devonshire: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on initiating this debate, and thank him for his extremely kind words about my son. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for their kind remarks, which are much appreciated. It makes me a very proud man to be the senior steward's father. I congratulate also the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, the noble Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, on their maiden speeches, which were remarkable contributions to the debate.
This is not my maiden speech. Indeed, there was a time when I addressed your Lordships' House fairly frequently—some might say all too frequently—but with the passing of the years my faculties have somewhat failed me. My eyesight is far from what it was and I find it difficult to read notes. As a result, I fear that what I shall say this afternoon may be a series of fairly incoherent remarks.
First, I should like to make my position clear. Although I have had the privilege and honour of being a member of the Jockey Club for 35 years, and was a steward for three years some 20 years ago, it is not as a member of the Jockey Club that I make these remarks. Indeed, some of them may not be altogether welcome to the club.
I have been fortunate to own racehorses for nearly 50 years and it is entirely as an owner of horses that I make these remarks. I have to differ with those who talk about racing as an industry or as a product. Certain aspects of racing could be described as an industry, such as betting, breeding or owning of racecourses, but from an owner's point of view owning horses is not an industry. It is a sport. For a long time it was called the sport of kings, though with the rather unfortunate misuse of the English language we may now have to talk about the sport of female monarchs.
Because the owning of horses is a sport I look upon its rewards with a somewhat puritanical attitude. One should not seek financial reward from one's sport. Furthermore, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would agree, anyone who owns one or more horses, a quarter of a horse, or who is a member of a syndicate owning a number of horses (as is the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue) is a very lucky man. That should never be forgotten.

333
There is a genuine difficulty here. On the one hand, the owning of horses is a luxury. One does not expect to make money out of one's yacht or one's grouse moor, so why should one expect to make money out of one's horses? I take the puritanical view that no one should go into owning horses in the hope of making money. Indeed, they would be mad to do so. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with statistics, but I will give as one example the most outstanding sire of the second half of this century; a horse bred in Canada called Northern Dancer. Northern Dancer's progeny were sold for 40 times more than they earned. That is enough to demonstrate the folly of expecting to make money from racing.
On the other hand, without owners there would be no racing. It is true that the punter makes a very great contribution to racing through the levy, but nevertheless the owner is a key figure and without him there would be no racing. As I see it, horseracing is an inverted pyramid with the owners at the bottom, and from ownership come all the other parts such as betting, breeding and use of racecourses. So there is a very real problem. Why should a rich or relatively rich man be subsidised by much poorer people to indulge in a rich man's sport? At the end of the day one cannot get away from the fact that the ownership of racehorses is the perquisite of the well-to-do. I take a puritanical view about the degree of the rewards of racing, while admitting that unless owners are given some reward the sport will die.
Since my time in ownership, racing has been transformed by the institution of the levy. As one noble Lord remarked, horseracing in this country has been going since the 18th century. The levy has been going for 30 years. There was racing before the levy; indeed, we were one of the great racing nations of the world without the levy. There is food for thought in that sentence. I have perhaps said enough about the philosophy of racing. Owners should realise how lucky they are. They should not expect to make money out of their racing and should realise that they race for the fun of it. Fun is a word one hardly ever hears these days in racing. One hears of the product and the industry but racing is meant to be fun. No one ever seems to think about it in that way. Anyway, I have said enough on my philosophy of racing.
I turn now to two individual matters which I think are important and which, speaking as an owner, I believe demand urgent attention. The first is the emotive issue of stable lads' pay. Nothing could be more unbecoming than that stable labour should be seen to be underpaid. Looking at my own back yard, the term "stable lads" can sometimes seem somewhat euphemistic. Not only are horse owners among the more materially privileged people in the country, but the horses the stable lads look after are worth not tens of thousands of pounds but hundreds of thousands of pounds, and in some cases even more. It is very unbecoming to see those who look after these immensely valuable animals, owned by rich people, not being properly paid.
I feel it is slightly odd that stable wages are negotiated by the National Trainers Federation without any representation of the owners. It is true
334
that trainers pay their workers; but it is not their money they are paying, it is the owners' money. I should dearly like to see owners, through the Race Horse Owners Association, represented on the negotiating body with the trainers when negotiating stable labourers' rewards. As it is the owners who provide the money, they should have some say in the negotiations.
My second point is of even more importance. It concerns how we can stamp out the practice of owners not paying their trainers. In a recent case a trainer was forced out of business because the owner would not pay his bills. It is a difficult subject but I believe it has a relatively easy answer. At the moment owners do not pay their training fees through the registry office at Wetherby's. Everything else is paid through that body. The jockeys' fees, the prize money and everything else goes through Wetherby's. The training fees are paid separately and directly by the owner. I have no wish to impose a fixed fee for all trainers to receive. That is a matter for negotiation between the owners and their trainers. In some cases the fee is paid partly in kind—oats and hay—but there is always a large cash element. Once a trainer has decided with his owners what he is going to charge, Wetherby's should be informed and payment should then be made through it. That would have the overwhelming advantage that should the owner not pay his trainer's bills for, let us say six weeks, then not only would the owner be disqualified but also his horses. Therefore, he could not pass on his horses to another member of his family or to a friend; nor could he sell them because the new owner would know that he could not run those horses until such time as the previous trainer's fees had been paid.
I know that trainers will not like this situation because, for understandable reasons, they will do almost anything not to lose a horse from their yard. They will put up with far too long delays in payment. There are, I regret to say, among the ranks of owners the bad payers who say "If you are going to force me to pay, I shall take my horses away and send them to someone else". The trainer, particularly the small trainer, is inevitably in a cleft stick. Under this system, by which the money is paid through the registry office, the authorities will know which owners do not pay. They will disqualify those horses from running in whichever name they run, whether it be a new owner or a member of the family of the previous owner. This would stamp out what is an evil slur on the fair name of racing.
I have talked enough. I am afraid that I am a reactionary voice from the past when I talk about the sport of racing. To me it is a sport. Before I sit down I should just like to draw swords with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, with whom I worked on the tote board for 10 years. I read in this morning's paper that he described the Jockey Club, of which I speak with pride, as an undemocratic and self-perpetuating body. That is fair comment on the Jockey Club, but surely it is also fair comment on this House itself. It is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Duke put the matter into fair perspective when he referred to the owners as the base of the inverted pyramid. When we speak of the financial problems of the industry we must remember that we are thinking of the financial problems of the 100,000 people to whom he referred at the top of the inverted pyramid. That is what I think this debate is about. I am neither an owner nor a breeder of racehorses, only of occasional lightweight hunters as MP for Huntingdon for 34 years until the constituency gained a much better MP. Noble Lords may therefore wonder why I am speaking in this debate. My main reason is that I had the responsibility of helping to prepare and pilot through another place the Betting Levy Act 1961, which is the foundation of the contribution of bookmakers to the improvement of horseracing.
I therefore find this a nostalgic occasion, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, will share the memory. We both became Ministers of State in the Earl of Stockton's government. We were two of only four Ministers of State at that time. He will remember that it was not without controversy that we appointed the Peppiatt Committee. That was followed by legislation. It was necessary to put bookmaking and betting on to a proper legislative and workable foundation. We did that first with the Betting and Gaming Act 1960.
As to the 1961 Act, the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary, gave me the responsibility of negotiating with the bookies. It was rather tough going. Although the big bookmakers were making a lot of money, there were small bookmakers who were not. After some resistance the bookmakers acknowledged that they had a part to play. They have been playing that part for 30 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, reminded us, the levy board has given not inconsiderable sums to improve racing mainly, but not entirely, through improved prize money. This year the board is providing £39.10 million and next year the figure will be £41.51 million. But, as my noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe stressed, in his most excellent maiden speech, such sums are derived from less than 1 per cent. of bookies' turnover. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who claims that such payments have kept pace with inflation. The prize money has; but the rest of the payments have not. If one looks at page 34 of last year's report from the levy board, it will be seen that that is so and that the total payments have not kept pace with inflation. Indeed, in one year they actually decreased.
As earlier speakers have pointed out, the racing and breeding industry could do with more money from the bookmakers. Moreover, I believe that the bookmakers could provide that money. However, even if the levy board contributions were considerably increased and, indeed, alternative sources of income were also made to produce more money, the problem
336
would not be solved unless something were done about the VAT problem, as the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, pointed out so vividly in his speech.
One concedes that, after 30 years of regularised betting and a smooth working levy board, perhaps it would be worthwhile to review the matter. After all, 30 years is a long time for experimental legislation to be given a trial. However, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw so wisely pointed out, if we had a full inquiry—a Royal Commission or whatever it may be—although I agree with him that it would be a waste of time, and even if we had full and sensible negotiations between the parties concerned and the Home Office, legislation would not solve the immediate problems of the industry. It could not do so. In any event, I would not expect any legislation on the matter to be introduced in this Parliament, even if it were to run its full course.
So what should be done about VAT? That is the crux of the matter. It so happens that Sir Adam Butler, who is the son of my old chief and president of the British Horse Society, suggested to me in a letter which I received today that the breeding and rearing of horses should be classified as an agricultural activity, which of course it is. It is carried on in the countryside by people associated with farming. It is an agricultural activity, although we do not eat horse meat in this country. Sir Adam Butler suggests that "rearing" could be defined as coming to an end when the first sale had been concluded. That may not go as far as some people hope, but it would help the situation.
In my view the various suggestions—an interesting one appeared in The Times today—should be considered by the Treasury. The article on page 31 of The Times states:
"If Whitehall agrees, blood-stock transaction could be exempt from VAT in the transition period to 1997 when harmonisation of the tax is due to be completed".
That suggestion should be taken seriously. After all, in the EC negotiations on harmonisation everything will be, so to speak, thrown into the melting-pot. Presumably—and one hopes that this would be the case—no one would be committed to what takes place at present. The negotiations would concern only what should happen in the future. However, in the meantime, zero rating, at least for some of the time up to 1997, would be a solution to a real problem. Frankly, unless the Treasury deals with the matter, the nation's economy will suffer. I say that because if Newmarket Sales close down, and if the other disadvantages which have been mentioned come to pass there will be an adverse effect on the balance of payments. That ought to be the primary concern of the Treasury.
The great contribution which some of our Arab friends have made to racing in this country should be placed on record. Indeed, that very modest prince, Khalid Abdullah, was the owner of this year's Derby winner. They are having problems elsewhere at present, but I believe that we should acknowledge their contribution towards solving the problems that we have in this country.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, this has been a very distinguished debate. I cannot remember a previous debate where the 10 or 11 speakers previous to me so obviously knew the subject backwards. I am sorry that I may spoil the record by virtue of my own participation. I am intervening in the debate by reason of two conflicting requests: I received a request from the Jockey Club to say something on the matter and I was also asked by the bookmakers to do likewise. I am afraid that I gave both organisations the impression that I would say what they wanted me to say.
I am very pleased to be able to endorse the tribute which has already been paid to the Jockey Club. I became very conscious of its reputation some years ago when I was in South Africa. I was travelling in a plane from Cape Town to Durban. The famous July Handicap was being run in Durban. There were several racing types on the plane. We entered into a conversation and one of the things that I remember most is that all three of them said how fortunate we were to have a Jockey Club. They said that it was the existence of that club which preserved the integrity and honesty of British racing and that they desperately needed such an organisation in South Africa. A more unsolicited tribute could not be found. It certainly impressed me a great deal.
Over the years I have noticed that the Jockey Club has discharged its extremely difficult duties, such as disciplinary duties, without rancour or any suggestion of bias or favour. I became especially conscious of that fact during the course of what I believe became a famous case, but which has now been forgotten. I refer to the case of Relko, the horse which won the Derby some years ago but which was later disqualified because it behaved in a rather erratic fashion at the starting point of a subsequent race in Ireland. That aroused the suspicions of the British authorities who proceeded to declare that the horse had been drugged and was obviously not capable of honestly winning the race.
The events which ensued were really quite funny. It so happened that the owner of the horse was a French lady who had inherited several horses from her husband who was a distinguished owner. The matter of being French was very significant. In the past I noticed that if the Jockey Club made a ruling any English owner would accept this at once without argument. However, that did not apply to a French owner. Indeed the trainer, the stable boy, the lady herself and a variety of other people concerned with the race arrived in this country. They set to work to reverse the finding. The finding was that a particular so-called drug was found in the urine of the unfortunate animal. However, at the end of the day, having called expert evidence, it was discovered that the drug was to be found in grass. Of course, it had to be pointed out that it was not unusual for horses to eat grass.
In the event the Jockey Club gracefully retired and a few days later the Derby stakes result was slipped into the racing calendar showing Relko to be the

338
winner. That certainly indicated the extraordinary degree of care which was and is given to such matters. I had a moment of satisfaction, because, as any of your Lordships who have been connected with a publicised matter will be aware, our media, especially the newspapers, are not the ideal people to approach one. I have been badgered by several newspapers for a considerable time. When I arrived at the ultimate hearing, it gave me a great deal of satisfaction to be stopped by various newspaper reporters who asked who I was. Some little while previously, the trainer and the stable boy had arrived. I said that I was the jockey. They recoiled. They thought that that was unlikely and, if I may say so, that did not surprise me.
I have two reasons for believing that the Jockey Club's disciplinary function is beautifully conducted. The first is that it has enormous speed. If any legal process were to be conducted at the same speed, the praise heaped upon lawyers would resound to high Heaven. Secondly, people do not have legal representation. It may come amiss from a lawyer to suggest that that is a good idea, but in relation to decisions that have to be made within a minute, one could not hope to find legal representation which would subscribe to that requirement. For those and other reasons, the Jockey Club's disciplinary function is something that we should bear in mind before we start making any changes.
I do not intend to speak for a long time. I shall be only a minute or two more. I hope that the 10 speakers who follow me will bear that in patience. The bookmakers' case is one upon which I should not comment. The bookmakers and their representatives wrote to me at great length to tell me how wrong it was to suggest that a large sum should be added to the levy. That was a clear representation, and they obviously would not like it if I were to agree with the idea. On the other hand, whether one's sinews are wrung by the fear that bookmakers may not like the proposal, it is something for each individual to choose. It is true that bookmakers in this country have an exemplary reputation.
I was interested to hear what the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, said about the pleasure of owning a horse. I am not sure whether a literary reference should be made in the debate, but I was reminded of a charming story written by the late John Galsworthy called Have a Horse. The story was about a bookmaker who had acquired a horse in payment for a racing bet. His infatuation with the horse, which grew rapidly and entirely changed the course of his life, was beautifully described. If any of your Lordships want to read it, all you have to do is to obtain a copy of the collected stories of John Galsworthy. It was so much in accord with what the noble Duke said that the similarity struck me immediately.
The noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, specified a number of ways in which additional revenue might reach racing. One which was mentioned a little later was a lottery. I hesitate to cast cold water on that prospect, but I have to tell the racing industry that it comes very low within the table of people who are

339
expecting to receive great sums from a lottery. The arts are expecting it. Covent Garden is praying every night that there will be a lottery that will rescue it from its ruinous state. The NHS is praying for it. There are probably 20 suitors for the lottery before the racing industry gets a toe in. Hence I suggest that any aspirations towards such a source of income should be put on the back burner.
When there was a Motion before the House many years ago to approve a state lottery, it will be found—if anyone bothers to read what I said—that I opposed it strongly. That was on prudish, priggish, moral grounds. I did not like the idea of people becoming rich as a result of buying a ticket and suddenly finding that they had won a fortune. It did not strike me as a healthy way of doing things. That remains my view. If, however, a lottery comes into existence and rescues Covent Garden from its ruin, enables the English National Opera to repair its roof, and one or two other things happen, I shall withdraw my objections to a lottery.
It is nice to think that many people obtain a great deal of pleasure from racing. I believe owners obtain the least pleasure because the pain and suffering of seeing one's horse lose has, I am sure, accounted for several nervous breakdowns. Leaving that aside, many people obtain entertainment and pleasure from racing. I am a director—hence my presence—of two companies, one of which owns and deals with the most important race in the world. The other has nine or 10 racecourses, none of which is in a state of crisis. I do not want to quarrel with those people who have assessed the present situation as being one of financial despair, but I do not believe it. Both the companies with which I have the pleasure to be associated—incidentally without any form of reward, which is what normally happens to me—are prosperous. They would not agree with the suggestion that there is a desperate crisis that needs to be solved by desperate expedients.
We have had a distinguished debate. It has sent out the message that horse racing is an important industry which should be considered carefully. It should receive wise and sensible judgment from us.
5.6 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, this has been a wonderful debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for giving me the opportunity to speak in it. I developed a passionate interest in horseracing at an early age—perhaps too early. It dominated my life to such an extent that it may have affected the academic life I was supposed to be following when I was at school. It was difficult to place a bet at school or elsewhere. The only way one could place a bet was to be on a racecourse or to have a credit account. I found that the best way to overcome that problem was to become the school bookmaker. I have been a modest owner of racehorses here and in France. I have been not such a modest punter I am afraid. The only period of my life during which I made a profit out of racing was when I was at school and made a book.
340
I cannot tell noble Lords—I do not believe that I could work out a percentage at that time—the percentage on turnover. All I know is that during the term I made enough profit to enable me to lose it again in the holidays. I became keen on racing because of the horse. The horse came before the gambling. Many people overlook that fact. People in Britain and Ireland have a curious and close relationship with the horse. It is an affection which may not be found elsewhere. That may explain why the horseracing tradition developed in this country. It is a tradition which was eloquently referred to in one of the three excellent maiden speeches. I pick out the first of those which was made by the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland. He referred to the great tradition in this country which has built up the quality of horseracing, bloodstock and the testing of bloodstock on the racecourse which has been the model for the rest of the world.
It is sad that, as in so many other areas where we have developed a skill and expertise, other countries have adopted it and improved upon it in many respects, although not all, as other noble Lords have said.
I shall speak now about the running, administration and control of racing. I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The Jockey Club has come in for much criticism, particularly in recent times. It received implied criticism even in responses to oral questioning before the Home Office committee. The Jockey Club has run, administered and controlled racing with an integrity which is second to none and admired all over the world. Its weaknesses have been shown in its ability to adapt to modern commercial practices and to changes in the economics of racing.
Recently the Jockey Club has taken on board a chief executive of proved expertise, Mr. Christopher Haines. He is already introducing an interesting commercial outlook which may enable the Jockey Club to continue running racing in the same way, with perhaps a little more ability to deal with the bookmakers. One noble Lord referred to it—and I agree—as a body which has pursued its interests in a most professional way.
Those who wish to replace the Jockey Club with another body should think carefully. In recent history regulatory bodies have been introduced in other areas where large of sums of money have been put into the pot. We have not been impressed by their composition or by their ability satisfactorily to regulate. With the Jockey Club we have a body with a track record of proper control, administration and regulation, with efficiency and integrity.
The British racegoer has a peculiarly deep knowledge of racing which is not reflected in the amount won by the punter from the bookmaker. The punter still loses the same as punters in other countries, as I discovered by examining comparable statistics. However, he is much better informed and has an interest which has been satisfied by an extremely good racing press in this country. I also

341
include a highly developed television coverage of racing here which is probably the envy of other racing nations.
I cannot understand why our close neighbours in France—whose racing industry is well financed for the reasons already mentioned—have not developed such an interest in television, which is only marginal in that country. It is hard to find a decent form book or racing paper in France. Perhaps the interests of the French racegoers are different from ours, which may be reflected by the way in which the tote monopoly has been so readily accepted in France but not here. That shows the deep interest the British racegoer has in his betting and owning of horses. He has been well served in many respects by bookmakers, particularly the on-course bookmakers.
Where the punter has not been well served and thus ultimately racing has not been well served has been when the bookmakers off-course have not put enough back into racing from the profits they make. As other noble Lords said, it is extremely difficult to estimate exactly what the major bookmaking firms make out of betting turnover. They claim that it is between 10 and 15 per cent. gross on betting turnover. Then they say that at the end of the day they make about 3 per cent. net, after all expenses and other deductions. That makes it a not very interesting business. If racing is so unprofitable to the bookmaking firms—and they complain about profitability in supermarkets and other areas—one wonders why they are so anxious to pursue their business in other countries in Europe. They are also anxious to include the French who have an extremely lucrative racing business in terms of the amount of money ploughed back by the tote monopoly into racing. One wonders why the bookmakers should feel that they can make a go of it there when their business is financially so uninteresting. Of course it is worthwhile to them. The difficulty is how one faces them and persuades them to contribute more.
The Jockey Club has put forward an interesting proposal. It relates to copyright and to providing a product on which a royalty should be paid. It has spoken in those terms. The proposal is a carefully worked out programme of revising the functions of the levy board to persuade the bookmakers to produce more. The noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, was scrupulous in observing the customs of your Lordships' House and did not forcefully labour the point. However, I believe that there is only one answer. I am probably the sole speaker to say this so far. If we wish to make racing an activity that flourishes and retains its traditions, pays the enormous workforce and gives owners some chance of a return, that can be achieved only by some form of totalisator monopoly.
I end by giving three figures of comparisons which I obtained from the Jockey Club. They were in French but I have been able to translate them using a rough exchange rate. In this country we have a betting turnover from horseracing of about £4.2 billion. From that, the Exchequer takes 8 per cent. and the levy board extracts just under 1 per cent. which goes back into racing and is distributed in a way with which I can
342
find no fault. However, the amount is simply too small to make any great impact on racing. In France, where there is a tote monopoly, with the comparable amount of slightly under £4 billion in turnover from racing, the government take an astonishing 17.2 per cent. in duty from the proceeds of betting on and off course. That is governed through the totalisator pools and from it is taken 10.4 per cent. of turnover which goes back into racing. That is astonishing; it is ten times the amount in this country, and covers not only owners but veterinary costs, research, the improvement of racecourses, and so on.
Australia is another country with a comparable turnover, again of about £4 billion. The government use a totalisator and bookmaker mix: there is a totalisator monopoly off course but bookmakers compete with the totalisator on course. The government take 9 per cent. from the total turnover of £4 billion and 3½ per cent. goes into racing. That is 3½ times the amount which goes into British racing.
I have suggested two ways in which we could go. One is a tote monopoly which has been resisted in this country by the Jockey Club as well as other bodies. The other is a mix. I suggest we examine the mix closely. There is a possibility of compensating bookmakers for the loss of their offices by giving them the opportunity of running totalisator off-course offices and allowing on-course bookmakers to continue their activities on course, permitting the tote to have a monopoly off course. The tote has been unfairly criticised for its operations. In recent times it has become much more efficient, but with competition against the great bookmakers it is hardly surprising that it has been unable to flourish.
The nettle must be grasped early and I anticipate that the Minister, who is expert on the subject of racing, will not even have to consult his brief. That is rare in your Lordships' House. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to all the suggestions that have been made. I should be interested to hear from him whether the Government think that racing can contemplate a mix between the totalisator monopoly and on-course bookmakers in the way that I have suggested. I hope the Minister will also say whether the performance of other countries in this respect is relevant. I look forward to hearing some dozen fascinating speeches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, once again for giving me this opportunity to express my views on this matter.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Vestey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for initiating this debate. The speeches we have heard so far have been extremely interesting and well informed. I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Zetland, my noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, on their maiden speeches. All three are well known in racing circles and in different ways play very important roles. I have worked with them all in the racing industry and I hope we shall hear them speak again in your Lordships' House very soon.
I declare an interest in horse racing in that I have owned racehorses continuously since 1963. I have

343
been a member of the Jockey Club since 1979. During that time, I was a steward of the Jockey Club for five years, and for three of those years I was chairman of the disciplinary committee. I am also chairman of the Steeplechase Company, Cheltenham.
I make no apologies for covering some ground that has already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. They have been generous in their remarks about the Jockey Club. However, looking down the list of speakers, I fear that that situation may not continue. Therefore I wish to make a few remarks about what the Jockey Club has done and is continuing to do.
As most of your Lordships know, the Jockey Club was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1970 and is officially responsible for the proper organisation, administration and control of horseracing in Britain. Its role within that framework ensures the highest standards of integrity. Integrity in horseracing signifies public confidence. Without such confidence horseracing would soon lose its prominent position in the sporting world, and the widespread interest that it generates. Were this to happen, a downturn effect on the sport's lifeblood—betting turnover—would inevitably follow.
The provision of services of integrity therefore is plainly the key to horseracing. In 1989–90 that accounted for 25 per cent. of levy board expenditure, a figure amounting to £9.4 million. That is the highest levy board allocation after prize money. Inevitably the need to invest in new developments, often of a technological nature, makes this provision increasingly expensive to maintain.
The Jockey Club controls and oversees the vital areas where this expenditure occurs. Essentially those areas fall into three broad categories. First, there is drug prevention and detection. The reputation of horseracing in Britain is second to none in controlling drug abuse. The horse race forensic laboratory, which is contracted to the Jockey Club, is a world leader in both drug screening facilities and methods. It maintains the highest analytical standards and fully responds to change in the pharmacological field.
Secondly, there is security and discipline. The Jockey Club provides comprehensive racecourse policing; official racecourse decision-making and expert administrative support. It achieves that through preventive action taken by a field force of security and investigating staff and by appointments such as betting investigating officers, veterinary officers, stewards' secretaries and through a secretariat. Prevention is backed up by a successful disciplinary framework which ensures the sport is kept straight and that any offenders are penalised.
Thirdly, there is the matter of technical services. Effective communication and technical services on racecourses are guaranteed through the Jockey Club's contracted relationship with racecourse technical services. This ensures that every meeting is covered by camera patrol and photofinish equipment, race timing, public address systems, race commentaries
344
and closed circuit television. Those facilities enhance the integrity of racing and provide an essential service to the racing public.
All of those areas are geared towards ensuring that the result of any race is beyond reproach and is, above all, a just result. Furthermore, they ensure that the unscrupulous minority, present in any sport, is kept to a minimum. The Jockey Club co-ordinates the total package of integrity on which horseracing depends. As an independent body its decisions are taken in the interests of racing as a whole.
Whatever else may be said about the Jockey Club, the impartiality and fairness of the club is respected by the various associations and federations which make up the racing industry. Other racing authorities around the world also look to it for guidance and leadership. As a result of that respect and through a successful track record in this field, the Jockey Club has created an environment of high public confidence in the integrity of the racing product in this country.
I own a small stud in Gloucestershire where we keep five thoroughbred mares. At this time the horseracing industry faces a number of threats from land use policies in Great Britain. There is one specific and pressing problem at present which is the proposal for a new settlement in Cambridgeshire close to Newmarket. I wish to discuss that matter in a little more detail. In order to meet the forecast demand for housing in Cambridgeshire in the next 10 years, the county council there has proposed the construction of two new settlements. One is to be sited north of Cambridgeshire in the A.10 corridor, and the other is to be situated in the A.45 corridor to the east or the west of the city. Everyone involved in racing is anxious that the provision of housing and amenities for some 8,000 people on the boundaries of these studs poses a severe security risk. In addition, it will restrict any future physical expansion of the studs. The problem is not so much the theft of horses but the effect that an influx of people will have on the well-being of the horses. Thoroughbred horses are extremely sensitive animals and are highly susceptible to disturbance. Experience has shown that people and racehorses do not mix easily.
Despite the best intentions, people stray onto fields that belong to studs without realising the potential danger that such an action poses to themselves and to the horses. It is unlikely that most of those 8,000 people have had any links with horses by tradition. Therefore they will be unaware of the care and respect that are needed when in the presence of horses. The perils of litter, dogs, children and noise will have a major bearing upon these animals. Disturbances of these kinds can cause both physical and psychological harm to these valuable horses. Any attempt to mitigate the problems by constructing boundary fences will be extremely expensive in terms of the capital cost. The National Stud has told me that such a process would cost it nearly £500,000 and that the fence would need to be constantly patrolled. The horseracing industry does not believe that is a feasible proposition.

345
We fear that a development on this scale on the borders of Newmarket could lead to a loss of confidence among horse owners and investors. That could lead to a fall in demand for the services of British studs, and owners may choose to make use of studs overseas. If the developments should go ahead, the affected studs would be surrounded by new buildings. That would be the case particularly at Hare Park. That would prevent future expansion of the stud farms and therefore place an unacceptable restriction on the British racing industry.
I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will pass on to the appropriate department the views of the horseracing industry that, given the six alternative sites available to the west of Cambridge, the Secretary of State should not select a site to the east of the city which would cause great damage to our industry.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I must declare two interests. I am the chairman of the tote and a member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Fairhaven, was senior steward of the Jockey Club between 1985 and 1989. In an annual Jockey Club report he remarked:
"Racing is in an exceptionally healthy state".
The noble Lord has been greatly reviled and pilloried for ma king that remark, but he was right and still is. I should like to defend him.
The levy system has improved the health of racing beyond all recognition. In the first year of the levy—1961–62—the levy raised was £900,000. If it had merely kept pace with inflation the levy raised would have been £7.8 million in 1989–90. It was not; it was £36.3 million, a vast amount above inflation. Between 1980 and 1990 the levy yield went up by 115 per cent. compared with an inflation rate of 70 per cent. For the period 1990–91 the levy yield is expected to be £39.5 million. Originally it was forecast to be £40.2 million. In the period 1991–92 the levy yield is expected to be £41.5 million against an original forecast of £42.5 million.
All that money collected by the levy can be regarded as a profit for racing. Some sections of the racing industry, particularly the Jockey Club, have expressed horror that there will be a drop of 1.5 per cent. in the estimated levy yield for the year ending this March and an anticipated fall of 2 per cent. in the year beginning 1st April. There are thousands of businesses in this country which would be greatly relieved to be facing only a 1.5 per cent. reduction in anticipated profits by the end of this financial year and only a 2 per cent. anticipated reduction in profits in the coming financial year.
In 1990–91 the levy yield will be £3.2 million above last year and in 1991–92 it will still be £2 million above 1990–91. Therefore it is extraordinary that people should feel that racing is suffering a cut. It is not suffering a cut, it is just suffering a reduction in its anticipated profit.
It is a little unseemly in a period of sharp recession and rising unemployment, to say nothing of the Gulf
346
War, to make such a fuss about that. I ask the racing industry to be patient. There has been a steady improvement in racecourses and in prize money. Only a slight setback is now taking place. Facilities and conditions at racecourses have improved enormously and there has been an improvement in everything connected with racing.
The difficulty with the racing industry, and particularly my friends in the Jockey Club, is that they look with envy at France. French flat and national hunt racing received £100 million from the Pari Mutuel monopoly in 1990. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, quoted incorrect figures. I collected my figures in Paris only the other day from the head of the PMU. The turnover of that monopoly in 1990–91 has been reduced, for much the same reasons as betting turnover is lower here. The French equivalent of our racing faces a reduction in its income in 1991 of 2 per cent., just like us.
Our racing has additional income which is not available to racing in France. Prize money sponsorship here runs at £9 million a year. Satellite information services pay racing nearly £8 million a year. Fees for the use of information for punters and others on race information telephone lines add another £300,000 a year. The use of racecourses for exhibitions, dances and so forth, brings in another £2 million a year. In total racing has an income of about £60 million a year, not merely the £40 million which the levy board collects. That is still short of what flat and national hunt racing receives in France because they have no bookmakers.
The Jockey Club could have had a tote monopoly here in 1928 when the tote was set up under a Private Member's Bill promoted by Jockey Club members in both Houses of Parliament. Unfortunately, as the Jockey Club consisted mainly of owners—and still does—it felt that it was only reasonable that if an owner fancied his horse's chance of winning a race, he should be able to make a special price with the bookmaker, which cannot be done with a tote pool. An owner can get a price from his bookmaker which is over the odds in return for information he gives him and his association with the bookmaker but he cannot get anything other than the mathematical odds from a tote pool. That was why a tote monopoly was rejected at that time.
Similarly, in 1961 when bookmakers in the high street were legalised the Jockey Club opposed a tote monopoly. The Jockey Club and many others in racing are in a catch-22 position—they recognise that a tote monopoly is now impossible, and have never wanted it, but they want the benefits of a tote monopoly all the same. They now demand that bookmakers should be compelled by one means or another to contribute £100 million a year to the levy instead of £40 million. That would make our racing somewhat better off than its counterpart in France. It would be a triumph for the Jockey Club. However, naturally the bookmakers resist. As no one else has said a word to defend them today, I shall say a few words to defend them now, although we are not always the best of friends.

347
If the bookmakers had to pay more they would be contributing a further 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. of their turnover to the levy. At the very best bookmakers, however good, are lucky to make a 3 per cent. net profit on their turnover. The explanation is that it is a revolving turnover; it is recycled money. It is not the same as buying a hat in Marks and Spencer on which Marks and Spencer has marked up a profit. It is money which is recycled throughout the afternoon. The only real turnover in betting is the amount that does not go back to the punter, which is about 23 per cent. After paying their expenses, tax and rents—which are very high and going up all the time —it is remarkable if bookmakers can make 3 per cent. net profit.
If there were an increase of 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. in the levy payment there would be no profit at all for the bookmakers. Inevitably the additional levy payment would be passed on to the wretched punter. Deductions, including tax, would rise to 12½ per cent. and betting turnover would fall. The end result would be lower turnover and a smaller levy yield. One cannot go on helping oneself to more and more of the pot and think that there will be plenty left. There is not.
Such largesse would be very agreeable for racing, but there is no evidence that it is necessary in order to maintain racing in a reasonable state of health. In 1980 there were 472 trainers; now there are 558. In 1975 there were 11,455 horses in training; now there are 13,500. Of course there are fluctuations every year—some owners enter racing and some drop out. Some become disenchanted while others anticipate great glory in racing, which seldom happens. Mr. Robert Fellowes recently retired as the Jockey Club agent in Newmarket. He said that 20 years ago there were 1,000 horses in training in Newmarket and now there are 2,500. Twenty years ago there were 38 trainers; now there are over 70. It does not sound to me like an industry that is in a parlous state.
The Jockey Club and racehorse owners argue that much more prize money is essential and would fructify the whole industry. I doubt it. Seventy-seven per cent. of races are won by only 10 per cent. of owners; 41 per cent. of owners do not even get a horse placed, and only 5 per cent. of horses cover their costs. Nevertheless, the number of owners remains remarkably stable. There is no way that more prize money would benefit stable lads, unless they worked for one of the exceptionally successful trainers and got a share of it in that way. There is no way that more prize money would benefit the thousands of people in the industry who are poorly paid. The level of prize money should be sufficient to maintain a quality of racing which is good enough to attract horses from overseas to race here and to keep the punter in the betting shop interested. It is not true that many punters are prepared to bet on how fast two flies will crawl up a window. Punters are quite interested in the form of the horses, the standard of trainers, the owners and all the rest of it. We must have some kind of quality racing; it is not good enough to race rubbish all the time, otherwise there will not be much by way of levy. But it is a nice balance and I think the
348
proportion of the levy yield which now goes to racing in the form of prize money is about right. Well over 50 per cent. of all levy board expenditure goes on prize money. Some argue that that is too much. I do not. It must not be a way of meeting the expenses of the rich who enjoy a hobby that no one ever compelled them to take up. I thought that my old and noble friend the Duke of Devonshire was eloquent and right about it. I know that he would never look for subsidy in any activity in his life, but I am afraid that a great many owners do.
It is true that bookmakers could afford to pay, say, 10 per cent. more levy, and I often urge that upon the levy board. But it is pointless to ask the Home Secretary to award more than that because he is obliged to be even-handed between bookmakers and the racing industry. When the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was Home Secretary in 1982, he made a most bold move: he increased the levy rate by 11 per cent. It was a sensation. Bookmakers nearly went berserk and racing rejoiced. I do not think there will be such an uplift in the levy rate repeated in future.
Bookmakers have been allowed to be triumphant in the high street since 1961. For 11 years the tote was not allowed to own betting shops giving SP prices. To take away most if not all of the profits of bookmakers by excessive levy payments would cause a justifiable and politically successful outcry from them. They have been accepted as a means of making money, and suddenly somebody comes along and says, "We are going to take your income to zero and make you destitute".
The Jockey Club and others know perfectly well that there is no real hope of getting a levy increase of any substance. They make bizarre proposals. For example, they ask for legislation which no government will ever pass to enable the tote to make higher profits by having outlets in banks, cafes, restaurants, retail stores and so on. Can one imagine any government allowing the tote to do that, while bookmakers are not allowed to have the same? I am sorry to say that such mad proposals emanate from the Jockey Club, which hopes that bookmakers will be tempted to have tote outlets voluntarily in their shops and an absurd rate of commission which no bookmaker would look at. I sometimes think that these proposals come not from the Jockey Club—I hope not—but perhaps from Bertie Wooster and the Drones Club. They are so utterly fanciful. I sometimes think, "Shall I answer the latest idiotic suggestion or not?" I do not have time to answer every lunatic suggestion in the newspapers, but now and again I wonder whether some of these people should not see a psychiatrist.
I do not want to say too much about the tote. Lately I personally have been criticised violently by the new element in the Jockey Club which does not know anything about betting organisation but which thinks it can make much more money out of the tote than we do. It ignores the spectacular growth that the tote has had in the past five years. For example, our contribution to racing including the levy has risen from £2.3 million to £6 million in a year. It ignores the fact that we have started a great new complex at Wigan which has the largest and best computers in the

349
world for betting and a huge battery of telephones, which we are now selling at considerable profit to other sources for use in telemarketing. We have doubled the tote turnover credit and have got our course- to-course scheme going as well.
The Jockey Club thinks to itself, "Well, we cannot get any more out of the bookmakers. Surely, that inefficient fellow Woodrow Wyatt must be able to produce more money if somebody sits on his head". You will not produce more money that way because you will stop him thinking! The latest implausible suggestion is that the Jockey Club should charge a copyright to all bookmakers displaying runners and riders at daily meetings. The Jockey Club admit that this would require legislation. Where were Jockey Club members during the 1987–88 Session when the latest Copyright Bill was much discussed in your Lordships' House? That was the time when Jockey Club members could have argued for a copyright fee, and they might have got somewhere. They were absent. I cannot now conceive of any government producing a special new law to please the Jockey Club with a novel and probably unworkable copyright fee. After all, one of the great obstacles would be that newspapers would go on publishing them freely under the Jockey Club determination. How on earth do you get a reasonable price for a monopoly from people who arc not involved in newspapers? The whole thing is fraught with difficulty. I suggest it is one of those Bertie Wooster flights of fancy.
I fear that the Jockey Club, despite having among its members very distinguished businessmen, including my noble friend Lord Weinstock, is most unbusinesslike. If there is a boat to be missed they will miss it, as they did on Sunday racing. When we were trying to get a Bill through this House some of them preferred to have dinner rather than attend a vital vote. The Jockey Club should have done what the tote did with regard to satellite information services which now show races live in betting shops. We helped to organise that and paid £484,000 for a 5 per cent. stake, which is now worth £5½ million. The Jockey Club was ideally placed to come in right at the outset and could have got 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. It could have made proportionately as much money as the tote, but it was not there. The Jockey Club could have supported the implementation of Section 3 of the 1972 Act which is concerned with gambling. After 11 years in the wilderness, the tote was allowed to have betting shops in the high street for the first time. Section 3, which is still in force, was intended to allow the tote to catch up with bookmakers after a start of 11 years by compelling local licensing authorities to allow the tote to start betting shops anywhere it wished despite the authorities considering demand in their areas to be satisfied. It would have made the tote's position unbelievably strong in betting shops. Did the Jockey Club back the implementation of Section 3? It did not and it does not. In its evidence to the Home Affairs Committee of another place the Jockey Club does not even mention it. Yet it could still be implemented.
As many noble Lords have said, including members of the club, the Jockey Club is first class at running the
350
rules of racing, in showing that racing is straight and in dealing with the fixture list in consultation with the levy board. I give them full marks for all that. But although it has a number of businessmen in its ranks, it is incapable of a businesslike approach and any suggestion that it makes about betting has to be ignored because it has not the slightest understanding of how the betting market works and how betting is organised.
For example, the two Jockey Club members on the levy board both heartily supported the new type of levy scheme based on the turnover of individual shops. They exactly understood the principle and how to maximise the levy. Now the Jockey Club suddenly decides that the whole thing should be scrapped in favour of another system which would drive 28 per cent. of the 9,600 betting shops out of business because on a low turnover they would not be able to afford the levy that the Jockey Club wants them to pay. They would vanish and so the levy would be lost. No one would buy those shops because they are in such insalubrious places and millions of punters would be deprived of their local betting shop and lose interest in betting.
The Jockey Club understandably aspires to be the leader of all racing interests. Unfortunately, lately it has begun to make enemies of those it needs as friends such as the bookmakers and the Racecourse Association. Parts of it have even been attacking me—an amiable fellow who is friendly with everyone. Far from uniting the racing industry, which includes betting as its most important ingredient, if it goes too far and does not steady itself down now it is in danger of badly splitting the whole of that industry. Perhaps I may suggest that the Jockey Club tempers its brash enthusiasm with caution and remembers Lord Canning's observation to an English ambassador in 1826:
"In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
Is offering too little and asking too much".
Lord Weinstock: My Lords, I certainly do not wish in any way to attack my noble friend, but before he sits down perhaps I can get some clarification from him on one point. The company for which I work spends some 10 per cent. of its turnover (maybe £800 million or £900 million) on research and development in order to produce products, goods available to sell. I wonder how much the bookmakers are spending on producing the product that they sell to the public; namely, racing.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, very little I think. We are encouraging them to develop a national pool with us but they want us to pay all the expenses of developing.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey: My Lords, after that amiable summary of the Jockey Club's merits, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughmore—I should say, Lord Donoughue—is enjoying the debate. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Although spelt a little differently, Donoughue is one of my favourite names. I was brought up on Bob Lyle's Brown jack and the great Steve of course rode him. However, I hope that

351
the noble Lord is enjoying the debate in which he has so kindly given us the chance to participate. I have certainly enjoyed the speeches, and in particular the contribution from the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire. He said that racing ought to be fun and he made the debate fun for us with two suggestions. I do not think that they will be all that popular with owners. One suggestion was that training fees should be paid through Wetherby's. The much better suggestion was that owners should appear on the national joint council for stable labour fees. That is the subject on which I want briefly to address the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, in an eloquent maiden speech, said that we must be careful not to be heard whingeing about the cost of the expensive hobby which some of us have chosen to take up. There has not been very much whingeing today. In any case, I want to escape the charge of whingeing about the cost of our hobby by talking briefly about a section of the racing world which does not often whinge and certainly is neither rich nor over-paid. I mean the stable lads and lasses who comprise racing's labour force.
First let me give noble Lords the good news. The lads would be surprised to hear that there is any good news, but there is—at least for the younger ones and for those who have not yet come into the game. Many noble Lords will know that a major policy of this Government is that industries—I know that that is not a word that the noble Duke likes, and I agree with him—as soon as possible should provide their employees with training for vocational qualifications. Most industries have already done so, with several layers of qualifications. The good news is that the racing and breeding industries are at last and tentatively to begin with setting out down that difficult, expensive but potentially invaluable path. It is very much a pilot scheme but the Jockey Club has at least got it off the ground with financial help from the levy board and co-operation from many other racing bodies such as the Thoroughbred Breeders Association—because this is an initiative for the breeding industry as well as the racing industry and there will be lads and lasses from studs as well as from training stables.
The idea is that in their first year or at any rate the early years of their employment those lads and lasses will be helped by experienced lads. That has always happened but now it will be official, so to speak. The experienced lads who are chosen as assessors (which I guess is another name for teachers) will ensure that the lads and lasses involved in the scheme, of whom there will be about 300 from studs and stables, achieve the basic standard in the skills of their trade. By the end of the year, or the period when the assessors are satisfied, those boys and girls will know that to that extent they are qualified. They will be able to show their parents a piece of paper. That may not mean much and if there is a whirring sound to be heard no doubt it comes from a lot of old-fashioned trainers spinning in their graves like Catherine wheels. Never mind them. Even if we may regret it, their day is past.
352
No doubt noble Lords will agree that no one knows whether the scheme will succeed. It is only a pilot scheme, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
How great it would be if I could now tell the House that those young lads and lasses with their newly acquired knowledge and qualifications could then look forward to a progressive career and a ladder of qualifications, knowledge, status and rewards which by hard work they might be reasonably certain to climb. But I cannot tell you any such thing because sadly and shamefully for racing the only ladder at which they can look is one which gradually reaches a weekly wage of £145.69, which includes five hours of weekend overtime. I want noble Lords to keep that sum in mind. It represents an hourly rate of £3.02p, the rate of an unskilled shop assistant, and £40 less than that received by a waste disposal operative—what you and I used to call a dustman.
Even that is a massive improvement. When I started writing about racing, I described a lad with 20 years' experience who was getting £9 a week. Then the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, forced the formation of a national joint wages council for the first time by saying that he would not give racing prize money from the levy if that national joint council was not formed. At that time lads' wages were £30 a week. There has therefore been an increase but not one to be proud of. Just when a lad reaches the prime of his working life —he knows the job, he can ride and can be trusted by the trainer to take responsibility—he marries, starts a family and wants a mortgage. Can one obtain a mortgage on £149.60? Like hell, my Lords! One cannot. The only solution is to leave the sport and to go to another trade. Admittedly, at the moment the recession and unemployment does not make that as easy as it has been. However, if the racing industry has to depend on the pressure of a recession to keep its workforce, then racing should be ashamed of itself.
I do not know how to obtain the money. I have to leave that to more numerate people. It is sad that the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, was to some extent muzzled in making his maiden speech. It may have been the bookmakers who tried to have him muzzled. However, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, about the ineffectiveness of prize money. It is ineffective if one piles it on to the already super-rich races such as the Derby. However, with regard to the smaller races in which the English taxpayers' horses run, such prize money can justify trainers charging a sufficiently high fee to enable them to pay lads a working wage. Many trainers would like to do so. But if they pay the lads £200 a week, they have to charge the owners £200 a week.
The noble Duke called racing a pyramid. At the top, touch wood, are many Arabs. Top trainers charge £250 a week. Believe it or not, my Lords, some trainers charge only £80 a week. If they are paying the minimum wage to their lads, I am a one-eyed Dutchman.
I should have liked to address the House on the iniquitous preference that the levy board gives flat racing over jumping. Prize money is divided up 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. In Britain flat racing is done well; but many other countries are comparable. However,

353
no other country except Ireland is comparable to us with regard to horse jumping. Why on earth do we not subsidise that which we do best? When the Derby winner passes the post, it wins its owner £350,000. The horse is worth between £2 million and £10 million that night. When Desert Orchid passed the post in the Gold ('up, having covered three-and-a quarter miles and 21 four-foot six-inch fences it was worth no more that night than that morning. It won its owner a pathetic £60,000. The percentage ought to be the other way round. At the least it should be 50:50.
I do not know whether Sir John Sparrow is present or whether he will read this debate. However, whether the levy board receives more money, I beg him to alter the ridiculous tilt in favour of flat racing.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on initiating the debate, which I am sure the racing world much appreciates. If the noble Lord had one letter different in his name he would have been my boyhood racing hero. I am sure that many noble Lords would say, "Come on, Steve".
I should declare an interest as a member of the Jockey Club and chairman of the York racecourse. The problems which face racing are longstanding and are not directly attributable to the current recession or the Gulf war, although those undoubtedly have had a knock-on effect. There are 59 racecourses in this country. The majority of them are in some financial difficulty. They are dependent on the levy board support to continue. For example, two-thirds did not return a dividend and less than half made a racing profit in 1989. I know that the situation has deteriorated since then.
It was more in sorrow than in anger that I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. If he were to venture a little further west than the offices of the tote at Kingston-on-Thames, and were to talk to racehorse trainers and their lads—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey referred—or to breeders, I am sure that he would change his opinion that there is no shortage of money in racing. The noble Lord has missed the point. He states that the levy board's anticipated profit was down 1.5 per cent. It was the estimated levy board yield which was down 1.5 per cent. The yield is not profit, as noble Lords are aware. The noble Lord seems to be living in the past of 30 years ago. I am prepared to agree that the Jockey Club missed its chance 30 years ago when there might have been more chance of a tote monopoly. It is surely no exaggeration to say that the noble Lord has changed over the past 30 years.
Fortunately, since I am chairman of one of this country's great racecourses, York is not one of the unprofitable racecourses. However, one of my main worries is that the supply of good top-class flat race horses may seriously decline. Good horses are an international commodity. If the conditions and returns for them in another country—France, America or wherever—are better than in this country many of our equine stars will move abroad. I fear that that point is not far away.
354
That is one answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Trevethin and Oaksey that more prize money should be given to steeplechasers than to flat race horses. Sadly, apart from the possibility of running in Ireland, from where most originate, steeplechasers have no other outlet and if conditions are not right in this country the good flat race horses will go where they are better.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention to VAT problems. I stress that they are exceedingly serious and disadvantageous to British racing. I draw noble Lords' attention to the help that other countries give to racing. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is not present. I believe that his figure was slightly wrong. In France almost 5 per cent. of total betting turnover is returned to racing. In America the percentage is 6 per cent. In Japan it is 4 per cent. In Australia it is 3½ per cent. In Italy it is over 10 per cent. In the United Kingdom racing receives less than 1 per cent. of betting turnover which is paid by the punter on off-course bets and is only collected by the bookmaker.
Some noble Lords referred to estimated 1990–91 figures. I refer to 1989–90 actual figures. In 1989–90 the levy was £35.3 million. The Treasury receives 8 per cent. tax on all off-course betting and in 1989–90 its return from general betting duty is estimated to be worth over £458 million, of which at least £350 million is directly attributable to horseracing. In most cases the bookmakers deduct 10 per cent. from punters leaving approximately 1 per cent. which they retain to cover their overheads. Again, I stress that different figures have been quoted this afternoon; I am quoting the actual figures whereas some noble Lords have given estimated figures for 1990–91.
During the past 15 years the racing product has been tuned and refined to increase the betting turnover and thus the levy. I refer in particular to the fixture list, with a spread of fixtures and with staggered race timings to suit the betting market. This is often not in the best direct interests of the racecourses concerned; it is done to maximise racing's levy which directly benefits the Chancellor by a multiple of more than eight.
It is 30 years since the levy board was set up and a mechanism established to provide money for the improvement of breeds of horses, the advancement of veterinary science and education and the improvement of racing. That was at the joint wish of racing and bookmaking. It has now become increasingly apparent that this system does not provide a proper balance between those who create the racing product and those who make money from the punter in a betting shop. The Jockey Club and the HAC have submitted to a Select Committee in the other place a proposal to establish a mechanism more suited to the harsher economic realities of the business world. Racing is not only a sport, it is also a substantial industry. the proposals set out a mechanism to allow this industry a direct form of negotiation with the bookmakers. That would be akin to a royalty payment for the racing products which the bookmakers require for their livelihood.

355
Racing is a major player in the leisure industry. It has fortunately escaped the "aggro" that has crept into so many rival sports and it is encouraging to see so many women and children spending a day at the races. When last spring my noble kinsman the Minister persuaded Mrs. Thatcher to go racing for the first time in her life her first remark was how surprised she was to see so many families enjoying a day out.
The integrity of racing is of vital importance and, here again, I am sure that in this country it is second to none. However, the many forms of integrity are expensive and are largely paid for out of the levy. My noble friend Lord Vestey listed many of them; for example, dope testing, security, race surveillance, the supply of officials and their aids such as camera patrol, veterinary research and development, and many others are all a call on the levy. Therefore, not enough of the levy cake is left for prize money. Prize money is, after all, the carrot that persuades people to own a horse and then keep it in training in this country. There must be some hope—I emphasise the word "some"—that at the end of the season a reasonably successful horse will pay its way.
About five or six years ago I played a small part in persuading the Treasury to forgo the 4 per cent. on-course betting tax. One of the arguments then was that it would cost the Treasury nothing in that a healthier industry would increase off-course turnover. I am sure that point has been proven many times over. Now there is a real danger that unless steps are taken the golden goose may stop laying £350 million worth of eggs for the Chancellor.
I commend the proposals for some form of royalty payment for racing made by the Jockey Club and the Horseracing Advisory Council. It is the result of a united approach from all parts of the industry in seeking a modern business-like balance between the interests of bookmaking and those of racing. The step that would give racing the greatest shot in the arm to complement these proposals would be a reduction of 1 per cent. in betting tax and a corresponding increase of 1 per cent. in the levy rate. I hope that my noble kinsman the Minister will take note of what has been said here today and draw the attention of the Home Secretary—I was going to add the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to the urgent needs of racing.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halifax: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to those already extended to my noble friends the Duke of Roxburghe, the Marquess of Zetland and Lord Rathcreedan on their excellent maiden speeches. I am glad to have the opportunity to echo some of the difficulties which are affecting the bloodstock industry. I am afraid that I must repeat some points that other noble Lords have made but I hope not to take too long in doing so.
At the outset I must declare not one but three interests. My first interest is that of a countryman; my second is that of a breeder; my third is that of a farmer. Many of your Lordships have already highlighted the adverse effect on the breeding industry
356
of the very poor levels of prize money resulting from the wholly inadequate payments made to horseracing by the betting industry. The overall level of prize money will determine the level of demand for horses to race in this country and to the extent that that demand is satisfied by domestically bred animals British breeders will benefit.
As a result of the regeneration of British breeding over the past decade, Britain is now firmly established as the home of the world's most competitive racing. Perfectly fair competition can probably never be achieved in the European Community comprising of so many different nations. However, breeding in this country suffers from specific fiscal disadvantages vis-à-vis our major European competitors. As my noble friend Lord Carnarvon pointed out, with the introduction of the single European market, VAT will be charged at the point of sale and breeders selling in the UK will, therefore, be at a significant disadvantage. No producer, however efficient, can compete with a differential between the Irish and British VAT rate of 12·7 per cent. If such anomalies are not eliminated we shall cease to be a competitive force and simply hand over our breeding export market—worth approximately £200 million—to the Irish. Both the Commission in Brussels and our own Government are aware of the situation. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will confirm that something will be done about it.
I tend to look at the business of British breeding as being integrated with that of agriculture. If the land is not wanted to produce food, it must be used for something else. Farm incomes have declined steadily over the past 10 years and there is now much stronger pressure on the farmer to develop alternative uses of the land other than set aside which is both unsightly and costly. The role of the bloodstock industry in our rural economy goes beyond that of prolucing racehorses. The industry provides jobs and helps to maintain our rural infrastructure. I farm 1,400 acres of arable land on which I employ two men; that is 700 acres per man. I have a 90 acre stud on which I employ three men; that is 30 acres per man. With today's rising unemployment and the continuing migration of rural workers away from the villages, I suggest that a good source of bloodstock employment is in the national interest. Today 10,000 people are directly employed in bloodstock breeding and it is believed that there are a further 4,000 jobs in ancillary industries.
One way of ensuring a beautiful countryside is to encourage livestock farming which requires reasonably-sized fields with good hedges and trees for shade and shelter. The bloodstock industry provides an attractive use of more than 150,000 acres of land and enables many awkward little fields, permanent pastures, barns and other attractive buildings to be preserved. I have no doubt that my stud farm is a bigger asset to society and to the countryside as a whole than is my arable farm.
The bloodstock industry is little different from our other industries. Times are hard. Breeders are squeezed unmercifully between rising costs, high

357
interest rates and falling prices. However, we are entitle3 to have a domestic market for our goods at prices which give a reasonable return for the capital employed.
6.20 p m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I suppose that I should be very surprised were any speaker in this debate to put his name down to speak on a health matter. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords whose names are on the list will forgive a brief intervention from an occasional racegoer whose professional life started in Cheltenham and who for a long time was a member of the local racecourse.
I speak as a person who has no particular expertise in the industry. However, given that there are so many expert points of view on this subject—and we have heard many of them—an outsider's opinion may be of help. I must apologise to the House for the fact that a longstanding engagement may prevent my staying until the end of the debate.
The arguments are often portrayed on a largely financial level as to how the racing industry in this country is funded—perhaps, the racing establishment on the one side and the bookmakers on the other. One could even ask whether the success or failure of racing matters to the country anyway. I believe that it does. It is a significant industry which is already, and will become, even more internationally competitive. Within Europe, France, Italy, Eire, Germany and Belgium have established racing industries which are already organised very beneficially as compared with our industry. There can be no doubt that the structure of our industry is already weakening our international competitiveness. Whichever way one looks at the matter, the funding of our industry is at the core of the problem.
The racing industry receives less than 1 per cent. of off-course turnover via the levy collected by bookmakers. Punters have 10 per cent. deducted from them in betting shops of which 8 per cent. is pure betting tax. The levy represents 0.9 per cent. Bookmakers say that it is unrealistic to expect punters to pay more for racing's product. Bookmakers say also that they are not excessively profitable. However, it is undeniable that they have successfully broadened the base of their business away from bookmaking in an extraordinarily successful way, presumably funded by cash from racing.
The bookmaking industry relies virtually entirely on the facilities of racing to sustain its business. The football industry receives 2.5 per cent. in royalties from the pools companies. Why should racing not receive a similar royalty for its services? A rate of 2.5 per cent. would provide £100 million of the costs of running racing which are estimated at £250 million. In the most recent year, racing received £35.3 million. In case it is thought that the 2.5 per cent. royalty would be excessive, I must point out that that level would represent only half the return which racing enjoys in France and most other major racing countries.
It is often said that racehorse owners are rich men. It is certainly true that at the top end of racing there exist some of the richest men in the world. However,
358
there can be no doubt that in Britain there are now significantly fewer people who, on an individual basis, are racehorse owners. The significance of that decline is masked by the rapid proliferation of racing clubs and the growth of partnerships.
Again, international comparisons are striking. In France, owners receive double the return from prize money that is received in the UK. The Race Horse Owners' Association estimates that owners contribute £150 million per year to racing costs through training fees. That amounts to £2,600 per race run, from which only £400 comes back in prize money. A further £800 per run is lost in capital depreciation so that it is hardly surprising that ownership is in decline. It is hardly surprising also that wages in the industry are so poor. As resources diminish, so will the general quality of the British bloodstock and racing industry. We are likely to race far too many mediocre horses in mediocre races for mediocre returns. In the end, our international competitiveness will be seriously affected.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is a case for a royalty in the order of at least 2.5 per cent. to be returned to racing in the form of a levy. There may be even a case for examining also the level of the betting tax. The racing industry is not a small body of elitists but operates as an important industry both domestically and internationally. It was reported by Richard Baerlein in yesterday's Observer that it is this country's fourth largest industry. It simply cannot be right to allow its funding to continue on the current basis.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Donoughue for introducing this debate. As my father was a Congregational minister and I still retain some vestiges of his training and philosophy, I suppose that I come into the nonconformist bourgeois category on this side, to which my noble friend made such pleasing reference in the course of his remarks. However, I must confess to your Lordships that the bourgeois element has rather tended to dominate the nonconformist element when it comes to racing. I must declare an interest as a punter who likes a flutter from time to time.
Indeed, I met my noble friend Lord Donoughue while we were in government and I had an office at No. 12 Downing Street. My noble friend was working at No. 10 and from time to time he would pad down the corridor between No. 10 and No. 12 and give me some information about a horse due to go out that day. I am sure that my noble friend will not mind me telling your Lordships that the quality of his information was not of the same consistently high standard as the quality of the speech with which he introduced the debate today.
I should like to congratulate also the three maiden speakers and in particular say how I thought that the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, in the course of his remarks about British racing painted a picture which

359
we ignore at our peril because the British racing scene is part of the tradition of this country of which I and many millions of people are proud.
In the course of his remarks, my noble friend Lord Donoughue spoke of the wide spread of interests in the job, including the 100,000 people involved. That represents a substantial part of our economy and our efforts to export overseas. I have heard a number of descriptions of the state of the industry—some noble Lords said that it was in a financial crisis or critical and other noble Lords tended to play down the situation. As a comparative layman in these matters, 1 have been following what has been happening in the other place where the Home Affairs Select Committee has been addressing itself to the problems of racing, beginning with the question of the levy.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he quoted Sir John Sparrow, the recently appointed chairman of the levy board. He said in the Racing Post:
"If you mean impending catastrophe or near disappearance, there is no crisis".
He went on to say:
"The industry is in recession, not in crisis. If all parties work together, it could be a different kind of crisis—a turning point".
I believe that that was a point made very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in his remarks.
However, I do not believe that the industry can be entirely protected from economic reality by matters like the levy or other imposts. A number of noble Lords have made the point, including our maiden speakers today, that the industry is substantially underfunded. One could make a case that possibly the industry expanded too much during the good years and did not anticipate the problems which would arise when there was a change in the economic climate.
I agree with Sir John Sparrow—I do not want to be presumptuous, but also with the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw—that if there was substantial co-operation and a greater understanding then the problems could be resolved. It has been suggested that the levy could be replaced. But Sir John is on record as saying that if the levy did not exist, it would probably have to be invented. We should all support the efforts Sir John is making in this field.
If the case for more money for racing is substantiated, I have a horrible feeling that in the end it will fall on the punter to provide it. As a consumer, I would certainly resist that. The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, said that without owners racing cannot exist. I agree with that. However, without the millions of people who enjoy a flutter, whether occasionally or on a more regular basis, the industry would also be hard put to exist.
Many kind remarks have been made this afternoon in regard to the Jockey Club, especially by its members. I would therefore like to give them an award for quite the flabbiest answer to the Home Office letter inviting evidence for the committee in the other place to consider. Members will recall that the sixth point was,
"Whether there is a need better to represent the interests of punters and of all those who work in the racing industry?"
360
The response from the Jockey Club was,
"As for punters, it can be argued that they are carrying out their purchases within a competitive market with the freedom of choice to take their custom elsewhere if their demands are not satisfactorily met".
Quite frankly, if there are any members of the Jockey Club present who think that that is a satisfactory answer, I should like to invite them to my Labour Club in Bristol.
When the licensing magistrates are granting licences for new betting shops, they take into account the existing geographical distribution of shops and try to ensure that each area is adequately stationed with them. They do not encourage them to cluster together. Imagine the scene therefore where one is enjoying a few pints on a Saturday lunchtime, looking through the racing card, seeing one's fancies and putting something on the first race. One may be lucky and decide to double up and put the winnings on the next race. Imagine people driving their cars two or three miles to the bookmaker down in Bedminster because they do not like the conditions in their local betting shop.
That answer was totally unrealistic. Some members of the committee in another place are already becoming concerned about the lack of representation for punters in the industry. It is difficult to organise such an enormous disparate number of people who bet on so many different bases; but the fact that they are not represented should be taken more into consideration by the people who contribute to and run the industry.
My final point concerns the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, to the Government's decision to funnel money from the pools' betting duty to the improvement of football grounds. It was said that that was a precedent. I understand that around £100 million is to be released over five years for ground improvements. However, it is not a precedent. Members may recall the saga of the road fund. When that was introduced in the 1920s, Sir E. Geddes, speaking in another place, said that,
"the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be called upon at this stage of the country's finances to improve the roads".
The road fund was therefore introduced.
In 1926 the late Sir Winston Churchill, who was then Chancellor, raided the road fund—I believe for the first time—saying,
"His Majesty's Government have decided to propose to Parliament that £7 million shall be transferred to the Exchequer out of the balance of approximately £19 million in the Road Fund".
That was the first raiding of the fund. The Government are already in receipt of an enormous amount of betting duty from racing. Even a small proportion of that channelled into racing, if the financial need exists, would improve the situation.
There has been discussion on a national lottery. I welcome the idea that taxation raised in specific ways should benefit the arts or sport in different ways. On 11th February the Mail contained a substantial piece about a national lottery. That was followed by an editorial in the Telegraph which spoke of the problems of a lottery. However, there was also a letter to the editor from Sir Hugh Leggatt. That caught my eye because the headline was,

361
"Lottery will not save cabinet".
I thought, "Surely the Government are not in such difficulty that they must rely on a lottery to save the Cabinet". On closer reading and after consulting with some of my more intellectual colleagues it appears that this was the Badminton cabinet, which recently sold for over £8 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that racing would have a low priority if funds from the lottery were transferred to other causes. However that is very much a subjective judgment and a matter of opinion. If one wants to please people in this country, substantially more people would be pleased by a little contribution going to support racing than saving a cabinet for the nation, however valuable and unique it may be.
I ask the Government therefore to think about that, and to consider channelling some of the betting duty paid by the punters into racing if the need exists. I ask them also to keep an open mind about supporting the industry because of its great contribution to national life and the enjoyment which the occasional flutter gives to many millions of people in our society.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, as a lifelong supporter of horseracing I too should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for introducing the debate. It is seldom that your Lordships' House has the opportunity to discuss the horseracing and breeding industry and the sport in general. With racing's difficulties receiving press coverage on an almost daily basis, today's debate is not only most welcome but also could not have been more expertly timed. Perhaps I may also add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the three maiden speakers for their most eloquent, informative and interesting speeches.
I should perhaps declare an interest having worked in the industry as an assistant trainer, an assistant clerk of the course, a horsebox driver and a permit holder. I rode as an amateur in both point-to-points and under rules, and I am currently a local steward at both Uttoxeter and Wolverhampton racecourses. I might add that my first season's race-riding record is indeed enviable, albeit to those with masochistic tendencies. In 36 rides I experienced 34 falls. One horse pulled up and another refused. In short I was the bookies' friend! If I had had half the common sense of my horses I should also have refused and gone home with the non-runners. Matters improved later in my career and at every stage of my involvement I have derived enormous pleasure from the "sport of kings".
It saddens me to see the great British industry suffering so badly. It must survive and prosper. A long-term solution must be found to the ills that are being encountered. All involved in the industry have been aware of the problems for many years, but they must be worked out as a matter of urgency. The petty recriminations encountered in virtually every sport must cease. All involved in the industry must realise that unless a sustained and joint effort is made to improve standards in every single area there is real danger of this country ceasing to be a leader in the
362
bloodstock and racing world. Such a loss both in value to the Exchequer and in terms of credibility is totally unacceptable. Such a scenario cannot be allowed to happen.
I am not qualified to speak on the rights and wrongs of extracting levies from bookmaking interests. I am a non-betting man and know little about the financial aspects of the industry. But I know that without support from that area racing cannot survive. I also know that without racing —and racing in a strong and healthy state—bookmakers would have precious little product and a lean time.
I understand that currently horseracing provides the bookies with somewhere in the region of 70 per cent. of their total turnover.
With the leave of the House I should like to address some matters which have already been covered. I feel it is necessary however to make my points. I apologise for raising the subject yet again.
The first issue is the anomaly of VAT rates in the breeding industry. I am advised by the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association that the rates of VAT applicable to the horsebreeding business in the United Kingdom compared with our European Community partners is most unjust and unfair. While the tax rate in this country is 15 per cent., the French pay 5.5 per cent. and the Irish pay only 2.3 per cent. British breeders cannot operate successfully under such circumstances. Matters will greatly worsen to the detriment of the whole industry and its peripheral businesses when the single market comes into operation properly in 1993.
As we have heard, Tattersalls, the great auction house, are threatening to move their bloodstock auction operations to Ireland. If they make that move, it is most unlikely that they will return. Therefore, it follows that breeders will move to Ireland, and with them will go the ancillary services such as bloodstock agents and all others involved in the business. In that climate new investment will not be attracted. That will have the net result of loss of jobs and a substantial loss in foreign exchange and in revenue to the Exchequer. In short, the total situation will be enormously damaging to both the local and national economies.
The industry requires a level playing field. Every stop must be pulled out by the Government to correct the anomaly before the damage caused is too great to right. I am aware that both the Government and the Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have listened most sympathetically to the case and that discussions have been going on for two years. But it is desperately important that a concrete solution be now found.

Within the problem is a further anomaly. The horse is not classed as an agricultural animal. Yet many farmers are turning to "horseyculture"—a horrific word—in order to boost their flagging incomes. Set-aside land has promoted the situation further. As the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, it is unattractive and expensive. My wife, who is greatly involved in the pony world, tells me that that particular branch of the horse world is experiencing unprecedented growth.
The horse enthusiast makes use of a vast range of agricultural products and facilities, and assists the

363
rural economy through providing employment which otherwise would simply not exist. It is high time that the animal was reclassified.
Racing is a substantial employer. Like any sport, it attracts both the rough and the smooth in terms of individuals. One of the many problems being encountered at present—the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire touched on this point—is the difficulty of cash flow. A public trainer employs the services of many on a day-to-day basis. The veterinary surgeon, the farrier, the feed merchant and transporter all have to be paid for their services, but at present there are many cases of non-payment by the trainer, who in turn bills the owner. These peripheral services rely on the industry on a localised basis for their living, and non-payment seriously affects their own cash flows. Indeed, some even go out of business. This has a considerable effect on the local economy of rural areas.
I believe that the solution is for trainers, on being granted a licence by the Jockey Club, to be required to place an amount as a bond on deposit, managed by Wetherby's, the Jockey Club's agents. Perhaps a scheme of insurance could be set up to safeguard the interests of those providing goods to the racing profession, which in turn would provide confidence in the industry and add credibility. Such a scheme is surely possible. Many companies I know insure against debts, but I suppose that this is a matter for the racing authorities rather than for the Government.
Racecourses provide entertainment for all the family: a great day out in the fresh air with fine competitive sport, and the thrills and spills of an afternoon's racing produced by brave men and bold animals. But facilities at many courses are of poor quality, both for those who look after the horses at the bottom end of the scale, and for sponsors at the other end. There is not the money available for investment; consequently, improvements cannot be made.
I am not referring to the major courses, which are excellent, but to the small country tracks which have a loyal following of local people. To survive and to expand their gates—a desperately needed development—quality races for quality horses must be run. This cannot happen without sponsors. Sponsors require something for their support, quite rightly. But new investment in facilities has to be financed. There is precious little cash available from the levy board and there are too many people chasing what is available.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, who said that racecourse facilities have improved dramatically. I have personal knowledge of a number of racecourses where the facilities are appalling, and in some cases proper facilities just do not exist.
To be successful and profitable a racecourse must be run as a business. To give my home course, Uttoxeter, a plug as an example of a well-run track, the management there has realised that customer service and quality racing, together with good
364
facilities, are essential in order to ensure a profitable operation. Private investment at the course has been large, and a full-time marketing manager ensures that sponsors are approached in the right way and given full value for their patronage. Because of this, the prize money available this season tops £400,000 and the course is attracting better horses, top jockeys and trainers, and larger gates. The future of the track looks good: that is because of professional marketing and sound management techniques.
Many racecourses do not act in the same manner. It is in this area that the industry could help itself. Uttoxeter has a five-year business plan involving much new investment, but the money cannot all be provided by private enterprise. We return to the same subject. The levy board does not have the money available. It cannot assist, although vast sums in the region of £450 million are being returned to the benefit of the Exchequer in betting duty. There seems to be something slightly wrong there.
To address briefly the subject of Sunday racing, I have already pointed out that racing provides a day out for all the family, in decent surroundings and with benefit to their health, although possibly not in financial terms. I am very much in favour of racing on Sundays. The sooner this happens the better, although it may be inconvenient for stable staff, others involved in the industry, and, one must not forget, the stewards. Many classic races are run on Sundays in Europe, where large crowds are attracted for a day out. Alton Towers is open on Sundays. So why cannot its neighbour, Uttoxeter racecourse, be open on Sundays? I am aware that there are many concerns in some quarters. However, it seems illogical that an industry in crisis is unable to compete with other facilities in the leisure industry, to the detriment of the public, the industry and the levy board.
The problems currently faced by the horseracing industry are many and varied, little different perhaps from other industries which are finding times very difficult. Nevertheless, the situation is urgent. These matters must be addressed quickly, and a solid foundation on which to build the future for racing and all involved in the industry must be secured. We cannot allow this great industry, built over many hundreds of years and with a rich history, to be decimated through lack of funding, harsh taxation and unfair foreign competition.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate on horseracing today, which has been wide-ranging and extremely comprehensive. I do not wish to keep your Lordships too long, but I should like to repeat one or two points which have already been made.
My declared interest as an owner of horses dwells on my experience as an owner who enjoys both the flat and jumping. I am also a steward at a local racecourse, Devon and Exeter. We have been told that racing ownership is a luxury, and that if we can afford it we should not complain and should pay up, that we are a privileged lot and so we should stop complaining

365
and get on with it, and if the going gets hot we should leave it and go home. The problem is that if all owners were to give it up and go home there would be little left to support British racing, which would very quickly disappear, and many of the investments would disappear across the channel.
We must not let that happen. I know that in spite of this owners will not all go away, but unless investment made by owners becomes more beneficial to them the industry will contract very seriously. As I see it, racehorse owners need some encouragement to keep their investments going. Like any investor, at the end of the day they need a return on their financial participation. Prize money is their only hope, and it is in the middle of this range that encouragement is needed at least to defray some of the costs. If owners can get a bigger cut of that, they will invest more and benefit this very important industry, which must have investing owners.
I believe that racing, like football, cricket and other sports, is an entertainment and that people who follow these activities need to view them in some comfort with facilities to match. It needs to be a pleasure. Unless more funds are made available to make the industry more self-supporting the position will become more difficult. Unless we are careful, we in this country will become the poor neighbours of France, Australia and Hong Kong, which have been able to keep their houses in order and to benefit considerably. The industry in Hong Kong, with the tremendous betting enthusiasm of the Chinese, has been able to reinvest its turnover. It has been able not only to pay quite considerable sums of money to the government but also to provide a large amount of public sector housing in the colony. I am not suggesting that that should necessarily happen here; I am merely giving your Lordships an idea of what can be done.
The point I should like to make is that, due to the investment made by an owner, he is responsible in some way for the employment of very many people from the day he invests and buys his horse. This will include the bloodstock agent, the stud, the breeder, the auction house, the transport company, and then the trainer and all his staff, the jockey, the racecourse, the veterinary surgeon, the blacksmith and not of course forgetting Wetherby's, the Jockey Club, the tote and the bookmakers. All those organisations employ a considerable number of people. I am sure that this is of benefit to the industry and it certainly gives jobs to people who might not otherwise have them. The spin-off in one year means the employment of 14 different professions. That is no small amount of people.
The racecourses, especially the smaller ones, need the industry's support. That has happened in the past with great effect but there is more to be done. I should like to see that support continue and I hope that somehow this 2 per cent. levy to which we have referred finds its way into this sector. My local course is one of the oldest in the country and, as far as it is able, has done much to be self-supporting, but it has to find income outside racing to keep going. Pressure on safety and hygiene requirements mean that even
366
more funds are necessary: £25,000 is needed for stable hygiene and a much larger sum for the safety of the grandstand and the general upgrading of the course. At the same time Haldon racecourse employs seven permanent staff and on race days 80 other employees. It provides 15 very enjoyable days' racing. It would be a great shame if that were to disappear.
I hope that today's debate will encourage all to keep this industry in good heart and that ways will be found to support both the owners and the racecourse management in giving pleasure to the public and allowing owners to get better returns from their investments, thus giving employment to those who make racing the king of all sports and, in my opinion, second to none.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Grimthorpe: My Lords, after so many distinguished speakers, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. Fortunately most of what I was going to say has already been said far more eloquently than I could do it. I should like to congratulate the maiden speakers on their erudite speeches, in particular my godson the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe, for whose distinguished father I was fag at a well known public school. He subsequently taught me the rudiments of stewarding at Liverpool and he was very sharp on many occasions. I look forward to hearing much more from both of them and from the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, as well.
I should like to say a few words on three subjects: bookmakers and the tote—I regret to say I am a poor punter with both—small racecourses and the Jockey Club. First, on bookmakers and the tote, I have kindly been asked to lunch by both shortly so I am not beating their drum for them tonight. I include the tote because it is a bookmaker, although the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, does not look like one. I hope he will excuse those remarks. I have many friends among bookmakers, at least I hope so. With their powerful lobby in another place they are in business to make money for their directors and shareholders. They can diversify into hotels and casinos, both in this country and overseas. They pay a lot to the levy but not nearly enough. Other noble Lords have given the figures and I fully agree with them. I hope that both will continue in business. They may not like the tote but it is good to have competition. My noble friend Lord Wyatt has done a wonderful job popularising the tote. The only unpopular aspect is his small limit of £2 on bets. That is not at all popular.
I shall say a few words on smaller racecourses, a subject mentioned by the previous two speakers. I declare an interest as I am a director of Thirsk. Many people will be very sorry to see the small racecourses close down. Only 10 of the 59 courses showed a profit last year, although many ploughed back their profits to improve their facilities. I fully appreciate what has been done for small places such as Uttoxeter and Devon and Exeter. The courses that help themselves deserve all the encouragement that they can get.

367
I shall now say a few words on the Jockey Club. I have been a member for more than 15 years. I still believe that it does a wonderful job. I am delighted to see so many of its stewards and secretariat sitting wide eyed up in the galleries, though after reading the media —including Logan —one might think that it is defunct. I fully support the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who could not have stressed it better. It may move slowly but even it has a chief executive now. For nearly 200 years it has, with its secretariat, controlled racing in the United Kingdom honestly and without too many scandals.
Is there a crisis? I suppose there is because the newspapers, with very little to write about except the Gulf and the snow, have gone on about it over the past few weeks. It is all about money, as noble Lords will know and as they have heard too frequently this afternoon, yet more horses are in training than ever before. With permission, I shall read a letter from today's Sporting Life. It is from a trainer who, regretfully, had to give up on Saturday. It is headed "Slow Payers", and states:
"Ninety five per cent. of trainers are troubled by late settlement of accounts and the five per cent. who say they aren't must be good liars.
The real trouble is there's no way the knockers can be stopped. You put on the pressure and in the end it just leads to hassle and either the owner takes his horse away or leaves it behind and you're left with a horse that nobody wants eating its head off".
I hope the Jockey Club will be able to do something about that.
I feel that the Government know more about the racing industry than ever before. When have your Lordships been so well served on the Front Bench? There is one member of the Jockey Club, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is a formidable steward at Folkestone, and two owners of small racecourses, Cartmel and Towcester, are both in their places on the Front Bench. I should add the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol], for Perth, and, as noble Lords have heard, the noble Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe, for Kelso. Finally, I close my remarks by saying that I hope my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who is to answer for the Government, will listen to all the suggestions he will hear today and will come up with a winning combination.
6.58 p.m.
Viscount Head: My Lords, when I started training steeplechasers in 1968 the top National Hunt trainers were charging their owners 14 guineas a week and paying their lads £12 a week. Today they are charging their owners £175 a week and paying their lads £153 a week. In 1968 the total pool of prize money was £3.9 million; in 1990 it was £47.8 million. All those increases are more or less in line and look all right until one realises that in 1990 2,200 more races were being competed for. That means that the prize money was being spread much more thinly. A simple calculation will show that for 1990 prize money to equate with the 1968 prize money in real terms another £15 million is needed.
368
Before it is said that increasing the amount of prize money is just lining the rich man's pockets, it is worth looking at the matter of prize money, as indeed has been done so well in the report of the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland. In 1990 owners put £275 million into racing. In return for that, they were racing for a prize of £47.8 million of which £10.5 million would go to the trainers, the stables and the jockeys of the successful horses. Owners have become accustomed to recognising prize money as being a bonus. But, nonetheless, it is appreciated. I believe that racing has an obligation to reward owners for the horses which they produce to race. However, if that reward becomes derisory it is unacceptable. I believe that racing is failing in its obligation properly to reward owners.
The attraction of our racing is that it takes place on a variety of 59 racecourses which are scattered all over England, Scotland and Wales. On average those racecourses stage 17 days' racing per year. No business could survive by opening its doors to trade for only 17 days of every year. Clearly they have to rely on the levy, despite the fact that they are exploiting their amenities as best they can in non-racing activities. The books just do not balance. Many of our racecourses have archaic buildings; indeed the grandstands are draughty and uncomfortable places and the stables are dilapidated. A huge building programme awaits completion. The levy board must have the funds to carry out this programme on schedule. The longer it is left the more expensive it will become.
The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, talked about the training of stable lads. There are currently 6,500 stable lads working in stables, of which 3,700 are actually looking after the horses which go to the races. They are the kernel of the racing world. We ignore their well-being at our peril: they are poorly paid and inadequately trained. Their pay must remain a matter between themselves and their employers, but I believe that the Jockey Club must take vigorous steps to improve the quality of their training.
The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, did not mention the school at Newmarket which produces about 100 trained lads and girls per year. However, that number is woefully short of that which is necessary. Nearly 300 or 400 new stable lads and girls come into stables each year to look after the horses, but there is a very high turnover. When I was training, I remember that when these youngsters first came to the stables they were given equipment and a pitchfork and shown by the head lad for half an hour what they had to do; but after that it was up to them. It was a rough and ready method and it produced rough and ready lads. Such training should be a matter of priority for the Jockey Club. Indeed much more money needs to be spent on it.
Racing is unacceptably underfunded. It enters an economic recession in a parlous financial state. It is not yet clear how much money racing needs in order to secure its future. The question is, how will this money be raised? I believe that it must be raised through the levy. The levy has served racing well for 30 years. It is well tried and well understood. It should be discarded only if its replacement is patently better.

369
In 1975 the levy was based upon horserace betting turnover. At that time the bookmakers chose to pass the levy wholly on to the betting public. My contention is that as the bookmakers decided to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the levy —and they still do—they must be adjudged to have weakened their position in the levy negotiations. I should like to see the betting public better represented in those negotiations in the future.
It is said that the betting public cannot pay any more and that 10 per cent. is the limit. However, the historical evidence does not suggest that to be the case. In 1966 the Government introduced a betting tax of 2.5 per cent. Since that time they have increased it at various intervals. In 1970 and in 1974, when there was an increase turnover perversely increased. I believe that there is room for the levy to be increased and for the money that racing so urgently needs to be found. There may not be a crisis in racing, but all the ingredients for such a crisis are only too clear to see.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, as the outsider in a field of 23, I feel that I have much catching up to do. However, I believe that I have something slightly different to say on the matter. For many years I have taken a great interest in the affairs of horseracing. It is a sport which I very much enjoy as a racegoer and a past amateur jockey. As we have already heard, it is a noble sport and one which has much in common with my own sport of greyhound racing. Many of your Lordships may know that I serve as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. During the course of my remarks I hope not only to alert the House to the close ties between the two sports, but also to the impact that greyhound racing increasingly exerts on the fortunes of horseracing.
Both horseracing and greyhound racing are concerned with the excellence of the breed. They both provide substantial amounts of revenue to the Treasury from off-course betting turnover. Moreover, they are much enjoyed by the racing public and, indeed, attendances at all horserace meetings in a full year are almost equal to attendances at all greyhound meetings; that is to say, around 5 million attendances. Government statistics show that greyhound racing is just ahead of horseracing, after football, as a spectator sport. The Jockey Club and the National Greyhound Racing Club, which on its formation 63 years ago based its rules on those of the Jockey Club, are both concerned with the integrity and quality of their product.
I recall seeing in a recently published history of greyhound racing a wonderful picture of the famous racehorse, Golden Miller, side by side with the great greyhound, Mick the Miller. For me, that photograph perfectly illustrated the affinity that each sport has for the other. It is an affinity that the off-course betting public also has—as we have seen during the past two weeks when horseracing has largely been frozen out by the snows blowing in from the East. In the absence of horseracing on the turf, the nation's betting offices reported "business largely as usual" with 70 per cent. of their turnover coming in primarily from greyhound
370
racing. That is an important point and one which is entirely relevant to this debate about horseracing finances. I say that because the share of off-course betting turnover taken by greyhound racing materially affects the amount of off-course betting on horseracing and therefore the amount of money that horseracing can derive from the horserace betting levy.
Over the past 13 years—that is to say, since the Royal Commission on betting and gaming reported in 1978—there has been a significant trend in off-course betting in favour of greyhound racing in preference to horseracing. That commission was the last Government inquiry into the relationship of off-course betting with greyhound racing and horseracing, and the situation has changed radically since then.
I make no excuse for quoting the relevant figures. Whereas in 1977 greyhound betting accounted for only 17.6 per cent. of the market, the latest figures for 1990 show a figure of 27.9 per cent. of the total off-course market. In other words, there has been an increase of 79 per cent. in greyhound betting over the period while betting on horseracing has declined by 4.3 per cent. If that trend continues, there will obviously be a further decline in revenue from the horserace betting levy to be returned to horseracing. Last year, horseracing and greyhound racing together accounted for more than £5.5 billion of betting in the high street shops, of which 69.8 per cent. was on horserace betting, according to the levy board's report and the figures from HM Customs and Excise. That amounts to a huge £4 billion, although we learn that it produced no more than £36 million in levy to horseracing. That primarily is what the debate is about.
It is the almost universal opinion in the world of horseracing that off-course bookmakers are not returning enough for the use of the racing product. I agree with that opinion, but I can also put my finger on one of the key reasons why it is happening. I hope that my noble friends who speak for horseracing will not mind if I remind them of one important fact: horseracing finds its revenue from off-course betting reduced because of the impact of public betting interests in greyhound racing—a situation (which I am sure they know) that the bookmakers have brought about because they can collect levy payments from greyhound bets without having to pass on the money to greyhound racing.
Perhaps I may point out that 28 per cent. of the total off-course betting last year amounted to a not inconsiderable £1.6 billion bet on greyhounds in the betting shops. In simple terms I shall explain how the horserace levy is affected. First, bookmaker deduction from punters in the betting shops is the same (10 per cent.) from punters' winnings on horse and greyhound bets. Secondly, general betting duty is 8 per cent., and bookmakers continue to claim that they need the extra 2 per cent. to cover the collection of tax and levy. Thirdly, the statutory levy of approximately 1 per cent. (0.9 per cent.) applies to off-course bets on horseracing only. If that is derisory, as the noble

371
Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe, said, then a zero return is obviously wrong, because greyhound racing does not receive a levy and bookmakers therefore profit from the amount they deduct above the 8 per cent. on greyhound bets; in other words, an artificial levy on greyhound racing to the benefit of bookmakers only.
My interest in the debate is not solely to score points for greyhound racing, although I hope that your Lordships, with your inherent fairness, will listen to what I have been saying and take full notice of the disparity between the ways in which these two racing sports are treated by government regulation. I hope that I have shown how the marketing of greyhound racing by the off-course bookmakers, together with the profits they are making from the artificially applied levy on greyhound betting, hugely affects turnover on horseracing in the betting shops. As the horseracing levy depends on the amount of turnover on horserace betting, and only that, the impact of one sport upon the other is entirely relevant to the debate.
In 1988 I took a Bill designed to amend the betting and greyhound racing legislation through all its stages in the House. The Bill introduced an all-sports levy. It was passed by your Lordships but foundered in the other place. If greyhound racing were to receive a levy in future, as I have suggested in the House many times, the trend towards increased betting on sports other than horseracing would be arrested: bookmakers would no longer have an incentive to promote greyhound racing in their betting shops and both sports would enjoy equal treatment. That might be only part of a solution to what has been called the crisis in racing. Various other suggestions for generating further income for both horseracing and greyhound racing are being discussed by a Select Committee in another place and in the press.
One of those ideas concerns the possibility of establishing tote outlets in betting shops to offer both horse and greyhound tote odds and a national daily tote jackpot pool on both sports. To do that, it will be necessary to gain the co-operation of the off-course betting industry to place tote terminals in its shops. That might mean seeking changes in the law to oblige bookmakers to offer the alternative of tote betting to customers in betting shops similar to the statutory duty imposed upon racecourse promoters to provide facilities for on-course bookmakers. Your Lordships may have noticed that Ladbroke's is now trying to break the monopoly of the Pari Mutuel in France, so attempting the same process in reverse.
A large tote pool offering high daily dividends from a modest outlay would not just stimulate the public's interest in both sports but should also provide greyhound racing and horseracing with an excellent marketing tool for encouraging punters to the track. Racecourse promoters must somehow establish a foolproof market mechanism for gaining access to a larger proportion of the ever-increasing off-course betting turnover.
Whatever new mechanism can be established or reformed, it must make sense for horseracing and
372
greyhound racing to work together so that neither attracts or detracts from the earning capacity of the other. I urge the Government and the Home Office in particular to allow an open race, and not one with a handicap so great that one side can never win.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Donoughue for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, but I must warn him that I am sure that I shall make many mistakes in what I say. I look forward to receiving enlightenment from the Minister when he replies. As noble Lords are aware, on most topics about which I speak to your Lordships, I rather fancy myself, but not on this occasion. Indeed, as I have sat listening to all the expertise and declarations of interest, I do not know what I am doing here. However, there is one statement which I can make which is incontrovertible; namely, I know less about this subject than anyone else who has spoken today. If anyone doubts that assertion, its correctness will become abundantly clear within the next few minutes.
Although I started from a position of ignorance, I have learned a great deal from those of your Lordships who know about these matters and who have spoken. the debate has been fascinating. My initial grumpiness—I do not disguise it—at having to sit through it all, was rapidly replaced by a desire to hear more. I believe that I could now attempt an examination question of the type: describe the economics of the horseracing industry and comment upon the policy problems that arise. I could not only attempt the question, I could probably obtain a C or a C-plus. For that I thank your Lordships.
I exaggerate my ignorance a little. My late father was a compulsive gambler. He took me with him to the races. he would tip me when he had a winning bet but he never asked for any money back when he lost. He also bought me an excellent lunch. I recall that occasionally we even looked at the horses. So my memories of going to the race track are all happy ones, and my response today is intended to be sympathetic.
Let me advert to the maiden speakers. I can say with total sincerity that I found all three speeches extremely interesting. Again, I have no difficulty in saying how much I should like to hear from them again. The noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, speaking at the beginning of the debate, struck the right note among the many good points that he made when he reminded us that we need to think about this matter internationally. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, was right to emphasise that we must not merely look at the present economic position but take a much longer view of the place of the industry in the British economy.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe, made a number of points. I was struck that he felt able in a non-controversial maiden speech to refer to racing on Sunday. One or two other noble Lords also mentioned it. I am aware that racing on Sunday is an open question. Speaking for myself—I emphasise that, considering the row we had only last week—I have no

373
difficulty with it at all. I note that professional soccer as well as cricket is played on Sunday. There is Sunday racing in countries with religious traditions and degrees of observance which equal or are even greater than cur own. Therefore I cannot see why we cannot have Sunday racing in this country.
The correct point of departure was emphasised by many noble Lords: namely, horseracing is an industry. I am aware that the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, said that he also thought of it as a sport, but the two are not remotely incompatible. Nowadays all sports are industries, and the two go hand in hand, so I slightly disagree with him there. However, I took very seriously his broader advice. If I were tempted to make any money from my yacht or my grousemoor, I should have no intention of risking it in the future.
Reverting to the industry, horseracing has many images. We should never forget that it is part of our country heritage and has attracted many of our best artists. In the past, perhaps it could be seen somewhat as just a country pursuit dominated by rich men, but it always involved others of more modest means. It retains some of that quality, but we would be quite mistaken if we ignored its wider economic significance. Although it would be exaggerating to say that horseracing is a crucial part of the economy, it is not trivial. The British economy has gained from it in the past and it would be a pity if, from avoidable neglect, we allowed it to disappear in the future.
Perhaps I may here put on my economist's hat and warn against the fallacy of dismissing the relatively small. I do not refer to the "small is beautiful" cult which I do not support. I am concerned with arguments of the form that such and such an activity is only a tiny fraction of the British economy; therefore if it disappeared, no one would notice the difference. All these tiny fractions make up the whole economy. What applies to one, applies to all. To say that if anything that is relatively small goes, it is easy come, easy go, is a fallacy. One could then end up with no economic system at all. That is why we must take this industry seriously as well as all other industries.
I noticed that arising from the question of my noble friend Lord Donoughue on 15th January, one Member of your Lordships' House suggested that if horseracing were suitable for taxpayers' support, so was any industry. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, said:
"We consider that racing cannot … be exempt from the economic restraints to which other industries are subject". —[Official Report, 15/1/91; col. 1084.]
Of course he is right; but the converse is also true. Horseracing should not be treated worse than other industries. There is no advantage in moralising on this. If industry policy is to depend on a division between goods and services of which we approve or of which some of our moralists approve and those of which we disapprove, then the British economy will end up in an even bigger mess than at present.
It was right therefore for noble Lords to place horseracing in its proper context. To reiterate the point, as the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, said, its proper economic context is of intense international competition for racing and breeding. That gives us our usual dilemma: if other countries recognise the value of the industry and give it their support, it puts unfair
374
pressure on our industry, especially if our own Government fail to follow suit. The present Government do not care to give direct support to industries. Some of their supporters have recently pointed out in your Lordships' House that the Government seem to have gone out of their way to hinder industry rather than to help it. However, that debate is for another day and it is also one which we have already had.
Even on our side, although we are less doctrinaire, we may feel that in the best of all possible worlds we would have other priorities and leave horseracing to stand on its own two—or I cannot resist saying its own four—feet. In a world of unfair competition, our Government have a duty to help industry. I use exactly the same metaphor as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. They have a duty to help the industry at least to the point of keeping the playing field level.
This leads me to a difficulty which many of your Lordships raised and I must admit that I am in two minds on it: the VAT problem. My usual judgment on VAT is that we should have a straight rate. On the whole, I do not believe in exceptions. Again, I speak for myself. We require a straightforward tax. Nevertheless, I entirely accept the point that noble Lords made that if other countries do not use VAT that way, it puts us in a difficult position. It is rare for me to say so, but I do not know the answer to the question. Being a typical economist, on the one hand I want everyone to pay 15 per cent. VAT, but on the other hand I do not want our industries to be damaged because we cannot respond to what other industries do.
I take the two points that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made. First, we do not need committees of inquiry but we need a deeper investigation of the VAT problem. Perhaps the Jockey Club is spending money on that, I do not know. However, I am slightly at odds with the noble Viscount in that because of the VAT, I am not convinced that the matter can be viewed entirely in Home Office terms. The people who must be convinced are the Treasury and work must be done to produce economic arguments that will convince them.
As regards bookmakers and the tote, we must not be naïve. Bookmakers are not in the racing business but the gambling business. Noble Lords have talked as though bookmakers had a completely different set of values and objectives. They are in the gambling business and their research and development work is to do with gambling not racing. I do not see why one should be silly about it. It may be appropriate to tax them and use the money for the benefits of racing, but to misunderstand what they do would be a great mistake.
I fully understand the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, but I was taken aback by one of his remarks. I know why he argued it. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was sitting next to him, as she is now and may correct this, but unless I misheard him, he said that he favoured a tote monopoly. I did not believe that I would live to hear from the Liberal Benches any suggestion of monopoly

375
in any field. Therefore on that I cannot follow him or other noble Lords. I would not support any monopoly in this industry. My worry is the reverse: it is whether there is enough competition in bookmaking. That is another matter which we have not discussed.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I favoured a mixture between the tote monopoly and bookmakers. I favoured a tote monopoly on off-course betting but with bookmakers taking their proper place on the course to add variety to the sport.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. That is slightly better; but I still do not agree with it. I favour competition tout court. I have long since given up betting, but betting with a bookmaker is infinitely more interesting than betting on the tote. That is extremely boring.
I shall save most of my remarks on lotteries for another day, I welcome a debate on them. What I have seen of lotteries makes me feel that their benefits are much exaggerated. I entirely echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman: if all the people who expected to win money from the lottery were added together, they would end up with about 3p each. We must consider that subject in a much more direct way. I hope that I can return to the subject of lotteries in another debate.
I had great difficulty in following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. Perhaps when my mind is fresher tomorrow, I shall be able to raise my intellectual level and ascertain what the noble Lord meant to convey in his speech. However, on the matter of listings, the noble Lord may be correct. I have considered that matter, and I wished to raise the matter of the listing of runners and riders. I had understood that the copyright of the listings was held by the Jockey Club. I wanted to ask the Minister whether the Jockey Club was maximising its income from what I had understood to be its ownership of the relevant copyright. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, either implied that the Jockey Club did not own a copyright, or that it could not, as it were, use that copyright.
The noble Lord referred to a need to amend the relevant statutes. I should like to know much more about this matter. I should like to know whether I am mistaken in believing that the Jockey Club owns a copyright. I should also like to know whether I am mistaken in believing that the Jockey Club can exploit such a copyright. If I am correct that the Jockey Club owns a copyright, and is able to exploit the listing of runners and riders, I should like an explanation of why the club is not obtaining a great deal more money from that source rather than from other areas. I hope the Minister can comment on that.
I must say a few words about employment in the industry. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Newall and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, have commented on that. They have referred to stable lads. Perhaps, speaking from these Benches, I should refer to them as stable persons. Clearly many young
376
people become besotted with horses and are keen to work with them. However, that is precisely a state of affairs in which they are likely to be exploited, not only in regard to pay but also as regards conditions. People employed in stables are vulnerable, not least to arbitrary dismissal.
I did not know until I prepared this speech—other noble Lords have mentioned this matter—that the real incomes of stable lads have hardly changed in the past decade. The Minister is always emphasising to us that average real earnings have risen considerably in the economy at large during that period. While I support proper union recognition for the stable lads, I am aware that the Stable Lads Association is not all that strong. I am concerned that some trainers clearly do not encourage their staff to join even the Stable Lads Association. As I understand the position, some trainers, as employers, bargain strongly in what they consider to be their own or their owners' best interests. Noble Lords have referred to that. I find that quite deplorable and I was delighted to hear other noble Lords express the same feelings.
In returning to my opening remarks, I should say that many noble Lords taking part in today's debate are leaders in this industry. They have a responsibility in this matter. It should not be left to a weak body, such as the Stable Lads Association, to fight these battles. A fortiori, it should not be left to the young people themselves. I was gladdened to hear one or two remarks made by noble Lords in support of my feelings. I hope this matter will be taken further. If stable lads are not treated properly in the racing industry, noble Lords who are leaders in the industry must share some of the blame. I hope that one outcome of today's debate will be an improvement in that area.
One issue that has emerged from the debate is that those in the industry are extremely keen to manage their own affairs without undue statutory interference. I am extremely sympathetic to that point of view. They are right to want to do so. However, I hope they are aware that that stance severely limits the extent of the support that they can possibly ask from government. I return to a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. What the industry needs, and the most it should ask for, is a level playing field. But from that point on, it must be on its own. In that connection, I certainly wish the industry well.
7.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I suspect this will probably be the only time in my career at the Dispatch Box that I shall have the pleasure and privilege of following three outstanding maiden speeches. Those speeches of my noble friend Lord Zetland, my noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, respectively, all contained interest and topicality but remained within the conventions of your Lordships' House.
Even the occasional student of the sporting life will have noticed that there has been regular and topical debate on this issue. I have a copy of Racing in Crisis

377
which contains page after page of debate on this matter. It is perhaps significant that the first page of the document, contains an interview with my noble friend Lord Zetland. In reply to the first question my noble friend states:
"People say that we shall talk ourselves into a worse crisis, but I do not regret what I have done. Until people understand the problems better, we will never solve them".
Those are particularly cogent remarks. The remarks made by my noble friend in his maiden speech today were also particularly apposite.
My noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe remarked very modestly that he felt nervous and like a young two year-old. I felt rather that my noble friend gave a Gold Cup performance over a far greater distance. We are lucky to have been present on such an occasion.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, contributed some telling remarks. He referred to the product of racing as being something that people must want to attend. I believe that all noble Lords who have taken part in today's debate agree with that. I am sure they also agree with the noble Lord's further remark that to make the product attractive would cost a lot of money. The three maiden speeches were excellent contributions. I cannot wait to hear further from all three speakers sooner rather than later.
I have an interest to declare as regards Towcester Racecourse. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, used to attend that racecourse in his youth. I first attended a race meeting when I was one year old. I remember little of that event. However, there is photographic evidence of a very unattractive child trying to eat the racecard. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was also present on that occasion at Easter 1951. Therefore, we have waited 39 years for me to reply to his Motion tonight.
The subject that has been discussed today is wide and complex. That is because—as has been pointed out—horseracing is not a single industry. It is, in fact, a number of interlocking businesses and interest groups. It includes racehorse breeders, owners, trainers, jockeys, stable lads, racecourse owners and the betting industry. And at the heart of this complex of interlocking interests, as in any business, is the customer—whether racegoer or punter—on whose satisfaction the health of the business must ultimately depend. The many excellent contributions to this debate have reflected the breadth and complexity of the subject all too clearly. But they have shown equally clearly that there is no single or simple answer to whatever difficulties these various industries may face.
Before dealing with some of the issues raised in this debate, I should make quite clear the limits of the Government's role in these matters. Horseracing is a traditional part of British life. I personally, and the Government as a whole, hope that horseracing will always be a part of our national life. But let us be quite clear; the Government do not run horseracing.
If horseracing is to survive and flourish in the future, it must find its own solutions to its own problems. There are some issues to do with general gambling policy or taxation where the Government
378
clearly have a direct interest. In those areas, we shall listen carefully to any arguments which are put to us for change. We shall judge those arguments on their merits and against the wider issue which any government must take into account. Where we believe that change is justified we shall act. However, racing cannot expect special treatment. It must stand on its own feet. Its future size and shape are matters for the industries themselves, not the government.
Therefore, in the terms of the Motion, what is the situation facing all involved in horseracing? In particular, is there a financial crisis? In any industry there are always businesses which at any particular time face a financial crisis. Looking at racing as a whole, is there compelling evidence of a crisis? More particularly, is there evidence of a crisis demanding government intervention?
Key indicators obtained from the levy board all show an improvement over the 10 years ending in 1990. Total prize money increased, the number of horses in training increased and the number of people attending races increased. I shall not repeat the figures which have been placed before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I accept that those are the 1990 figures and that in the current recession there may have been a fall in some of those figures, but the Government have to act on the figures that are available and have been published. Nevertheless, one must not place too much emphasis on broad statistics such as these. There have been fluctuations, and fluctuations are occurring now.
However, the statistics may help to explain why there are so many differing views about whether there is a crisis and, if so, how best to tackle it. It is not really for the government to form a view on these matters. What is surely beyond doubt is that racing, like any other industry, is having to come to terms with the present economic recession. Racing cannot expect to be immune from the economic climate. It must look closely at its own operations to see how efficiency can be improved and new revenue generated. The extent to which it is successful will determine how well racing survives the recession.
Racing has many sources of income, most of which are outside the statutory arrangements to which I shall shortly refer. For example, racecourses benefit from gate receipts, from on-course catering and from commercial sponsorship. There may well be scope for generating greater income from sponsorship and by using racecourse facilities for conferences and other leisure purposes. As the noble Viscount, Lord Head, pointed out, most racecourses operate for very few days each year. Betting also produces substantial income by way of payment for its coverage of horseracing, race sponsorship and admission fees. It is estimated that in those ways bookmakers contributed over £13 million to racing in 1989–90.
However, the main method by which betting contributes to horseracing is via the levy. The levy is expected to produce some £38.5 million in the current financial year which, compared with 10 years ago, is more than would have been required just to keep pace with inflation.

379
The amount raised by the levy is not primarily a matter for the government. It is a matter for negotiation between the bookmakers and the levy board. Only if the board cannot agree on a scheme is the Home Secretary required to make a determination. Distribution of the money raised by the levy is entirely a matter for the levy board in accordance with its statutory duties.
It has been suggested that one of the ways of easing the financial difficulties faced by racing is for the bookmakers to pay a "fairer price" for the service they receive from racing; in other words, that the levy should be increased. That is a matter which should be negotiated between bookmakers and the levy board, with the Home Secretary intervening only if they cannot agree. This year's scheme and the one beginning in April were agreed without such intervention and so, one might assume, represented some sort of agreement that a fair price had been struck.
However, let us ponder for a moment how a fairer price might be established. It is very difficult to define or quantify the proportion of racing which the levy can be said to buy. The present arrangements seek to strike a balance between the needs of racing and the capacity of the bookmakers to pay. It has never been the intention that all or even a major part of racing's income should come from the levy.
Some might say that the bookmakers can afford to pay more. That is not a judgment for the government, other than in the context of a disputed scheme; but it is wrong to assume that a major part of total off-course betting turnover of about £4,300 million is available for return to racing. Bookmakers have to meet all their liabilities from that turnover including winnings, running costs, general betting duty and the levy.
I intend to quote only once this evening, from the Royal Commission on gambling of the late 1970s, which stated:
"As Jane Austen might have said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that bookmakers make too much money".
That same Royal Commission looked at bookmakers' profits but concluded that they were not excessive. A more recent study by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was told that net profits were about 3 per cent. of turnover. That is an average figure. Noble Lords will no doubt have their own views on whether it is accurate, and many of those views have been stated today. However, we have no evidence at present to suggest that it is wildly inaccurate. If so, that 3 per cent. figure perhaps provides a better measure against which to compare average levy liability of just under 1 per cent.
Finally, any assessment of a fair price must take into account the interests of the punter. It is, of course, the bookmaker who must pay the levy but, as in any business, all his costs have to be met by his customers. Any substantial increase in the levy may well increase the price of betting and adversely affect the industry's long-term interests.
380
It is not for the government to come to any conclusions on these matters. I mention them to illustrate that there is no obvious means of achieving a fairer price than that which is already achieved under the present arrangements. It is for racing to make its case and to negotiate with the bookmakers. I know that the new chairman of the levy board, Sir John Sparrow, is keen to see a more open exchange of information between racing and bookmaking so that, when the annual scheme is considered, there is a better understanding on both sides of what is fair and what is possible. He will also be seeking to move towards agreements covering a number of years rather than just one in order to make planning easier and to reduce uncertainty.
A number of your Lordships mentioned the return from betting to racing in other countries. I fully accept that there are higher levels of return in other countries. However, it is very difficult to make any meaningful comparisons between the figures because the structure of betting is quite different from what we have here. Many of the countries mentioned today operate a monopolistic system of betting which is contrary to the traditions of this country. There can be no question of our going down that road. In this country, the levy is the primary means for negotiating the return which betting makes to racing.
So far as the Government are aware, the principle of a statutory levy continues to enjoy the support of racing and bookmaking. It provides statutory backing for what is basically a voluntary agreement. We have no present plans for legislation to change the levy arrangements but a detailed inquiry into the levy is now under way by the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place. The Government look forward to its report and will naturally give very careful consideration to any proposals which it makes.
What of the tote? Surely it can be the means of salvation for racing. Ever since it was announced in September 1988 that Lloyds Merchant Bank was to undertake a study on the feasibility of privatising the tote those concerned in or on behalf of racing have sought, understandably, to identify ways that this could be used for the benefit of racing. It may therefore be helpful if I set out clearly the Government's present position on the tote.
First, I have to say with regret that I am not in a position today to announce a decision on the future of the tote. In the time-hallowed phrase, the future of the tote is under active consideration. That is the simple truth. However, whatever happens to the tote, I can be quite clear on what will not happen. There is no possibility that the tote will be transformed into a body which makes a substantially larger contribution to racing than the present organisation. In particular, it is unrealistic to think that we could go the same way as some other countries and give the tote a monopoly of all betting on horseracing, or all off-track betting, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested.
As I have already remarked, international comparisons are not useful here. Our racing and betting industries have developed in different ways from, for example, France or Hong Kong. The result

381
may be less money directly to racing but a considerably more varied system of betting which the customers have shown quite clearly that they value. There is no going back now. By all means let the tote continue to compete, or perhaps compete even more keenly, for betting revenue with other forms of betting. That is good for all concerned. The tote's recent development of "course-to-course" betting can be seen as part of that process.
I said that it is unrealistic to see the tote as the future sole provider for betting. The tote is small, though important in its contribution to racing. After all, it has only 140 shops out of an industry total of 9,600. While it has the exclusive right to run or to authorise pool betting on horse races, this is primarily a service taken up by those on course, which is a fraction of the total betting public.
Finally on the tote I should answer those who have asked why a decision on its future has been so long awaited. I mentioned earlier the various complex strands of betting and racing. The tote is small, but it is important, and it is equally important we get the solution right. There are also competition and deregulation issues involved here. Perhaps most relevant of all in the context of tonight's debate is the part that the tote plays in the present financing and future health of horseracing. To extricate and redesign the tote within that context is not as simple as it may perhaps appear on preliminary inspection. The Government have been conscious from the start of the uncertainty such a review is bound to cause, but that is not a good reason for precipitate action. The feasibility of privatisation is under consideration, but noble Lords should not expect an early announcement here.
The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, referred to his views on the distribution of money in racing between those races under National Hunt rules and the flat. He was immediately followed by my noble kinsman Lord Manton who took the opposite view as to the distribution of finance. However, I am sure that mercifully for racing the Government have no part in this great debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to his ability in his youth to run the school betting service —a service which, I have to say remorsefully, was not present at the educational establishment I attended.
The noble Lord, Lord Vestey, drew your Lordships' attention to the integrity, quality and professionalism of the running of British racing; an example not only for this country but for the world. He also referred to the adverse effects of proposed development in Cambridgeshire. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, that I will bring that matter to the attention of my noble friend in the Department of the Environment.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, referred, quite rightly, to sport. I too believe that the age of the Corinthian Casual is important for the preservation of Englishness itself and that amateurism is an ideal which, when lost, will destroy sport itself.
382
My noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to the fact that racing should itself look at ways of generating additional income. I am sure we all agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, referred to an industry which should care about its customers. I am sure that no noble Lord disagrees with that.
The noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Peston, and certain other noble Lords, referred to a national lottery. I think it fair to say that those who feel their hand would be outstretched to participate in such an undertaking would be in a rather similar position to those under an English scrum at Twickenham.
Noble Lords made reference to Sunday racing and the Sunday and evening opening of betting offices. Perhaps I may approach those in reverse order. Work has been done on looking at evening opening of betting offices. I am sure noble Lords are also aware that on that issue small bookmakers and the greyhound lobby are not at all happy on certain scores. As regards the Sunday opening of betting offices and Sunday racing, which are inevitably combined if we are not to have illegal bookmaking, I remind noble Lords that a number of Private Member's Bills have been proposed but as yet have proved unsuccessful. I suspect that a successful conclusion of that issue would provide the answer for which noble Lords are searching.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the Jockey Club's right to copyright. In a way, that is probably a question for the Jockey Club. However, I took advice of a legal nature and am reliably informed that the Jockey Club do own the copyright. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also made an important contribution to this evening's debate, being the first noble Lord to draw attention to the artistic contribution created, if I may say so, from Stubbs to Sartorius—probably in reverse order on their dates.
I now move to what is probably the most important part of what today's debate has been about. One need only look at the length and breadth of the speaking list to appreciate the importance of the debate. The fact that we had a remarkably unrepetitive debate shows the huge amount of work that went into making this the kind of debate to which your Lordships contribute so well. My noble friend Lord Whitelaw referred to the truest fact; what will make this debate important, is not so much the Government's response as to whether it provides a foundation. The key to any case when put to government is presentation. I should like to think that participating in today's debate has provided a classic example of how you lay the foundations for a presentation of an all-party viewpoint to government. As noble Lords have made quite clear, it is also a case that spreads way beyond the Home Office to the Treasury, my department—the Department of Trade and Industry—and even the Ministry of Agriculture. The one assurance I can give tonight is that I will ensure that every Minister in every department of state involved will receive not only a copy of the Official Report but also a letter from me at the same time pointing out the length, duration and importance of the debate in your Lordships' House today.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he be so good as to comment on the view expressed by a number of noble Lords that the economy of the country will suffer through lack of contribution to the balance of payments if we are no longer the centre of thoroughbred sales? As has been pointed out, that is due to the 15 per cent. VAT. According to some of us who spoke, that is the crux of the debate.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Renton is probably well aware, the Jockey Club recently indicated its desire to make a detailed presentation to the Treasury on the financial difficulties facing the racing industry. The Treasury responded positively, and we await the presentation by the Jockey Club.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure it will be agreed that this has been an excellent debate which does great credit to this House. I join others in commending the three remarkable maiden speeches.
Perhaps I may begin on a personal note. Referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Manton, I was aware of the cry "Come on, Steve!" very early in my childhood. My father was nicknamed Steve throughout his life after the great jockey. I was aware that Steve Donoghue had seven Derby winners long before I knew who was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I thank the Minister for his characteristically lively, if predictably cautious, response. The heart of the debate has been finance, and I think there has been majority support for some new structure to recycle money back into racing investment. There was dissent, mainly from the betting side of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is not here, but his views on racing, as on Prime Ministers, are strongly held but are ultimately minority views.
Racing is under-financed, and I think that stable staff are the most acute, direct victims of it. I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Peston said about it.
On the governance of the industry, the Jockey Club has been widely defended. I think that we are somewhat in fear of their massed ranks. I think that credit is due to the achievement of Lord Hartington's new regime. That partly reflects the representative nature of this House. They have worked hard and I think the Government should give them the legislative tools to finish any job they have to do.
I would just mention Sunday racing which I think is one among many important subjects.
On VAT, I did not quite hear the noble Minister's response to the important points made in that area, especially by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon.
Finally, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, whose contribution I thought was very valuable—a Whig view to a former professional historian—seems to assume that only the rich can own horses. I do not accept that. It is a false dichotomy between the fun of the sport and racing as an industry. Without a prosperous industry there would be no sport.
384
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

South Africa and Sanctions
8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria they will use for the removal of sanctions on South Africa.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I very much welcome the fact and indeed I am honoured that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, will make his maiden speech in the debate. When I was at Cambridge I was an avid reader of his grandfather's works. I look forward very keenly to hearing his contribution.
Let me start by making two cardinal points around which the whole of what I ask is centred. The first is that we all welcome unreservedly the statements made by the President of South Africa last year and this year. We particularly welcome the statement made on 1st February in which he announced that his government would be removing the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Land Acts. Those are the three remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We are glad that the president has shown both courage and foresight in announcing their removal. We note —as expressed by ministers of the South African Government, including the president —that one of the factors leading to this revolution in the political history of South Africa was the imposition of sanctions. Another factor was the internal pressure organised among the African majority population.
The second point that I want to emphasise is that so far it is the intention that has been announced. We await its completion by the removal of the three Acts. We hope and expect that they will be removed before long. But when they are removed the African population of South Africa will still have fewer political rights than it had when first I visited South Africa in 1950. At that time the Africans in the Cape had a limited vote in elections; the Africans throughout the country had a limited vote for the senate. So when those important legislative pillars of apartheid are removed, South Africa will still not be politically back at the stage that it had reached in 1950.
I want to emphasise yet again, as I have done so many times in this Chamber, that the removal of what is commonly known as apartheid does not mean a democratic society in South Africa. Long before the word "apartheid" was coined there was a discriminatory society in South Africa. There will still be a discriminatory society in South Africa when those Acts are removed. I ask the Government: what are the criteria that are being used and will be used? Only this weekend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have been meeting in London. They are to meet again in New Delhi at the end of April and will no doubt be preparing for the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Harare at the end of October. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will not simply read

385
a Foreign Office brief but will answer the specific points made this evening. We are entitled to know the criteria that the Government will use.
I wish to make some suggestions. In the first place it cannot be emphasised too strongly that the political situation in South Africa is paramount so far as concerns the accepted objectives of the imposition of sanctions. At the United Nations, in the Commonwealth and in the European Community it has been emphasised from the start that the object of sanctions was to produce a democratic situation in South Africa which would be irreversible. It will not be irreversible until the majority within South Africa has the, vote. That is the only final test of its irreversibility.
It is the political constitution which will determine whether or not that section of South Africa's society which comprises those forces still existing in South Africa which oppose the reforms initiated by President de Klerk is still able to turn back the tide which at the moment is flowing in the right direction. I remind noble Lords of a number of statements made on behalf of both the Government and the South African Government. I start with the statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place on 14th February 1990 that,
"There is no question of reviewing the arms embargo or associated military sanctions until there is a full democratic constitution in South Africa".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/2/90; col. 283.]
That is clear and unequivocal. Later—last July—the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, in an interview in The Star newspaper of Johannesburg, said that South Africa would be accepted back fully into the international community,
"once a new democratic constitution is in place and the remaining apartheid legislation is removed".
That again, it seems to me, is an unequivocal assertion that until the constitution is changed so that it is democratic and based upon one person one vote, the object of sanctions has not been achieved. To reinforce the views of those two members of the British Government, Gerrit Viljoen, the former head of the Afrikaner Broederbond and the chief negotiator of President de Klerk, said:
"Apartheid will only be gone when the new constitution is implemented".
That is the burden of my case.
Sporting sanctions have a special importance in South Africa. I say to politicians, "Keep off". Political interference over the readmission of South African sports to the international community could be fatal. It could be desperately counter productive. South African sporting associations are today engaged in talking to each other, forming new organisations and trying to weed out the remains of the apartheid system within the different sports. Let them get on with the job. When those associations are satisfied that their sport has become genuinely non-racial let them apply to the appropriate international organisations. Do not interfere politically!
If white countries such as Britain, Australia and New Zealand try to force the pace and start to issue invitations —the point is apposite to both rugby and cricket, the two main sports in South Africa—the
386
result will be a backlash among those of all races now trying to get rid of discrimination and prejudice and create non-racial sporting relations.
The central issue remains. Last summer it was believed that the reforms which President de Klerk had set in motion were likely to be achieved in the near future. A number of conditions that were accepted by both the government and the African organisations at that time have not yet been fulfilled. There is still a state of emergency, detention without trial and political execution. There are still exiles who have not returned. Some who did return have been arrested. There are still political prisoners in South African gaols. The Internal Security Act remains. Above all, it is the white government and the white security forces which are still in control of every form of life in South Africa. The South African parliament addressed by President de Klerk did not have a single black African in it. Nelson Mandela, now an international figure, does not have a vote. He still cannot live wherever he wishes in his own country.
I am glad that the Land Acts are to be abolished. They go back to 1913. However, that will not return the land which was stolen from the Africans to African ownership. There has to a great economic revolution as well as a political revolution. There must be a political revolution which states directly and unequivocally that every South African, whatever the colour of his or her skin, has an equal right to determine, and to participate in, the future of the society in which he or she lives. Until that becomes established in a new constitution the reforms will not be irreversible, the trend will not be irreversible, and the South African population will continue to live in a discriminatory society.
Until the society becomes democratic I strongly suggest that it is essential for the international community to maintain sanctions. As specific moves are achieved, and specific rungs of the ladder are stepped upon, it may be felt that sanctions can progressively be reduced. However, until that democratic society has been established within the constitution, sanctions will still be necessary. If we are concerned to safeguard our belief in democracy, it will be necessary to retain economic sanctions, not for punishment, nor for impoverishment, but to enforce and to reinforce political will. Sanctions have begun to do so. They cannot be removed until the process has become final.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for asking this important Question on the criteria that the Government will use for the removal of sanctions on South Africa, thereby giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I should like to thank noble Lords for the very kind welcome that I have received from all sides of the House since the day I took my seat. I realise that for the most part this kindness stems from the generosity that would be shown any newcomer. However, I like to think that a part results from the nomadic course my family has taken in your Lordships' House. My great-grandfather sat as a

387
Liberal. My grandfather sat on the Labour Benches. My father was a Conservative; and now I am a Cross-Bencher. My family has at least had the opportunity to make friends on all sides of the House.
I was brought up in Rhodesia and after independence lived for a time in Zimbabwe. Inevitably, South Africa has been part of my life since my childhood holidays. In 1966 I worked in Durban for six months and thus was given the opportunity for a close-up view of apartheid. I disliked it intensely. Little did I realise that at the same time the South African Government were taking a close look at me, and apparently disliked me with equal fervour. Soon after I left South Africa I was declared a prohibited immigrant by that country. No reason was ever given.
From that time I have closely followed events in South Africa and have been a strong supporter of the international sanctions campaign as an alternative to what looked like inevitable bloodshed between the races. During the sterile years of Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha I often despaired of the future of South Africa. When President de Klerk came to power with his talk of reform I took a cynical view of him. He has proved me totally wrong and I wish to pay tribute to the truly remarkable statesmanship that he has shown during the past year.
It is almost unbelievable how much has been achieved. I refer to the freeing of Nelson Mandela and his senior colleagues, the legalisation of the ANC, the PAC and other banned organisations, and the regular contacts between President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, the government and the ANC. Legislation has been repealed enabling hospitals to be opened to all races, and segregation outlawed in public facilities such as swimming pools and libraries.
I submit that President de Klerk has already made sufficient progress to warrant the lifting of some sanctions; possibly sporting sanctions would be the most suitable. Thereafter, I should like to see a step-by-step approach. President de Klerk has recently promised to repeal the Group Areas Act, the Land Acts, and the Population Registration Act; they are the cornerstones of apartheid. When these repeals take place more sanctions should be removed to encourage still further reform.
President de Klerk and the ANC have just reached an agreement on the release of political prisoners and the return of exiles to South Africa. When these pledges are fulfilled more sanctions should be removed. There will then remain the great issue of a new constitution and the franchise. President de Klerk has repeatedly promised that he will put any constitutional agreement to the white voters, either in an election or a referendum. It is crucial that he win that test of opinion against his Conservative opposition. It is crucial that the white voters have been encouraged to reach that stage by the progressive lifting of sanctions. It is equally crucial that some sanctions remain to help persuade white voters to back the new constitution, thus leading to the final removal of all sanctions.
388
President de Klerk has set South Africa on a new course. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, together with their European Community and Commonwealth partners, will use the raising of sanctions to assist him with this historic task.
8.22 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing the debate and for having given my noble friend Lord Acton the opportunity to deliver a fine maiden speech on this most topical issue. Apart from concurring with the content of my noble friend's speech, I am delighted to have another colleague who has spent so many years in southern Africa. After his schooling in what was then Rhodesia, my noble friend completed his education at Oxford. Later he returned to Zimbabwe as the legal adviser to the Ministry of Justice. With his experience in the legal profession, the manufacturing industry, the banking profession and currently as an historian in the United States, my noble friend is truly an all-rounder. Now that he has opened his innings in your Lordships' House, I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him on his special interest of foreign affairs.
I had hoped that after the restriction order on the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was lifted last year he would have visited South Africa to see at first hand the dramatic developments unfolding in that country. I returned this morning from a two-month visit to South Africa, where I met members of all political parties and business and trade union leaders. If ever there were any doubts on the irreversible nature of the reform programme the state president's speech made on 1st February put the record straight. It outlined his manifesto for the new South Africa.
Like my noble friend Lord Acton, I warmly welcome the proposed repeal of the last vestiges of legislative apartheid. This has laid the foundation for a multi-party conference to be convened to negotiate a constitution that will provide for a truly democratic South Africa. I sincerely believe that that is achievable in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I find it hard to accept the calls of Nelson Mandela and the ANC for the international community to remain steadfast in its stand on sanctions. Surely, as my noble friend said, now is the time to ease sanctions. Equally, I too do not support the total lifting of sanctions; I call only for their phased lifting.
With the ANC's call for a constituent assembly and an interim government I cannot help but feel that the goal-posts are being moved. So why are the ANC executives so adamant about sanctions? I put it to your Lordships that for most black people in South Africa life in the townships since 2nd February last year has steadily deteriorated. Perhaps I may repeat a few of the demographic statistics of the country in order to make my point. More than 60 per cent. of the people in South Africa are below the age of 23. In excess of 40 per cent. of the economically active population is unemployed. There is a shortage of 1.2 million housing units in urban areas, mostly among black people. The squatter problem has risen to about 7 million and overcrowding is rife. That, coupled with

389
inadequate education and healthcare, has been in part the catalyst behind the tragic escalation in violence in the townships where last year more than 3,500 black people were viciously killed. With a population growth rate of a little more than 2.3 per cent. and negative economic growth rate, that will place increasing pressure on the infrastructure in South Africa.
I believe that the greatest challenge facing the new South Africa is the enhancement of economic growth. Reducing poverty and economic disparities to tolerable levels is the priority. If the growth rate remains at 1 per cent. per year, close to the average since 1980, South Africa will on average be 23 per cent. poorer by the end of the 1990s. The easing of sanctions by the international community would have a profound effect on the creation of new jobs. I take as an example the steel industry. South Africa is one of the world's lowest cost producers and therefore is very competitive in steel production. Two of the three biggest markets in the world—that is North America and the EC—have been closed to South Africa. With access to those major markets the business can be expanded providing the much-needed extra jobs. That, together with the demise in the gold price of late, has meant that many marginal mines have had to be closed resulting in many redundancies.
Calls by the liberation movement in South Africa for an equitable redistribution of economic wealth must therefore be coupled with economic growth. All too often I hear the call for distribution through growth. That is a recipe for disaster. There must be distribution and growth. If there is no economic growth redistribution will only increase racial and other tensions without ensuring that the living standards of the whole population continue to rise.
My real fear for South Africa is that the aspirations of the so-called emancipated are far higher than any government—be it PAC, ANC or nationalist party—could possibly achieve. It is noteworthy that the South African Government are directing more of the state budget towards social services. Last year that amounted to 26 billion rand. From just over 30 per cent. of total state spending in 1985–86, the comparable figure is now 40 per cent. In addition, two development funds have been established for extra spending on social infrastructure needs. Those funds have been complemented recently by additional moneys from the business community within South Africa.
I welcome the most recent and successful visit of Her Majesty's Government's development Minister, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, to Southern Africa. Her constructive dialogue with the ANC and other political parties as well as Her Majesty's increased contribution to development aid in the region are most necessary. Obviously I welcome also the recent meeting between Chief Buthelezi and Nelson Mandela. We all hope that this will be the start of a cessation in the violence of the townships. However, I feel that those meetings must be on a regular basis and
390
there will need to be a joint commitment of all parties—not just political parties—for there to be a continued stability in the townships.
On the issue of sanctions, the release of political prisoners and the return of exiles have been quoted as preconditions to the easing of international sanctions. The recent accord between State President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela last week on activities related to armed action should expedite the release of the remaining political prisoners. It is likely that an accord on exiles will soon be reached. With the easing of sanctions, South Africa's export trade will improve considerably, thus enhancing much needed economic growth. The removal of financial sanctions, allowing South Africa to obtain foreign loans, is also integral to the growth programme.
Clearly, even if sanctions were to be lifted now, it is unlikely that international investors would invest in the country until there is stability both in the labour markets and the townships and until an economic policy is agreed clarifying the issues of nationalisation and repatriation of dividends.
Disinvestment has led to irreparable damage in South Africa. I believe that few of the companies that were forced to leave will ever return. On a rather bleak note, I believe also that should international sanctions not be eased, there is a very real risk that the extreme Right Wing may destabilise the reform programme in the country. Only last week I visited Armscor and was astounded to find that South Africa is one of the largest arms-producing nations in the world. We all know of the presence of Right Wing elements in the police force and army. I do not for one moment say that there is a risk of a military dictatorship but there is always a risk that, should the international community refuse to ease sanctions, the Right Wing may lose patience with State President de Klerk.
One of the greatest challenges facing the erstwhile liberation forces in South Africa is to transform themselves from resistance movements to effective party political machines. The debilitating effects of decades of apartheid-driven disempowerment of popular mass-based structures, such as the ANC, are only now starting to become clear. Far from being well structured and efficient political machines, the liberation movements are suffering severe structural, leadership and infrastructural shortages. That is hardly surprising.
Having said that, I am extremely optimistic about the potential of a new democratic South Africa. I am confident that a constitution agreeable to all political parties will be attained. Compromise and co-operation are needed. With a well established infrastructure, South Africa will play a vital role in the uplifting of the Southern African region.
In summary, what is needed is an all-party agreement involving trade unions and business and political organisations on the question of a post-apartheid investor code which will jointly promote economic growth. For these reasons, I fully support the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the easing of sanctions in recognition of the reform programme.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject this evening. I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Acton, on his maiden speech which was first class.
I am glad that I am speaking at this stage because the first two speakers are banned persons in the South African setting and therefore illustrate the political problems of South Africa and the reasons that it was necessary to impose sanctions. The third speaker, the noble Lord, Lord St. John, gave us the economic and social case for removing sanctions. In effect, we must balance the two sides.
I have here the Commonwealth Accord on Southern Africa. That called on the South African Government to take five specific steps: to declare that the system of apartheid will be dismantled, and specific and meaningful action be taken in fulfilment of that intent; to terminate the existing state of emergency; to release immediately and unconditionally Nelson Mandela and all others imprisoned and detained for their opposition to apartheid; to establish political freedom and specifically lift the existing ban on the African National Congress and other political parties; and to initiate, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government.
What we need to do—and I hope that the Government's criteria will be based on this—is to decide to what extent the South African Government have achieved those objectives and therefore whether it is now time to lift sanctions. It is fair to say that when the group areas Act, the population registration Act and the Land Acts have been repealed, and when the negotiations between the government and the other elected organisations—the ANC and other political organisations—have started, then the South African Government will have met those conditions.
Therefore, I suggest a programme. Nothing whatever must be done until those Acts have been repealed. However, when they are repealed, certain sanctions should be lifted. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Acton, that the first and easiest action to take is as regards the sporting links. That measure is the easiest to monitor and to use in order to influence what goes on. The conditions can be laid down that the ban on any sports links with South Africa will be based on the South African sport being non-racial. Therefore when South African sport is non-racial, a ban on it can be lifted. That would be a good first step when those Acts have been repealed. There are others, such as cultural bans; those can be easily monitored and should therefore be lifted at the same time.
The important next stage is when financial sanctions and the ban on investment are lifted. We cannot wait until South Africa is a democratic government before lifting financial sanctions. Financiers invest where they believe there is opportunity for a good return. It is easy to continue sanctions for too long. When the democratic government is elected the habit of not investing in
392
South Africa may be too strong to be changed. There is a balance to be found and one needs to find it. My own view is that we should say that when the dialogue is taking place, if the members around the negotiating table agree among themselves that we should lift those sanctions, then they should be lifted.
That is my programme: that sports and cultural sanctions should be lifted when the group areas Act, the Land Acts and the population registration Act have been repealed. The other sanctions, particularly the financial ones—the arms embargo and so forth can wait, I do not believe that there is any need to worry in that regard—should be lifted when those people taking part in the negotiations agree that it is time to do so. What is more, we should indicate that that is the programme. In other words, we state that the sporting and cultural bans will be lifted when those Acts have been repealed. We state that when we are asked to lift the financial sanctions by those negotiating the new situation in the country, we shall take steps to lift them.
I regard that as the correct programme. In the meantime, we do not need to wait for the removal of sanctions to take certain actions. The most important matter at this moment is for the Commonwealth to provide a programme of education and training which would enable the disadvantaged people in South Africa to be able, when the time comes, to take advantage of the new opportunities. That is something that the Government can emphasise at Commonwealth meetings. Unfortunately, the Government have played their cards very badly on this issue in terms of the Commonwealth, and may not have the influence that they should have in the matter. However, that ought to be attempted. I am certain that there are sufficient places of learning in all the Commonwealth countries to absorb the large number of intelligent and able black South Africans so that they are ready and able to take over when the situation arises. The situation could be dealt with in that way, keeping in reserve the arms embargo and so forth. There may well be other actions that we need to take, but we need to find the balance.
I end as I began. We need a balance. We need to indicate that as the political situation improves, we are prepared to remove some of the barriers. However, the situation must improve before we do that. We also need to show that we are willing to help in the development of South Africa so that it can play its full part in the life of the community of nations.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Acton on a splendid and well-balanced maiden speech, the more so given that an inevitably nerve-racking occasion becomes more fraught the longer it is postponed to a late and uncertain hour. It was also pleasing to hear from my noble friend Lord St. John with his extremely up-to-date—one might almost say "hot off the presses"—analysis of the situation on the ground in South Africa at this moment.
Given the lateness of the hour I shall not take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on a number of

393
points, which I should dearly like to do at some future date. However, I agree that he is correct in pointing out that apartheid to a large extent merely codified in an obsessive bureaucratic form what was already existing long-standing practice. He is right in pointing out that the Land Acts are 78 years old and persisted throughout the time of the British Empire and the much-revered General Smuts. Therefore not every ill in South Africa can be laid at the feet of the National Party.
Now to sanctions. I shall not mention sports sanctions: frankly, spectator sports are something I can take or leave. I find it difficult to put myself in the position of someone who would change his political allegiance in order to watch a rugby football match. However economic sanctions, in contrast to a voluntary boycott—to which no one could object—are a decidedly hostile form of action, falling only just short of war. From the point of view of consistent abstract principle I ask why sanctions are continuing to be applied to South Africa at this time, when so much has improved, while not being applied to the numerous other countries whose governments we disapprove of and whose current human rights position is far worse than that pertaining in South Africa.
It cannot be due to the absence of a true universal-suffrage multi-party democracy governed by the rule of law. If that were so more than half the member states of the United Nations would have sanctions applied against them. In Hong Kong we are at the moment deliberately retarding the introduction of true democracy at the insistence of the communist Chinese. It cannot be due to disparities of wealth, which are as great or greater in many African, Asian and Latin American countries. It cannot be due to the tiny degree of residual official discrimination. There is one Commonwealth country which officially discriminates against its Chinese minority and another which officially discriminates against its Indian majority.
It cannot be due to residual racial classification. Her Majesty's Government recently made it compulsory to classify oneself by race in the forthcoming census. Indeed it will be a criminal offence to list one's race incorrectly.
It cannot be due to the fact that South Africa—not recently but within the past five years or so—sent its armed forces into neighbouring countries in hot pursuit of guerrillas, sometimes killing innocent civilians in the process. After all, Israel does this the entire time, and bombs Arab villages as well on the supposition that Arab guerrillas are hiding in the villages, without falling foul of sanctions. It cannot be due to the belief that matters are remorselessly getting worse for the black population of South Africa because precisely the reverse is true.
The first time I went to South Africa was in 1965 in the course of a long journey throughout southern, central and part of east Africa. At that time the position of the black population was quite appalling. They were poor, although admittedly not quite as poor as in most neighbouring countries, badly dressed, sullen and suspicious, with good reason.
394
Wage disparities were enormous; there was grossly unequal pay for equal work, particularly in state industries; it was not so bad in private enterprises.
Apartheid penetrated into every nook and cranny of everyday life. One might be taking a walk in a large forest remote from anywhere and suddenly come across a clearing with a bench and table and a notice saying in English and Afrikaans: "Picnic place. Whites only". Needless to say, there were no corresponding picnic places for people of other races. It was a breath of fresh air to get out into Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique and Kenya where people were perhaps slightly poorer but certainly freer and much more cheerful. Yet at that time sanctions were minimal. Indeed I understand that Mr. Denis Healey was actively engaged in organising the selling of arms to South Africa.
When, somewhat hesitantly in view of my previous experience, I returned to South Africa 20 years later the situation was totally transformed. Africans were cheerful, well-dressed, affluent, self-confident, and their real standard of living had risen by leaps and bounds. A lot of apartheid had disappeared officially, and what still remained officially was largely disregarded in practice. Yet sanctions seemed to be becoming more rigorous the more things eased up, which seemed totally illogical and wrong.
The continuation of sanctions cannot be justified on the grounds that millions of people either have escaped the country, as from Afghanistan, or would like to have escaped the country, as from Eastern Europe prior to the demolition of the Berlin Wall. Although there are said to be 40,000 ANC exiles, against that there are 1.6 million black Africans who have come of their own free will to live and work in South Africa. In other words 40 times as many want to come in as want to leave. Contrast that with communist countries, with Haiti and other countries where precisely the reverse situation applies. Indeed, the figures there are probably 1,000 wanting to leave for every one who wants to enter.
Anyone who opposes double standards—and I am sure that all of your Lordships oppose them—is forced to the conclusion that continuing sanctions have no basis in abstract morality. What other reasons can there be for maintaining them? There is horse trading, there are considerations of domestic electoral advantage and considerations of trade advantage. It appears that South African coal is becoming too competitive with Australian coal for the likings of some Australians.
In the case of the United States there is an additional consideration. When I was periodically in the United States in the 1940s and the early part of the 1950s, there was far more discrimination in many American cities, including the capital city of the United States, Washington DC, than there was in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban in the latter half of the 1980s, and with far less excuse since American whites were never seriously in danger of being numerically overwhelmed as are South African whites. I believe that for Americans the maintaining of sanctions is a form of atonement for their past

395
misdeeds. South Africa plays the role of a useful sacrificial goat. I can say this, being part American myself.
I suppose that the main reason for upholding sanctions is two-fold. The first is a genuine misreading of the current situation, which is understandable in people who have not set foot in the place recently. The second is the supposition that, even if there is no moral basis for sanctions, their maintenance is effective from the purely practical point of view of securing a peaceful future for South Africa. However, such notable longstanding opponents of apartheid as Mrs. Helen Suzman, Chief Buthulezi and Mr. Gavin Reilly of Anglo-American, think quite the opposite. I suggest that their combined economic expertise is greater than that of the ANC leadership.
It is far too easily assumed—and here I think I may have to disagree with my noble friend Lord St John—that the South African economy is a crock of gold or a milch-cow to be plundered without fear of medium or long-term consequences. In fact, the South African economy faces a great many problems. With the gold price at under 370 dollars per ounce—and it looks as if it will stay there —25 per cent. of the gold mines are running at a loss. Several million people are dependent on employment in the gold mines.
In my view, although others may disagree, there are very few things that South Africa can manufacture that South East Asia cannot manufacture just as efficiently and probably more cheaply. There is a world surplus in many agricultural products, including, for instance, wine. Many of my South African friends assume that South African wine does not sell well in England because of sanctions—but one can buy South African wine almost anywhere. The point is that it is non-competitive with Australian or Chilean wine on the basis of value for money.
There is a chronic water shortage, which will become more acute as the population grows and as industrialisation proceeds. As has been touched upon by my noble friend Lord St John, there are between 1½ million and 2 million angry, relatively unskilled, relatively poor whites who are terrified of the future, who do not have internationally marketable skills which they can use in other parts of the world as the more educated whites can, and who may resort to violence. Even if they do not resort to violence, it has been said that a general strike of whites could cause South Africa far more economic damage than could a general strike of blacks. Last on my list is the massive population explosion which we all know about and with which it is very difficult to cope.
Then—getting into a rather narrower field—the word "empowerment" is much used by sociologists and others. The end of sanctions would mean more black prosperity, which would lead to more black financial muscle, which in turn would lead to more black political muscle. I think that that answers some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. As people used to say crudely in the old days, money talks. When I first went to South Africa the idea of a black consumer boycott was a joke because after
396
paying for the essentials of life the blacks had nothing left over with which effectively to boycott anything. Twenty years later it was a very different matter, when black consumer boycotts caused great hardship to many white traders and caused them to revise their political opinions.
I suggest that there are at least 10 unsuccessful multi-cultural countries in this world for every successful one. Indeed, success in this field is only remotely possible in conditions of reasonably full employment and reasonably growing expectations of prosperity. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, said, we have to cope with the revolution of rising expectations. The removal of sanctions is a prerequisite for this, although in the present conditions of world recession almost certainly that will not be enough.
Finally, I should like to put a question to the Minister. If by some misfortune—we hope it will not happen, but who can tell?—a future black or largely black government were to become an oppressive tyranny eroding human rights once again, would sanctions be reimposed by Her Majesty's Government, by the Commonwealth and by the European Community? I do not expect that I shall get a concrete answer to that, but I think it is worth asking the question all the same.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, to anyone trained, as I was, in the Cambridge history schools, Acton is a hallowed name. The best compliment I can pay to the noble Lord is to say that his speech was one which could have been expected from an Acton. I only add that I hope before very long the noble Lord will recognise the political wisdom of the greatest of the Actons —the first—who sat on these Benches.
The subject today is one of the greatest importance and topicality. My party agrees with many speakers who have spoken this evening that the time is not yet ripe for the abolition of sanctions. We have to wait until the promises have been turned into firm legislation and the legislation is being put into practice. However, we agree with the majority of tonight's speakers that when that time comes, what is required is a gradual step by step elimination of sanctions.
The changes that have to take place in South Africa will not come all at once. They will come stage by stage, and to match those stages there should be the diminution of sanctions. There are a number of reasons why that diminution of sanctions should take place, preferably—though it may not be possible—with the full agreement of all parties in South Africa. But even if that agreement cannot be reached, that step by step process must go on.
It must go on because we must recognise that President de Klerk has been extremely brave and far more successful than many of us dared hope. But he cannot yet be secure. He cannot be sure. So many disastrous reversals take place in politics, as we all know and as we have seen again and again in only the past 12 months. The process may not go ahead in the future as well as it has gone in the past. He needs to

397
be able to show results. He needs to be able to show to the no doubt wavering and uncertain members of his own party—let alone the people who have left his party and joined the parties of the extreme right—that he is achieving results which in one way or another will bring benefits to all concerned. The lifting of some sanctions on a step-by-step basis will give him reinforcement and encouragement—the reward for the courageous actions which he has undertaken. It must have been extraordinarily difficult for President de Klerk to pull his party out of the mood and the stance it has occupied and to bring about the reversal of so many of the attitudes that have bedevilled South Africa for so long.
There is another reason why I think we have to use the gradual elimination of sanctions as a tool for getting the results we all want to see in South Africa. We have only to look at the experience of the past few months in the USSR and in Eastern Europe to realise that political change and economic improvement are inevitably interlocking and that political progress will not go ahead unless it is matched by some degree of economic advance. We all know that at the moment the hoped for changes in the USSR are teetering on the brink of collapse because of failure on the economic front. The same may well be true in South Africa. If in that great country there is to be real anti-apartheid, and if there is to be anything like approaching equality of opportunity, let alone equality, there has to be economic progress and success. We have heard some figures which show the enormous demands that will be made on that economy. To raise educational standards and to give the blacks anything like the educational opportunities that they need and which the whites take for granted—that surely is a great basis of any genuine movement towards equality—will alone cost an enormous amount of money. The needed improvements in housing, social security benefits and health, will, as we all know from our own experience, run up enormous bills. If we want to obtain and to maintain political change in South Africa it has to be accompanied at the same time by economic progress. The gradual lifting of sanctions is probably the most effective way immediately in which we can play our part in the improvement of the economic position of the country.
Perhaps first and foremost the country needs trade. No great country can flourish without the opportunity to sell its goods overseas, but sanctions prohibit that. The country also needs loans for the development of new economic ventures. Finally, it needs investment. However, as other noble Lords have said, that investment will not be forthcoming unless would-be or possible investors can see the prospect of economic stability and economic progress in that country. I would claim that the case for a gradual lifting of sanctions, as we see progress on the political front taking place, is a very strong one indeed for those combined political and economic reasons. If we are to avoid a reverse on the political front there must be a strengthening on the economic front. We very much hope that the Government will do all in their power to see that those economic developments move in the right direction.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby has initiated an important debate and expressed the strong views that we know he holds on the subject. Other noble Lords who know South Africa well have also made interesting contributions to the debate. I am sure that we all appreciated the thoughtful maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, based on his experience of Southern Africa. We hope to hear from him again frequently; that is, if he can manage to get here, given that he lives well to the west of Wales.
Significant changes have taken place since we last debated the problems of South Africa in this House. They have been due to a number of factors, including the continuing and persistent pressure for reform from within the country itself, the effect of sanctions and the pressure of public opinion in the international community and, lastly, the response of a new leader, President F.W. de Klerk, to the crisis facing his country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Acton, when he was elected to succeed President Botha I did not believe that Mr. de Klerk would be the liberal and reforming leader which he has proved to be. In a short period of 12 months, the scene has changed dramatically. I believe it is right that we should join my noble friend Lord Hatch in paying a warm tribute to Mr. de Klerk for the courage and initiative that he has shown.
The release of Mr. Nelson Mandela 12 months ago after his long years of captivity was also an historic event, and the dignified and moderate way in which he has resumed his leadership of the ANC is immensely to his credit; there has been no recrimination, no malice and no talk of vengeance in his public utterances. He is a leader of the highest quality. He and President de Klerk have had meetings in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I believe that they have the qualities to achieve a solution within a reasonable period of time. The objectives of this and other governments should be to encourage and help them to complete the task.
We know that that task will not be easy because there are forces, both radical and conservative, on the extremes of the political spectrum which will conspire and fight to destroy a settlement. Those of us who have been in politics for a long time know how destructive those forces can be. The brutality of clashes between the ANC and Inkatha supported, as has been said, by the police, has shocked everyone. There is deep concern that the police may have intervened on the side of Inkatha. I hope that that is not true. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to help the House on that issue, but it would be very depressing and upsetting if there were any evidence in favour of that belief. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton, said, many thousands of blacks have died in this violence. There are also the Right-Wing paramilitary groups and the unyielding party of Mr. Andries Treurnicht. We are told that these are not too significant in size or influence, but one hesitates before dismissing them out of hand.

399
We must recognise, and sympathise with, the political difficulties facing both leaders. On the one side, Mr. Mandela's ANC, which is crucial to a settlement and which has been faithful to its cause over many years, is not well organised and is blamed—to a large extent unfairly—for a rocketing crime rate: on the other side, Mr. de Klerk is finding it hard to negotiate on the question of the release of political prisoners and the release of exiles.
One thing is clear; namely, that the future depends on a continuing mutual trust between the two leaders and also a better relationship between Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthulezi. But we must not allow these very real obstacles to cloud the progress which has been made. In their speeches noble Lords have dealt with the president's historic statement on 1st February committing himself and his party to repeal the three remaining pillars of apartheid legislation—the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and, most important of all, the Population Registration Act, the cornerstone of all statutory racial discrimination.
I was glad to note the optimistic tone of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. Like him, I think that Mr. de Klerk made a very impressive speech to the South African Parliament. He announced the release of a,
"manifesto for the new South Africa",
designed to unite the whole country behind,
"a common set of values and pursue the goals of peace, prosperity, progress and democracy".
He then added that,
"the basis of a new South Africa should be justice".
It was at that point in the proceedings that the Conservative Members of Parliament marched out of the Chamber. They did so because the effect of the scrapping of the legislation will be very far reaching. For example, it will mean the end of the special legal privilege granted to whites to own 87 per cent. of the country's farmland without threat from black purchasers.
The House knows that the world reaction to that speech was favourable. It was in fact welcomed by the African National Congress, although it believes that sanctions should remain in force until real democracy has been established in South Africa. Of course, that is the nub of my noble friend's Question. Will the repeal of the legislation be sufficient to justify the abolition of sanctions, or should they be retained until the further crucial step is taken? My noble friend was quite right to say that returning to the status quo of 1950 is not enough. I believe that President de Klerk understands that perfectly well.
As noble Lords know, that issue has been the subject of debate in a number of organisations over the past few weeks. The European Community at its meeting on 2nd February made a positive response, stating that sanctions will be removed only when reforms are formally tabled and that:
"these reforms opened the path towards the complete and irreversible abolition of apartheid and the establishment of a united, non racial and democratic South Africa".
400
The African front line states and the OAU took a much more cautious line at their meeting on 10th February, saying that sanctions should be lifted only when there is a clear mechanism to transfer power to a democratic order. The ANC took a similar decision. Finally, on Saturday last, the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers concluded that sanctions should be loosened only after the implementation of reforms, and that it was not yet the time to relax economic sanctions. We noted that this country was not represented on that committee at the time.
The scene is therefore clear: a general welcome for President de Klerk's proposals, and, as my noble friend Lord Pitt suggested, a desire to see them on the statute book before sanctions are modified or lifted and, further down the road, a refusal to concede on sanctions until a democratic system, based on one man, one vote regardless of colour or creed is clearly in the process of implementation.
I say again that I admire President de Klerk and welcome his initiatives, but I too believe that it would be a mistake to abandon sanctions at this moment. They were reviewed here in London on Saturday, and they should continue to be reviewed as matters develop in South Africa, but Mr. de Klerk himself will not be helped in his efforts if pressure for the one essential reform is seen to slacken. Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be wrong for this country to take unilateral action. We must move with our friends and allies and take particular note of the views of our Commonwealth colleagues. Later this year, the Commonwealth summit will be held in Harare, and no doubt this subject will once again top the agenda. Our policy there must be clear, reasonable and practical, and in framing that policy we must not forget that this country has been fighting for democracy for more centuries than any other country. We must hold firmly to that principle in Harare.
It is also a time for international statesmanship. Both Nelson Mandela and Mr. de Klerk need our help and encouragement. I have great admiration for Donald Woods who recently returned to South Africa after 12 years of exile. In an article in the Observer, he describes the changes which have taken place during his absence and what he calls the,
"massive sea change in white attitudes".
He takes the view that the new constitutional formula cannot be long delayed, as delay in the process harms the National Party and the ANC equally.
The following words by Mr. Woods must be taken seriously:
"The longer they take to achieve a settlement, the more their support will erode the more extreme groups, and both de Klerk and Mandela are aware of that danger".
We cannot expect to see the economic growth referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St.John of Bletso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, unless there is political stability in South Africa. In their different roles, both men deserve our constructive support, for the hope of

401
achieving a stable society in South Africa depends upon their ability to reach agreement over the next few years.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for giving us the opportunity to discuss South Africa. It is a country where a remarkable process of reform has gathered momentum since President de Klerk came to power in September 1989. I have listened to the debate with great interest. I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised, but where I fail to do so, I shall write to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that he hoped that I would depart from my brief. He can of course live in hope, but I am here to speak for the Government and I welcome the opportunity to set out briefly the Government's approach and their record on the question of sanctions.
President de Klerk began in 1989 to restore most of the conditions of normal political life. In 1990, he unbanned political parties, lifted press restrictions, ended the state of emergency and released Nelson Mandela and other prominent political prisoners. He removed the legislative basis of "petty apartheid". He and the ANC agreed on the phased release of political prisoners and return of exiles while the ANC suspended its "armed struggle". All that in little over one year.
Then this year, on 1st February, President de Klerk took another historic step forward: he announced the repeal of legislation determining land ownership and residence on racial lines. He plans also to abolish the Population Registration Act under which everyone in South Africa has been classified according to race. These steps will mean an end to statutory racial discrimination in South Africa. We hope that, with other measures, they will pave the way to early negotiations towards a constitutional settlement.
The latest agreement between the South African Government and the ANC announced in Capetown on 15th February is welcome news. It provides for a sensible implementation of the ANC's undertaking last year to suspend armed action. It recognises the ANC's right to demonstrate peacefully in support of its views. If properly implemented, the agreement will greatly facilitate progress towards negotiations.
At the same time, the South African Government announced that they had released 262 political prisoners so far and that examination of a further 760 cases was at an advanced stage. Over 2,000 exiles had already received indemnity enabling them to return to South Africa. The two sides are now closer than ever before to an agreement on the removal of all obstacles to negotiations.
Our policy towards South Africa—shared by many others, of course—has always been based on an abhorrence of apartheid. It was morally wrong; it did not work; and the sooner all traces of it are swept away, the better. So our aim has been to encourage a peaceful transition to a pluralist, non-racial, democratic and economically successful South Africa.
402
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Acton, for recalling in his exceptional maiden speech his own direct personal experience of apartheid. We are all here tonight because we agree that apartheid must go. His voice added authority to our arguments.
To this end, we have consistently maintained a policy of pressure and encouragement. We agreed to a series of international measures in the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Community. But we also used our contacts with the South African Government to persuade them to adopt reforms. We opposed all-out economic sanctions on two grounds: first, that they would impoverish the very people we wanted to help, the black community; and secondly, that they would entrench white opposition to reform.
We believe that our consistent policy has paid off. We have retained influence both with the National Party government and with the black political groups, notably the African National Congress and the Inkatha Freedom Party. I do not want to exaggerate our role, but we have been in a position to work for the good of South Africa as well as for the good of our own interests. I should say in passing that our interests in South Africa remain considerable. There are well over 300,000 British passport holders in South Africa. Our exports to South Africa increased to £1,000 million last year and our invisible earnings were also well over £1,000 million. We need to play a substantial part in encouraging the new South Africa to emerge. We hope that we are well placed to do so.
As part and parcel of this approach, our policy since President de Klerk began his remarkable reform process has been to use the lifting of sanctions as a means of encouraging further progress. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Acton, said. There is scope for the repeal of some sanctions now and thereafter there should be a step by step approach.
We lifted the voluntary measure discouraging cultural and scientific agreements in response to President de Klerk's 1990 speech. We responded to the release of Nelson Mandela a year ago by lifting the voluntary new investment ban and the voluntary Commonwealth ban on the promotion of tourism. We persuaded the European Community also to begin the process by lifting the ban on cultural and scientific agreements at the same time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I know that he is not responsible for inventing the phrase, but can he tell me what Her Majesty's Government mean by "voluntary ban"? There could be a voluntary boycott as opposed to a boycott enforced by intimidation. However, one cannot have a voluntary ban. A ban is either compulsory or it is nothing.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that the ban was voluntary in the sense that there was no legal obligation behind it. Then, in June last year, the European Council agreed at Dublin that there should be a gradual relaxation of restrictive measures in response to further progress towards reform. The European Council accordingly decided at Rome in December to lift the new investment ban it had agreed

403
in 1986. Heads of Government also agreed then to respond to further reforms by lifting the other 1986 measures. Now that President de Klerk has announced repeal of the Group Areas and Land Acts, the Community is to respond to the tabling of the repeal legislation by lifting the other two 1986 measures which cover iron and steel and gold coins.
The European Council lifted the investment ban in December to encourage further reforms. But the Community also wanted thereby to help combat unemployment and improve the economic and social situation in South Africa. Future relaxations of restrictive measures should, we think, take account of their probable effect on the South African economy. Financial and economic sanctions have, with other factors, curbed South Africa's economic growth in recent years. Lifting them is, in our view, now essential: without growth, the people of South Africa may not perceive the benefits of the transition to non-racial democracy. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has arrived hotfoot from Africa and has radiated across the Chamber the reflection of the African sun. He put his finger on the fact that there needs to be economic growth. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also reflected the view that political reform requires economic underpinning.
As Nelson Mandela recently argued, peace and stability will depend on visible social and economic progress for which foreign investment will be essential. This is why the Government are in close touch with the United States Government to explore opportunities for returning South Africa to a normal commercial and financial environment. We are also urging the Commonwealth to take account of President de Klerk's remarkable achievements by agreeing to begin lifting sanctions. Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed in 1989 at Kuala Lumpur that the Commonwealth should investigate how the international financial institutions could mobilise resources for South Africa once it has achieved clear and irreversible change. Now is the time for that study to be completed.
President de Klerk has set an irreversible reform process in motion. In our view it is no longer necessary to maintain all sanctions. It would be too late to wait until the new constitution is in place. The population is growing at nearly 1 million a year. Some 320,000 extra school places are needed each year. To deny South Africa economic growth would leave any future South African Government with an even more daunting task.
I should like to turn now to the question of sporting links with South Africa. In the Commonwealth, we stand by the Gleneagles Agreement of 1977. The organisation of sport is a matter for non-governmental bodies and for individuals. We have accordingly discouraged sporting contacts. But now some sports' governing bodies are racially integrated in South Africa. More will follow. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister wholeheartedly welcomed the Australian Prime Minister's suggestion that, where integration has been achieved and
404
recognised by international sports bodies, it no longer makes sense to apply the Gleneagles boycott. We will accordingly encourage our Commonwealth partners—and international and national sports bodies—to catch up with the remarkable progress South Africa is making. It would be absurd to continue to behave as if nothing had happened.
Sadly, the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers which met on 16th February was unable to begin lifting sanctions immediately. The Foreign Ministers put off that decision until after 30th April. They in fact went only a little further than the wait-and-see approach adopted by the Organisation of African Unity meeting in Harare on 7th February.
The UK is not a member of the Committee of Foreign Ministers. We had nonetheless hoped that the committee would adopt our approach which will benefit the black community in South Africa. We will continue to argue for early action to begin lifting Commonwealth measures, especially in trade, finance and sport. We hope for progress well before Commonwealth Heads of Government meet in Harare in October.
I wish to respond to some of the points that were raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asserted that Africans have no political rights. At present the Africans do not have the vote. However, they enjoy the right of assembly; the right to demonstrate to express their views, and the right to join or form political parties.
The noble Lord also asked what criteria we would use to determine whether democracy had arrived. The details of the new constitution and of the method of its adoption are matters for all South Africans to decide. We welcome President de Klerk's proposal of a Bill of rights which he made on 1st February. The adoption of such an instrument would be a major sign that South Africa had embraced the principles of democracy.
The details of the new constitution would be a matter for the South Africans themselves to decide through free negotiations in an open and peaceful political climate. However, we do not see how in the modern world one can have stability except where all adults have the vote. Hence we were glad to see in President de Klerk's speech of 1st February a commitment to universal adult suffrage.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, quoted from the report of the Eminent Persons Group of the Commonwealth. We welcomed the report and we are grateful for having been reminded of it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I did not quote the Eminent Persons Group but the Commonwealth accord on South Africa.
Lord Reay: My Lords, with our European Community partners we have begun to dismantle sanctions before the repeal of all the apartheid laws, but in other respects we share the emphasis placed by the noble Lord on early action on sport and on financial sanctions.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked me a very hypothetical question concerning what would happen

405
if a black government became a tyranny and whether sanctions would be reimposed. No political system is immune from change, sometimes for the worse. I could not be drawn into speaking on behalf of the whole of the Commonwealth or the European Community, as he invited me to do, particularly on such a hypothetical matter. We prefer to look forward to the very real hopes that many share for the establishment of freedom in South Africa.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked me if there was police bias in favour of Inkatha. Individual policemen may be at fault, but we do not believe that there has been any officially supported campaign. Prime responsibility for the maintenance of law and order rests with the South African Government; but all parties must play their part in helping to end violence between their supporters. With other noble Lords we welcome the ANC-Inkatha agreement of 29th January.
I can tell the noble Lord that we do not propose to abandon sanctions now. Our policy, with our European Community partners, is to promote change by gradual action. We hope that the Commonwealth will subscribe to that principle and act without waiting for the Harare meeting of heads of government. I can
406
assure the noble Lord that we shall maintain our international commitment scrupulously, and we are proud of our record.
I hope that I have said enough about the way forward on economic and financial sanctions and in the Gleneagles sphere. I have outlined our policy of a measured response. That does not mean that all sanctions will go quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, quite rightly said, there is no question of reviewing the arms embargo or associated military sanctions until there is a fully democratic constitution in South Africa.
Before I end, I should like to remind your Lordships that we have taken positive as well as restrictive measures to mitigate the effects of apartheid and to prepare the generation that we hope will inherit a post-apartheid South Africa. Our bilateral aid currently amounts to more than £8 million annually and we make a further £4 million annual contribution to the European Community programme for the black communities in South Africa. We shall continue to take a series of measured and balanced steps to contribute to a peaceful solution in South Africa.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.

  GULF SEABIRDS: RSPCA ASSISTANCE
  GULF SEABIRDS: RSPCA ASSISTANCE
  DEFENCE COMMUNICATIONS MASTS: SITE PROPOSALS
  DEFENCE COMMUNICATIONS MASTS: SITE PROPOSALS
  EC SURPLUS FOOD SCHEME
  EC SURPLUS FOOD SCHEME
  COMMUNITY CHARGE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE
  DIOCESE OF GUILDFORD (EDUCATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS) ORDER: SALES OF PROPERTY
  DIOCESE OF GUILDFORD (EDUCATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS) ORDER: SALES OF PROPERTY