Sitting of 26 February 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [ Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second lime tomorrow.

    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
    ordered,
    That the Committee on the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect the sites of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, agent or other representative.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Employment Training
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he will introduce to improve employment training.
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to increase the level of employment training; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I announced in November additional flexibilities to enable training and enterprise councils to increase the effectiveness of employment training. I am announcing today that an extra £120 million will be made available to training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in Scotland to ensure that employment training can continue to play its full part in helping unemployed people back to work.
    Mr. Thompson: That announcement does not compensate for the fact that since 1988 £1 billion has been taken out of the training bill. Is it not a national disgrace that quality training, which is one of the cornerstones of the improvements that we might expect to see in the British economy, has been greatly damaged by the fact that so much funding for training has been removed? Is the Secretary of State aware that we are going through a catastrophic time for training and that after the present crisis the British economy will be seriously damaged due to the lack of investment in training not just in the past year or two but for the past 10 years?
    Mr. Howard: One thing is absolutely clear about these additional resources. In the debate on the autumn statement, the shadow Chancellor reaffirmed that training would not be one of the two immediate priorities for a Labour Government—so what we are devoting to employment training is at least £120 million more than the Labour party would make available.
    Mr. Cryer: Can the Secretary of State explain how the sale of 51 skillcentres, accompanied by a gift from the Government of £70 million, has improved the availability of training in this country when the activity of the three insider dealers who bought most of the skillcentres has been concerned principally with sacking instructors, selling off freehold sites and selling the valuable machinery and equipment used by the skillcentres to train people? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what value this audacious taxpayers rip-off is to the people who want employment training?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman persists in making entirely unfounded allegations about the sale of skillcentres. The skillcentres were making a substantial loss. It is clear that they can now provide training much more effectively in the private sector, and that is exactly what they are doing.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it bizarre to be accused by Labour Members of underfunding employment training when that and every other major training initiative introduced by the Government has been attacked and opposed by them from the beginning? Does he agree that it would be more appropriate for them to support employment training instead of trying to supplant our training schemes by calling for the reintroduction of a training levy on employers, bearing in mind how that failed to produce the goods in years gone by?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing remotely comparable with employment training was available when Labour Members were last in office. They have consistently opposed every training initiative that we have introduced, which makes their claim to be the guardians of training entirely laughable.
    Mr. Madel: As there is a shortage of people trained in electronics and electronic engineering, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the training and enterprise councils to make training in that sector of industry a priority, especially as they now have welcome new money?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the essence of training and enterprise councils is that they should be able to tailor training programmes to local circumstances in order to equip local people with the skills that they need to fill local jobs. I am sure that, in carrying out that remit, the councils will bear in mind the needs of the sector to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £120 million that he has announced is less than a third of the amount that he is cutting from the Department of Employment budget for next year alone? Will he guarantee to save the thousands of training places at risk, the training providers who are going out of business and the training programmes that are being closed? If he will not give that guarantee, are we not justified in saying that the Government, having created unemployment, are now abandoning the unemployed?
    Mr. Howard: Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that his colleague the shadow Chancellor has made it plain that training is not one of the two priorities on which the Opposition would immediately increase spending if they were ever to form a Government? Until we get a commitment about that from the shadow Chancellor, Opposition complaints about funding are entirely unjustified.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the welcome improvement in training that he has worked out during his period of office is none the less deficient for those with special training needs, many of whose training schemes will be imperilled by the new system of organisation? Has he any word of comfort for those people?
    Mr. Howard: I announced some months ago that for the first time those with disabilities would be included in the aim group, which has a high priority in employment training. Those with disabilities now have a higher priority in training than ever before.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of job losses in the period 1 June 1990 to 1 February 1991 in (a) the Yorkshire and Humberside region and (b) for the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): During the seven months June to December 1990, it is provisionally estimated that there were 8,000 confirmed redundancies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and 62,500 in Great Britain. The estimates are based on the number of redundancies confirmed as having occurred following receipt of a notification under the Employment Protection Act 1975.
    Mr. O'Brien: Those figures show that the Government's policy of high interest rates is crippling output and investment and creating unemployment throughout the country. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region over the past few months, bankruptcies have been increasing monthly. There have been more unemployment and more redundancies than ever before, all because of the Government's high interest rates and unified business rate policies. When will the Minister's colleague the Secretary of State create facilities to increase employment and not create further unemployment?
    Mr. Forth: I am disappointed but not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should talk his region down. His region has been one of the more robust during this period of economic difficulty. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when he was elected to the House in 1983 there were 3,139 unemployed people in his constituency. The figure is now 2,261. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the fact that his constituency has seen such a dramatic fall in unemployment since he was elected. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, unemployment is down by nearly 100,000 since 1987.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of recent investment and productivity improvements, Yorkshire firms are in a much better position to take advantage of the economic upturn when it takes place than they were in the last recession 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend not find it rather sickening that Opposition Members talk about unemployment only when it is going up and not when it is coming down?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. Typically, my hon. Friend has pointed to the strength and dynamism of his region and is rightly showing a pride in the performance of his constituents and the firms in his constituency. What a contrast that is with Opposition Members.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed at present and how many people were unemployed 12 months ago.
    Mr. Howard: In January 1991 unemployment in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,888,500 compared with 1,615,800 a year earlier.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State expect unemployment to increase next year at the same rate as

    781
    during the past year? As the Government have surrendered their freedom to assist industry by reducing interest rates as a result of their membership of the exchange rate mechanism, will the Government now consider assisting employment figures in the kingdom by reducing the taxation burden on business?
    Mr. Howard: The key to the long-term performance of the United Kingdom economy is the rooting out of inflation from that economy. Our membership of the ERM has an important part to play in reinforcing anti-inflationary disciplines. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that unemployment in his constituency, which was 4,206 at the last election, is now down by nearly 1,000 to 3,306.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment would be considerably higher if it were not for tourism, for which he has departmental responsibility? In view of the growth in tourism since 1979 and the present crisis, will he look sympathetically at the possibility of increasing the British Tourist Authority's budget so that unemployment figures do not rise in that growth sector?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tourist industry, which has made a conspicuous contribution to the reduction in unemployment that we have seen in recent years. My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism is making an announcement today which will enable the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board to make more funds available for an advertising campaign which will help them to ensure that the industry continues to play an important part in reducing unemployment in Britain.
    Mr. Leighton: Is not the present explosion in unemployment the final proof of the Government's failure? Is it not true that in each of the 11 years the Government have been in office unemployment has been higher than it was under Labour? As the economy requires at least 2 per cent. growth to remain stable, and as unemployment is a lagging indicator, is it not true that unemployment will rise for as far ahead as we can see? 'Will the Secretary of State have the grace to admit in plain English that that is a major failure on the part of the Government?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is making comparisons between what has happened under this Government and what happened under the Labour Government, he should give credit for the fact that there are some 2 million more jobs in Britain now than there were in 1979, that we have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe, and that more than half the people who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils are now operational.
    Mr. Howard: Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in
    782
    England and Wales are now in place, with 51 fully operational. By the summer, the full network will be up and running—a full two years ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Stevens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the enterprise function of the TECs is of great importance and will aid the creation and survival of many small firms in future? But does not he find it regrettable that the Opposition are silent on the TECs' enterprise role?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. The TECs' enterprise role is crucial. They attach enormous importance to it. All we hear from the Opposition is that they attach importance to the enterprise role of local authorities.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the introduction of the TECs in the northern region many schemes have been cut by between 40 and 50 per cent. and some schemes have had to finish? Is it not a disgrace that many of the trainees who have been made redundant and are now on the scrapheap are the less able ones? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?
    Mr. Howard: Trainees have not been put on the scrap heap and the hon. Gentleman should not make allegations of that sort. The interests of trainees are being safeguarded and alternative arrangements made when it is necessary for providers to cease operating. Training and enterprise councils ensure that effective training is provided, which sometimes means that existing providers are no longer able to carry on.

    Training Credits
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of the training credit pilots.
    Mr. Howard: I was delighted to present the first training credits to young people in Suffolk on 14 February. In the coming months some 45,000 young school leavers throughout the pilot areas will have the opportunity to use training credits to obtain approved training of their choice.
    Mr. Mitchell: Are not training credits an innovative and extremely individual approach towards training and very welcome because of that? Do they not mark an enormous contrast with the tired and outdated policies rewrapped by the Labour party which depend, as ever, on compulsion and coercion?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party has learnt nothing. Its reaction is always the same—reach for a quango, impose a new tax and introduce a dose of compulsion.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister not realise that training credit money is coming out of other money for training, which has been so savagely cut that many people—certainly those served by the Durham TEC—will lose any chance of training and that the opportunity to link training with employers is diminishing due to rising unemployment? In areas such as north-west Durham the position is critical. It is estimated that the cuts will mean up to 1,000 more people unemployed by the end of March.

    783
    Can the Minister tell us how the additional money that he has announced today will save the opportunities for those people to continue in training?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong about the funding of training credits, which included a substantial element of new money. I am sure that she will find that the additional £120 million that I announced today will go a long way towards increasing the resources that the Durham training and enterprise council will have available to meet the training needs of the county.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall how the Labour party objected when the Government introduced the requirement for young people to report for training if they wished to claim income support—in other words, income support was to be reduced if they did not train? Is he therefore disturbed by the present proposals that the youth training scheme should be abolished?
    Mr. Howard: I never know quite what to make of the various suggestions that come from the Labour party about their proposals. Yesterday a new document was produced, which represented yet another change in their proposals. It is such a moving picture that I find it quite bewildering.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of people registered at the Bermondsey unemployment benefit office for each month from January 1990 until February 1991, inclusive.
    Mr. Forth: The information requested for January 1990 to January 1991 can be obtained from the NOMIS—national on-line manpower information system—database in the House of Commons Library. February 1991 figures will be available on 14 March.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister must be too embarrassed to give the figures. Does he concede that there was a 21 per cent. increase in unemployment in the past six months in one of the four docklands constituencies, that there was a 25 per cent. increase in female unemployment, that there is one job vacancy in the local office for every 40 people unemployed and that that is the clearest evidence of the growing recession which is sweeping the south-east, let alone the rest of the country? In a part of the world where the housing service is grossly overstretched, where the health service is pushed to its limits and where the social services cannot cope, is it a sign of success when the Government now tell people that they will lose their jobs as well? Is that a successful economic record?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put that sort of interpretation upon what is happening if he so wishes, but I should have thought that it would be more realistic to point out that since he was elected in 1983 unemployment has dropped dramatically in his constituency, there are 100,000 fewer unemployed in London than in 1987 and unemployment in this country is lower than the average in the European Community, which I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman supports with great fervour. I might also mention the large number of imaginative programmes that my Department is making
    784
    available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to help them over a difficult period if they should lose their jobs. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out, more than a quarter of those who lose their jobs come off the register within the first month, more than half leave it within three months and two thirds of those who lose their jobs are off the register within six months. That is a much more positive way of looking at it.

    Perivale Skillcentre
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to replace the training undertaken at the Perivale skillcentre; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Perivale skill centre ceased to provide training in mid-1989 because there was ample alternative provision in the west London area. I am satisfied that the position is unchanged and that training is available, as required, under my Department's schemes.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the nearest skillcentre to Perivale is now in Twickenham, which is a long way from Ealing, where skill training has been provided for many years? Does he realise that there are many manufacturing jobs in Ealing, and that training is urgently required—on the spot, in Ealing?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall look into what my hon. Friend has said. West London is, however, served by ample public transport networks and there are many providers of training in the west London area. There are 11 major providers of employment training there, with 1,055 trainees contracted locally, and a further 95 with national providers. There are no fewer than 57 major providers of youth training in the area, with some 2,700 young people receiving it. That, surely, is a considerable concentration of effort in west London.

    Training
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of young people undergoing training on Government programmes in (a) 1978 and (b) 1990.
    Mr. Jackson: In 1978 there were about 6,000 young people on Government training programmes, and in November 1990 there were about 350,000.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he remind hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, that the youth training scheme introduced by the Government, which guarantees training for every 16 and 17-year-old who needs it, has been an outstanding success and has helped many young people in Norwich? Will he confirm that extra money will be available in the coming year?
    Mr. Jackson: The figures that I gave in my earlier answer speak for themselves—there has been a vast increase in youth training under the present Government. I will, however, give a few more figures. Since 1983, 2·7 million young people have benefited from YTS and YT. Currently some 350,000 are receiving training, of whom 88

    785
    per cent. then go into jobs, further education or further training. According to the latest figures, 67 per cent. of those who complete the course acquire vocational qualifications. That is a considerable achievement on the part of the Government.
    Mrs. Mahon: What advice would the Minister give Jason Hanson, a 17-year-old in my constituency who has become so desperate that he has written to the local press saying, "I have been made redundant twice and I am only 17"? The reason for those redundancies is the high interest rate imposed by the Government. Jason has tried to get on to a Government training scheme, but has been turned down because of his age; he is also unable to draw any income.
    Mr. Jackson: I am, of course, concerned about the individual case that the hon. Lady has raised, but the young man to whom she refers falls fairly within the guarantee of places on youth training that the Government offer.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many young people are still being put off youth training by Labour party propaganda? Will he take this opportunity to ensure that all young people are made well aware of what they will be missing if they do not grab the opportunity offered by this successful programme?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is quite right. We must repeatedly draw attention to the availability and advantages of YT. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the Opposition's attitude. They like to talk big about their commitment to training, but when they were in power they were useless at it, with only 6,000 on Government training programmes. No doubt it is that bad record that lies behind the continuing refusal of Opposition spokesmen to give any commitment to funding priorities for training, as compared with increases in consumption expenditure.
    Mr. Fatchett: If the new training scheme is as successful as the Minister claims, will he explain to the House why he is prepared to preside over cuts that will reduce the amount of money spent per trainee and reduce the overall budget by more than £130 million over the next two years?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government are increasing expenditure on YT in the coming year by £38 million over the plan. We are the first Government in British history to provide a guarantee of training to any young person under the age of 18 who is not in full-time education or in work. With the training credits scheme, which is now being piloted, we shall be extending those facilities to young people who are in jobs.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about trends in unemployment in Barnet since 1983.
    Mr. Forth: In June 1983 unemployment in the Barnet local authority district was 9,477; in June 1987, when my hon. Friend was elected to this House it was 9,633; but in January 1991 it was down to 7,144.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that dramatic improvement is due to the fact that, since 1983,
    786
    there has been an increase of 500,000 in the number of people in jobs in Greater London? Does he agree that that illustrates how the social market economy creates jobs? Does he further agree that minimum wage legislation would destroy all those jobs?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. I add to what my hon. Friend has rightly said by pointing out that there are now 100,000 fewer people out of work in Greater London than there were in 1987. My hon. Friend is right to point out that some of the proposals that we believe may be emanating from the Opposition Benches—although we can never he quite sure—such as a minimum wage, levies, taxes and compulsion, would all conspire to increase the level of unemployment. The Opposition would be disgraced if they admitted to that.
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current levels of unemployment and the projections of future unemployment made by economic forecasters.
    Mr. Howard: In January 1991 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,888,500. In line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not forecast the level of unemployment.
    Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State admit that unemployment is rising rapidly—particularly in the south-east, where people face the tragedy of losing their job and then losing their house, which is a terrible experience for any family? Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in this country still have not recovered from the enormous growth in unemployment in the early 1980s? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now apologise for the incompetence of his Government which has damaged the British economy and so many people's lives so badly?
    Mr. Howard: I should have thought that the hon. Lady would point out that, in her constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood, unemployment was 10,319 when she was elected in June 1983; it was 8,892 in June 1987; last month it had come down to 5,940.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in 1983, unemployment in my constituency was 16 per cent. whereas today it is 4·6 per cent. and that the number of jobs becoming available is increasing?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's experience is characteristic of what has happened to the United Kingdom economy: we have 2 million more jobs now than when Labour left office in 1979.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State agree that the £120 million announced for the unemployed is woefully inadequate when measured against the forecast of 2·5 million unemployed this year—the fastest rising unemployment rate in Europe—and a cut of £360 million in the ET budget? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to introduce a temporary work programme for the unemployed?
    Mr. Howard: It is no use Opposition spokesmen coming to the Dispatch Box and complaining about funding for training when the shadow Chancellor consistently refuses to make training one of the two

    787
    immediate priorities on which Labour would increase spending. Opposition Members should have a word with the shadow Chancellor.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Points of order take up time. I have not heard anything out of order. What is it?
    Mr. Hughes: There have been five questions about unemployment. In the answers to four of those, Ministers gave figures. Why were no figures at all given in reply to the question about inner London? Is that in order?
    Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the answers that are given.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State is now to be informed for the third time that the sector of the unemployed who need urgent help are those with special needs. He must be aware that training and enterprise councils are reducing the numbers of places for such people as a result of substantial cuts in their funding. Will he now reply to the question that was put to him from the Labour Front Bench by stating that the funds lost as a result of those cuts will be restored following the announcement that he made today?
    Mr. Howard: I repeat that, as a result of their inclusion in the aim group, people with disabilities have higher priority for employment training than they have ever had. I hope very much that the additional £120 million that I announced today will help training and enterprise councils to make more provision for those with special needs.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Many unemployed people are hopeful that they will gain places in training schemes, or will secure jobs, as a result of attendance at the very successful Government-sponsored job clubs. Those who attend these clubs testify to their success. Will the Secretary of State consider providing, in addition to the benefits that are already available, assistance with the travelling expenses of those attending interviews?
    Mr. Howard: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's request. She is quite right to draw attention to the success of job clubs. We plan to create up to 100,000 extra opportunities in job clubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme next year.

    Training
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any recent comparison of facilities available and the percentage of people trained in the United Kingdom and in Germany and France.
    Mr. Howard: I visited France last month, and Germany last year, to look at their training arrangements. Despite the differences in approach, which make accurate statistical comparisons difficult, I found general agreement that successful competition in the 1990s will depend on employers' improving significantly the level of skill in their labour force.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Britain has an annual trading deficit of £15 billion to £16 billion and that many shrewd economic observers put this down to poor training facilities and the lack of skilled people? In these circumstances, and despite the sweetener
    788
    that he has handed out today, is it not the economics of the lunatic asylum to contemplate the provision of £500 million for training over the next two years?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the funding of our training programme, I am surprised that he did not welcome the very substantial additional funds that I announced today. We have in place the right training framework to ensure that our people will have the skills they need to compete effectively in the markets of the 1990s, and there is abundant evidence that our policies are working extremely effectively.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that even more facilities for employment training would be required if we were to adopt the Labour party's policies and introduce statutory minimum wages and impose restrictions on part-time workers?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right. The policies of the Labour party would lead to a very substantial loss of jobs. Labour Members show no recognition of the fact that there is no point in talking about training if one is not prepared to have adequate differentials to reward those who acquire the skills that training makes possible.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in the United Kingdom and what were the figures for June 1979.
    Mr. Howard: The level of unemployment in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,888,500 in January 1991 compared with 1,067,500 in June 1979.
    Mr. Skinner: After more than 11 years, the Government have managed to push up their fiddled employment figures by more than 800,000. The chances are that, in the course of this year, unemployment will worsen. In the past few months, we have seen a further demonstration that it is possible to organise a war economy. Why, then, do not the Government use the same expertise to get rid of the dole queue?
    Mr. Howard: Why does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that 2 million more people are in work now than in 1979 when his party last left office? This country has more people in work than ever before and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the European Community.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if one wants to increase employment, one should not increase the cost of labour to employers? Therefore, are not proposals to impose a compulsory training tax or a statutory minimum wage fatuously inappropriate and potentially destructive?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The statutory minimum wage proposal alone would destroy 750,000 jobs and the Opposition's policies would combine to ensure that unemployment rose to record levels.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in Scotland, every time we hear an announcement that unemployment is rising we call it the Tory fiddlers' rally,

    789
    because we do not believe the figures. Just last week, there were savage cuts in training—[Interruption.]—so much so that it was like the new Secretary of State sending the bride to the wedding without her wedding dress. That is the extent of the problem that the Government have created. There is a lack of funding, to ensure that people can find jobs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the Secretary of State hear that?
    Mr. Howard: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was telling us how exceptionally well the Scottish economy is doing, and I entirely agree with him.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of working days lost because of industrial disputes in the six months to (a) December 1978 and (b) December 1990.
    Mr. Forth: There were 6 million working days lost in the six months to December 1978; in the six months to December 1990, just 300,000 days were lost. That is less than one twentieth of the 1978 figure.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend detect a link between the sharp reduction in the number of strikes and the Government's industrial relations reforms? Does he recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) called ballots an irrelevant effrontery? Do not the consequences since that time prove that his verdict is entirely wrong?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government's steady but consistent policy of reform of industrial relations has brought the trade unions into a proper relationship with their members and society at large. A vital by-product of that process is the dramatic fall in industrial strikes, which has been a major factor in attracting inward investment to this country and in increasing employment.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that, every year since 1978, the number of days lost through injury and health problems at work has vastly dominated losses in every other sphere? Why are there ministerial tantrums when the issue of industrial disputes is raised, but complacency and inaction when people are injured or die at work?
    Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should criticise the excellent work of the independent

    Textile footwear and clothing

    Paper, printing and publishing

    Notifications quoting closure as reason

    All notified redundancies

    Notifications quoting closure as reason

    All notified redundancies

    Establishments

    Employees

    Establishments

    Employees

    Establishments

    Employees

    Establishments

    Employees

    1990

    August

    18

    882

    34

    2,062

    12

    584

    25

    930

    September

    14

    867

    38

    1,640

    5

    105,

    15

    515

    October

    14

    977

    41

    2,069

    7

    176

    45

    1,555

    November

    13

    597

    45

    1,708

    11

    347

    34

    1,066

    December

    11

    1,073

    32

    1,781

    9

    574

    28

    945

    1991

    January

    16

    1,686

    31

    2,169

    10

    371

    33

    898

    Health and Safety Executive and Health and Safety Commission, which discharge fully and effectively their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They have our full support. I am sorry to see that they do not have the Opposition's support.

    Company Closures
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mill and company closures and redundancies have been notified to his Department in each of the last six months by the textile and clothing industry and the paper and board industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jackson: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, arrange for the information to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the textile and clothing and the paper and board industries are vital to many regions of this country, are essential to this country's economy, that many people are employed in them and that they have made many investments? Will he use the best expertise of his Department to ensure that other Departments of State, particularly the Treasury, realise that high interest rates are killing those industries, which are not operating on a level playing field? Those industries are essential if this country is to play its part in the future of the European Community and the world at large.
    Mr. Jackson: I agree that those industries are important. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the relevant Departments.
    Mr. Beggs: The textile and clothing and paper and board industries are of great importance to us in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister seek the co-operation of his Government colleagues to ensure that, in future GATT negotiations, as much protection as possible will be afforded to our textile and clothing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jackson: We all understand in the House that the only sure basis on which industry can succeed is to be competitive. That is why it is Government policy to phase out the protection arrangements in the textile industry, although we shall do so over a long period. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The GATT negotiations are about to resume and they will provide an opportunity to further pursue such matters.
    Following is the information:

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there can be no ceasefire in the Gulf war until all relevant United Nations resolutions have been fully implemented, prisoners of war and Kuwaiti hostages held in Iraq have been released and all Iraqi troops have laid down their arms?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately the conditions that he so succinctly set out have not yet been met. As my hon. Friend will know, Saddam Hussein spoke again this morning, but without giving any indication whatsoever that Iraq will comply with all the Security Council resolutions. Instead, this morning Saddam Hussein reiterated his untrue claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and threatened implicitly to return. He must know that meeting the Security Council resolutions is an essential step, and he must publicly and explicitly do so.
    I believe that we are now in a new situation with the beginning of the ground war. Our first concern has to be with the safety and security of our forces—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That means that we require all Iraqi forces in the theatre of operations—those occupying and those supporting the occupation of Kuwait—to abandon their weapons and equipment, and withdraw. Until they do so, they will be treated as hostile.
    Saddam Hussein started this war on his terms. He must end it on the terms set out by the United Nations.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I take this opportunity strongly to commend our forces for the bravery and professionalism that they are showing in the liberation of Kuwait? Does the Prime Minister share my view that Saddam Hussein could halt the war instantly if he were personally to announce his complete compliance with all relevant United Nations resolutions and, in addition, immediately release all the prisoners of war and civilians he is holding against their will in both Kuwait and Iraq?
    Finally, is it not clear that if Iraqi forces leave their military vehicles and lay down their arms, they will be safe from attack, our forces will know that they are also safe from attack, and all hostilities can end?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I agree with him without reservation. He will know that, even this morning, Saddam Hussein said—I shall quote him because there was an implicit threat in what he said:
    "the Gates of Constantinople were not opened before the Muslims in the first struggling attempt."
    That is the clearest threat that he will yet again return. We have a duty and an obligation to remove that threat using all necessary means.
    Dame Janet Fookes: As Saddam Hussein, like the devil, is the father of lies, would my right hon. Friend ensure that all in authority take not the slightest notice of what he says, but only of what he does?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There have been many occasions in recent months when Saddam Hussein expressly told untruths. At one stage, his Foreign Minister was negotiating on one tack while he was speaking and acting on another. We simply cannot and do not trust him.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, despite today's welcome news, there is still much hard and potentially costly work to be done before Kuwait is made secure? He is entirely right to say that the safety of our troops and the long-term security of Kuwait mean that any Iraqi troops who wish to return home may do so, but only after they have surrendered their weapons. If they do so, will he say that, once Kuwait is at last liberated, secure and free from threat, Desert Storm will end?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those are the circumstances in which Desert Storm can end. He is right to emphasise yet again the safety and security of our troops. Frankly, I do not believe that either they or world opinion would forgive us if, at this stage of the conflict, we permitted the Iraqis to withdraw with their weapons, perhaps with risk to our troops and the risk that they would return later.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have established 12 regional technology centres to aid technology transfer? Can he also confirm that under this Government, the number of science parks has increased from two to 39 with 22 more planned and that spending on civil research and development is higher, as a percentage of the gross national product, in this country than in Japan or in the United States? Does he agree that calls for the establishment of such policies, when they are already in train, merely demonstrates that those who call for them show muddle and ignorance, which dominate Labour party thinking?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot immediately imagine to what document my hon. Friend is referring. If, perchance, he is referring to the document on industrial and manufacturing matters that was released yesterday by the Labour party, he is a little unkind. There were some good ideas in that document. Unfortunately, the good ideas are already being implemented and the bad ideas are being recycled.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment who wants to do away with the poll tax or with the Minister of State for the Environment who has gone on record in the Ribble Valley by-election as saying that he wishes to keep it?
    The Prime Minister: The next Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley, who I hope will soon be on the Conservative Benches, will be here in time to hear the result of our review of the community charge.
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an industrial policy that is based on the creation of quangos, subsidies and inadequately costed tax breaks is, as the Financial Times called it this morning, a "recipe for … economic distortion"?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, but, again, I fear that he is being too charitable. He has forgotten the reinvention of the son of National Enterprise Board, an enterprise which took money away from viable businesses to pick winners which, alas, went bust.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What emphasis will the Government put on reparations from Iraq and to what extent will they be demanded? Moreover, what is the attitude of other Governments in the coalition?
    The Prime Minister: The attitude is set out in the Security Council's resolutions. All Governments in the coalition subscribe to them and that remains the position.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: This House has been powerfully united against the terrorism practised by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House is also united against the evil acts of terrorism in this country and that it supports all measures, including the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989? Will he have a word with the Leader of the Opposition to encourage him to be more robust on the issue?
    The Prime Minister: No one doubts the commitment of the whole House to deal effectively with terrorism and not to give way to it. In my judgment, the widest possible support for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act would be a welcome event and would help to that end.
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: I know that the Prime Minister is involved in many important duties. However, will he understand one thing? The real enemy is at home; the enemy is the capitalist system and the Tory Government. They are responsible for the problems of the British people.
    We have an example of a state-owned British company wishing to take over the fertiliser business, presently owned by ICI. That is blocked because of the Government's blind party dogma. If we want investment in this country, is not that unfair to workers who may lose their jobs, especially in Leith, where there is a subsidiary owned by ICI called Scottish Agricultural Industries? Is not that wrong?
    The Prime Minister: It is a rum occasion when I have to take lessons in dogma from the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: As a successful end to the hostilities in the Gulf is happily within reach, will my right hon. Friend now ensure that the allies will combat, with the same vigour and single-mindedness of purpose, the premeditated ecological vandalism perpetrated by Saddam Hussein? It places at risk the worldwide environment from acid deposition, from accelerated global warming and from desertification, and it also pollutes and poisons the waters of the Gulf.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right and he touches on an important point. The United Kingdom has already made a substantial contribution to help to deal with the pollution caused by the Iraqis in recent weeks. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. An international effort will be needed and we will be part of that.
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Battle: As it is clear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's Social Security Ministers want to continue the freeze on child benefit and that some do not, will he tell us which ones he will back? Will he pledge now to make good the four-year cut in child benefit or will people have to rely on his one-off, occasional piecemeal statements at the Dispatch Box for their basic benefits?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are occasions when we make statements on public expenditure matters such as child benefit. This is not one of them.
    Mr. Dunn: When accounts are rendered for the Gulf war, will the Prime Minister seek to obtain an explanation of the extraordinary behaviour of the Soviet Union in recent days? Will he make it plain to the Soviet Government that they can play ball either with the west or with Iraq, but not with both?
    The Prime Minister: I shall have the opportunity to discuss all those matters with Mr. Gorbachev early next week.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that hundreds of young Scots, half of them aged under 18, pass through London's night shelters every year and that research has shown that on average each of those youngsters has less than £2? Why does the Prime Minister continue to deny to the 16 and 17-year-olds among them the right to benefit? Is the fate of those youngsters who

    795
    have been thrown on to the streets and are vulnerable to drugs and prostitution a matter of complete indifference to the Prime Minister and his Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, as he knows. We have provided unprecedented training opportunities for young people of that age. There is no necessity whatsoever for any of them to be sleeping rough on the streets of London.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that just as the world recognises the strength and discipline of our armed forces, so it should recognise the strength and discipline of our economy? Is not our pound sterling as strong as Chobham armour?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. My hon. Friend will know that there has been a remarkable series of events in recent months and he will also know that sterling has remained remarkably stable despite those events.
    Mr. Hume: During his visit to Northern Ireland last week, did anyone raise with the Prime Minister the security value of fixed military checkpoints? Did anyone point out that over the past 20 years nothing of security value has been found at such checkpoints, and that they have become security risks providing targets in the form of the young soldiers and policemen who man them? Is the Prime Minister considering reviewing the use of such checkpoints?
    The Prime Minister: I discussed a raft of security matters during my meetings in Northern Ireland last week. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware that it would be unwise to discuss them.

The Gulf
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report that Iraqi troops have been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I have been asked to reply.
Last night, there was a report on Baghdad radio that Iraqi forces had been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait. In a broadcast this morning, Saddam Hussein appeared to confirm this. At the same time as this order was apparently given, however, two further Scud attacks were launched, one of which caused a large number of casualties among United States forces in Dhahran. At this time, we have no reliable information and evidence of a general Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. In many areas in southern Iraq and Kuwait, Iraqi forces are retreating, but as a result of allied military action. British and allied troops are still in contact with Iraqi forces.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, what we require now is that Saddam Hussein publicly and explicitly accepts all the Security Council resolutions. To ensure the safety and security of our forces, we require all Iraqi forces in the theatre of operations, both those occupying Kuwait and those supporting the occupation, to abandon their weapons and equipment and withdraw. Otherwise, they will continue to be treated as hostile.
Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if Saddam Hussein had, on 2 August, made the announcement that he has belatedly made today, he would have prevented loss of life and suffering among Kuwaitis, in the coalition forces, and, not least, among the people of Iraq whom he has victimised? Does he also agree that the sooner the war ends the better for everyone, and that the war can end as soon as necessary conditions have been fulfilled?
Those conditions include full and unequivocal acceptance by Saddam Hussein of all 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions.; proper supervision arrangements for the Iraqi withdrawal, with Iraqis leaving behind arms and equipment that could enable attacks to be made on coalition forces and possession of which might lead members of the coalition forces, in the interests of their own safety, to fire upon retreating Iraqis; full disclosure on the spot to coalition forces of all minefields and other defence systems that could cause loss of life to our service men and women; a clear and verifiable commitment not to launch any further Scud missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, Israel or any other neighbouring countries; release of all coalition prisoners of war and of Kuwaiti detainees, and immediate access to our prisoners of war by the International Red Cross.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the coalition war aims have not changed and remain as stated in the House last Thursday by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when he said that our objectives are
"the full and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of the legitimate Government of that
798
country and the restoration of peace and security in the region."—[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 455.]—
but that we do not intend to occupy Iraq, we do not intend to change the borders, and we do not wish the destruction of its economy?
Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to our armed forces, whose courage and professionalism have brought about this precipitate collapse of Saddam Hussein? Does he agree that, now that Saddam Hussein has been forced to abandon his hypocritical attempt to link the Kuwait issue with the Palestine issue, the path is open to deal with the Palestine issue? Does he also agree that the best way to build on what our forces have achieved is now to turn our hand to a comprehensive settlement, under United Nations auspices, of all the problems of the middle east?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the whole House will strongly support what he has said. I can confirm his first point straight away—that, if Saddam Hussein had been prepared on 2 August to fulfil the assurances that he appears to be giving now, an awful lot of pain, grief and suffering would have been avoided. In his supplementary questions the right hon. Gentleman correctly drew out the fact that, having involved Kuwait, the coalition and the world in all the pain and suffering, the terms now for Saddam Hussein's successful withdrawal from Kuwait and for the successful ending of the conflict are not the same as they would have been on 2 August if he had had the sense to accept them then.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about our armed forces. Before coming to the House, I spoke to General de la Billiere, who confirmed to me the excellent spirit and commitment with which our forces are carrying forward the campaign. I was especially struck by one of his comments, that many of the prisoners who are now being taken have not had any food for six days. He commented on their pleasure at being captured and at having some prospect of reasonable treatment in captivity, which they have certainly never had under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Could my right hon. Friend pass on to our armed forces the indebtedness of the whole House for their courage, effectiveness and efficiency over the last few weeks, without which we would not have arrived at the present relatively improved position? Now that we are looking from Kuwait to peace and security within the region, can we also look to other United Nations resolutions, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, and see to it also, now that we are ending the occupation of Kuwait, that other occupations in the region are likewise addressed?
Mr. King: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the courage and commitment of our forces and about seeking a solution for other territories. Perhaps I could now clarify the point raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about any change in the war aims. I apologise for not addressing that in my reply to him. There is no change in the war aims, and I can confirm to the House that we have no territorial ambitions. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) also addressed that point to me yesterday. I

799
should like to make it absolutely clear that we do not seek to acquire the territory of Iraq. It is a military necessity that we have to proceed through Iraq for the liberation of Kuwait. It may well be that, in the initial aftermath of this activity, we shall need to ensure the security of Kuwait in some way, but we have no long-term territorial ambitions. We seek no change in borders. I give the House that assurance.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as the Prime Minister and others have said in the House, time and again, that, if Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, the war would end and, as an order to the Iraqi troops to withdraw has now been given, it is wrong to continue the brutal savagery of warfare on both sides——
Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the absolute right to express his view.
Mr. Benn:—including air raids on Baghdad this morning? Does he agree that millions of people in the world——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House well knows, this is a place where every hon. Member has freedom of speech.
Mr. Benn: Millions of people in the world want the killing to stop now, and there is no United Nations authority for the terms which the Secretary of State announced today. Indeed, the Security Council was not even allowed to discuss the Soviet peace proposals before the American ultimatum was issued last Friday.
Mr. King: One of the tragic things about the past months of this awful conflict has been the total inability of the right hon. Gentleman to see things in any balanced way. As he knows perfectly well, the allied campaign for the liberation of Kuwait has been conducted at all times with the greatest commitment to minimising civilian casualties. He will know that, for such a degree of conflict, that has been achieved in a remarkable way. He will know, because he can see it if he looks at any of the pictures, the readiness and happiness of the Iraqi soldiers to surrender, give themselves up and have some prospect of decent treatment. He knows perfectly well that the place where the conflict, suffering, killing and murdering is taking place is not at the front line, where Iraqi forces are surrendering readily, but in Kuwait, against the defenceless citizens who have been so disgracefully treated.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: When my right hon. Friend mentions those appalling atrocities committed in Kuwait, does he also agree that it must be an aim of the United Nations forces that any Iraqi individuals or units which have been responsible for barbarous behaviour must be captured and brought to trial, or at least have their crimes thoroughly investigated, before they are allowed to return to Iraq? Will my right hon. Friend endorse that?
Mr. King: I can assure my right hon. Friend that that point is very much in the minds of the military commanders in the area. We have already warned every Iraqi by leaflets and other methods of the personal responsibility that he bears under international law. We
800
are making every effort to ensure that evidence will be collected about any atrocity or outrage committed. I can say, without disclosing any military secret or operations, that there is a major effort to ensure that those who have committed atrocities in Kuwait City have the least chance of getting away before evidence can be gathered against them.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the natural desire both inside and outside the House for an early end to hostilities should not be allowed to obscure the unsatisfactory nature of the offer to withdraw which Saddam Hussein has made? Does he further agree that, if any offer were accepted which constituted less than the full implementation of all the United Nations resolutions, the likelihood of a further outbreak of hostilities in due course would be considerable?
Mr. King: I very much agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Those who can see this in any balanced way would think it absolutely incredible, after the aggression that has been committed and the outrages and behaviour that we have seen, if we merely stood back and allowed Iraqi forces and all their equipments and armaments to pass in review order down the road so that they could regroup and possibly commit exactly the same aggression again.
Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the suffering, the torture, the rape and the murder for which Saddam Hussein and his army of occupation have been responsible, as well as the casualties that he has inflicted on Israel and the allied forces, is it not wholly unacceptable even to consider any possibility of his army of occupation, including the Republican Guard, in the Kuwaiti theatre of operations being allowed to leave before they have fully surrendered to the allies?
Mr. King: The words of my hon. Friend are, I am afraid, all too accurate about all the evidence that we have of what has been happening in Kuwait and in Kuwait City. The news that we are receiving about what has been happening to Kuwaitis at the hands of Iraqi soldiers and the Iraqi military is extremely distressing. It is for that reason that we have taken such a strong view. We have found it necessary to conduct a campaign which we did not seek. We are not now going to leave it unfinished. We will see Kuwait liberated; we will see that Kuwait stays liberated.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Although I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, will the Secretary of State assure us that, if the Security Council requests it or, from Baghdad, Saddam Hussein accepts entirely the 12 United Nations resolutions, the coalition forces will immediately give access to the international organisations which would be the most appropriate bodies to carry out the functions that will be required? For instance, the International Committee of the Red Cross is the most appropriate organisation to deal with prisoners of war. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the emphasis placed by the Government on the United Nations resolutions will continue, so that young lives and the civilian lives will not have been lost for nothing and

801
that we will soon see the United Nations Security Council sitting down to discuss a meaningful set of proposals that would result in a comprehensive middle east peace?
Mr. King: On the first point, in relation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, we will honour our obligations entirely. Right hon. and hon. Members have seen pictures of the way in which we are trying to deal humanely with prisoners. We have seen pathetic pictures on television of the gratitude clearly shown by the Iraqis for the treatment, which is not what they would have expected to get from their own punishment squads who lay behind them. We will give full access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
If Saddam Hussein wishes to see an end to the conflict, one of our requirements is that we have immediate access through the Red Cross to our prisoners of war. We want their names; we want to know who they are. We want to give reassurance to their families that they are still alive—knowledge which, sadly, is still lacking for many of them. On the further point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made our position very clear; we wish to see the conflict settled and the aggression ended, so that we may address the other serious issues that need to be addressed in the area.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the Secretary of State agree that the violent, bellicose and lying language used by President Saddam in his broadcast to the people of Iraq negates and rebuts his alleged acceptance of the Soviet peace proposals, and sows the seeds of further aggression in the Gulf? Will he convey to the relatives of the American soldiers killed in the Scud attack yesterday, at the time that President Saddam was supposed to be making peace offers, the sympathy of the people of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the heavy burden that the American forces are bearing in the Gulf?
Mr. King: On the latter point, I know that the whole House will share the feelings that the hon. Member has expressed about the tragic, unlucky accident with the Scud warhead last night and the severe suffering of the American forces. He is right to draw attention to the unreliability of Saddam Hussein. I would not dream of recommending to the House or to anybody else that they accept any speech of Saddam Hussein's at face value. From their experience of dealing with him, there are not many Iranians or many other Arabs either who would do that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason we are in a difficult position now is that Saddam Hussein lied directly to the King of Saudi Arabia and to the President of Egypt.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In paying tribute to all the allied troops and ancillary services, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that no allied lives will have been, or may be, lost in vain? In that context, can he confirm that a detailed analysis of the speech by Saddam Hussein shows that it was his clear intention to regroup and return to the battle at a future date? Will he assure the House that no settlement will allow that facility, bearing in mind the fact that the long-term hopes for peace in the region are based on him never being given that opportunity?
Mr. King: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady says. She is precisely right in her reading of that speech. We shall
802
not expose any of our forces—as she knows, many young Scots are among the British forces in the Gulf—to unnecessary risk.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, on behalf of the all-party human rights group in the House, I took evidence from witnesses from Kuwait who detailed the most horrific crimes, starting with the invasion at the beginning and apparently continuing now? Is any effort being made by our people on the spot to record those details, in conjunction possibly with the Kuwaiti authorities, so that those responsible can be brought to account at the appropriate time?
Mr. King: I do indeed know of the evidence on the occasion to which my right hon. Friend refers, and I understand that much of the evidence was extremely distressing. I assure him that there is great determination among the allies, the Kuwaiti authorities and the Kuwaiti resistance to try to ensure that any evidence that can be brought is brought and that those who may have been responsible for perpetrating those crimes are not able in the next few hours to slip away.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to early-day motion 533 entitled "The Tory Party and Saddam Hussein"? It points out that, of the 31 motions on the Order Paper critical of Saddam Hussein and what he has done to his own people and others in the region, only one motion was tabled by a Conservative.
Under those circumstances, Labour Members need no lectures about the evil of Saddam Hussein from incompetent unimaginative and hypocritical Ministers. When the war is over, will the British Government be announcing an arms embargo to the middle east to make sure that we do not create another Saddam Hussein whom our brave troops will then have to move on and disarm?
Mr. King: My understanding—I will withdraw if I have it wrong—
Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman gets most things wrong.—
Mr. King:—is that the hon. Gentleman voted against every motion in support of resolute action against Saddam Hussein. The one voice that we need to go from this House at this time to our forces engaged in the challenging task to which we have asked them to put their hand is the voice of support from us all for the importance of the work that they are doing.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take every step to ensure that first the prisoners, for whom we all feel extremely sorry, and then the whole population of Iraq, are made aware of the foul nature of the bestial crimes committed by this tyrant against their Arab brethren?
Mr. King: We have our suspicions, but in the days ahead we may well discover a good deal more—even worse than some of the things to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred. I do not want to say more now, but some of the information coming through to us is very grave indeed.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The whole House should be grateful to the service men of all the

803
nations of the coalition who have achieved the liberation of the small country of Kuwait. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we now owe it, as politicians, to those service men to ensure that we achieve a lasting peace, which must mean a fair settlement for the Iraqi people and—this is of extreme importance—include the settlement of the other outstanding United Nations resolutions concerning the region and affecting Palestine?
Mr. King: The first thing that we need to do, having asked our forces to risk their lives in this conflict, is to ensure the right outcome. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush today issued a statement about the basis on which the conflict can be settled. Nobody wants the conflict to go on for any longer than necessary, but we have a duty to our forces to see that the terms on which it is settled are fair and safe for them. As soon as we have settled this conflict, we can address other issues.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The Government's and the coalition's planning and handling of the war effort have been superb, largely due to the courage, brilliance and professionalism of our troops. Does the coalition have a plan for the immediate handling of the peace and, if so, could someone tell us what it is?
Mr. King: Considerable work is being done. If the peace to which my hon. and learned Friend refers is peace in Kuwait, that of course has very much concerned the Government of Kuwait. It will be a challenging task, and while much preparatory work has been done, there is no question but that the task has been made even more difficult by the increasing reports of damage. My hon. and learned Friend may have heard this morning one reporter who said that it is quite clear that the main activity in the last days of the Iraqi forces has been to do as much damage as they can to Kuwait and very little to conduct a proper defence.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if civilian and military lives, including the lives of young British service personnel, are to be saved, the war must be brought to an early and orderly end, with the best possible lines of communication between politicians of many countries and military commanders on the ground? In that context, can the Secretary of State say how and when the United Nations will be given direct responsibility for arranging an orderly withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, monitoring and supervising the ceasefire that will follow, and setting about the awesome agenda for bringing durable peace and stability to the region?
Mr. King: Everybody wants to see the earliest possible resolution of this conflict and an end to fighting. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out as clearly as he could, and why I have repeated, the basis on which that can be achieved. The hon. Gentleman may know that, just a few minutes ago, the President of the United States spelled out exactly the same conditions as part of the coalition agreement. The United Nations is not in Kuwait or in the theatre of operations, but we are acting under its authority. It is against that background that we have to find the earliest and safest basis on which this conflict can be ended.
804
The hon. Gentleman spoke about saving the lives of young men. We have a duty to those young men to see that we conclude this matter on a safe, sound and secure basis for the future. The biggest betrayal would be to launch these young men into the conflict and ask them to risk their lives and then to let it end in some premature or fudged way which meant that the job had not been properly done.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend mentioned the pathetic state of the Iraqi prisoners of war. Does he consider that the dignity, humanity and restraint being shown by allied troops towards those prisoners, which is in direct contrast to the way in which allied prisoners have been treated, not only is right in itself but will be an important and useful factor in winning the peace when the war is over?
Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who mentions one of the matters that may be of lasting benefit to relationships in the area. There has been much propaganda, and anyone who knows anything about the regime of Saddam Hussein over the years knows the power of state propaganda. A considerable number of his Iraqi forces now recognise for what they are the many lies that have been told about the allied forces.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State will recall that, some weeks ago, he paid tribute to the Territorial Army—in particular, the Royal Army Medical Corps, one of whose young nurses is a constituent of mine. Her mother informs me that the electricity board has said that, despite the fact that because her daughter is in the Gulf and her house is unoccupied, standing charges will still be included on her account. If that nurse remains in the Gulf for long enough, her electricity could be cut off. Surely that is a shameful way for a national utility to treat people who were the first to volunteer in response to this country's call.
Mr. King: I do not think that there is the slightest risk of such people having their electricity cut off in their absence. However, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point. The whole country has shown its support for our forces. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the reserve forces and the way in which so many of them—every one of them, I think that I am right in saying, a volunteer—have willingly gone to serve in the Gulf in support of our forces.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Hon. Members: Soames.
Mr. Speaker: Not yet.
This is a private notice question. There are 23 groups of amendments in the following Bill but, in view of the importance of the matter, I will allow three more questions from each side. I call first Mr. Soames.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In view of the great difficulties in dealing with someone as dishonest and irrational as Saddam Hussein, may I suggest that General Schwarzkopf should offer the senior Iraqi commander in the field a full instrument of unconditional surrender, appended to which should be full details of the mining and booby-trapping of Kuwait? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if that were to be accepted, it would spare a great deal of anxiety and further loss of life?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend raises serious points. There are real difficulties about the trustworthiness of Saddam Hussein and his powers to communicate with his forces. We are giving close attention to what might be the right vehicle for such communications. I shall bear in mind by hon. Friend's suggestion.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fair tone of the Secretary of State's statement, but does he agree that those who talk about trusting Saddam Hussein's words about returning to Iraq would not have many friends in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where the people are aware of a similar statement when Saddam Hussein said that he would not be invading Kuwait?
What plans are afoot for the future? People talk about the middle east settlement, but, if Saddam Hussein regroups with his forces in Iraq, what about the Gulf settlement? When the Prime Minister meets President Gorbachev next week, will he ask what terms and conditions have been reached with the Russians for the future stability of the area and for reparations to Kuwait after the ravages of the war?
Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments and will no doubt bear them in mind. The basis on which we can ensure security and stability in the area will depend on how the conflict ends, but the success of the coalition forces has given the area a much better prospect of a more stable and less aggressive approach from Iraq in future.
Mr. Tony Favell: No doubt history will show for how much the humane world has to thank Britain, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for the resolve that he has been shown in dealing with this dictator. In view of what Saddam Hussein was saying to his people last night, is it not important that he should in no way be able to show any kind of victory?
Mr. King: When Kuwait is liberated and evidence of what has been authorised in Kuwait by Saddam Hussein becomes apparent, the world will realise the force of what my hon. Friend says. The situation is not yet finalised, but we have all seen enough to know the rightness of the decision to stand firm, to work as a coalition, to seek the widest possible international support for the action and not to find some way out, some deal of some sort, some negotiation halfway through this terrible business that has lasted for all these months.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Now that you have called me and the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker, it has become the "Little and Large" show. Before 2 August last year, a number of British children were illegally abducted and taken to Kuwait, and they have remained there during the hostilities. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we shall try to identify and locate these British children as soon as possible, so that their mothers in this country will hopefully learn that they are okay and have not been damaged in any way by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
Secondly, having located the children, will the right hon. Gentleman make every possible effort to have them returned to their mothers in Britain, because they were
806
illegally abducted from the United Kingdom by Kuwaiti citizens, who had no right to take them there in the first place? Given that we have made so many sacrifices to free the people of Kuwait, the least that they can do is send back our children who have been illegally abducted.
Mr. King: Obviously I cannot comment on the detail, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Once Kuwait is liberated, there will be a chance for the normal processes of international law to reassert themselves upon such matters.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As further evidence that the so-called Iraqi pull-out may be nothing more than a cynical manoeuvre in bad faith, will my right hon. Friend take careful note of today's reports that the Iraqi army has been rounding up significant numbers of young Kuwaitis, presumably to take them as hostages or, even worse, for the sort of atrocities that my right hon. Friend hinted at? Is it not out of the question that we should discuss a ceasefire as long as such bestial actions continue?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I know that he knows the area well and will have his own sources, which tend to confirm the extremely distressing information which is coming through about that behaviour. That is why, as he rightly says, "withdrawal" is another word for regrouping in certain circumstances and is a technique and a trick that Saddam Hussein used against the Iranians to considerable effect. He took advantage of prolonging discussions on a possible ceasefire to launch a new attack and to capture thousands of Iranian prisoners of war during the Iran-Iraq war, and we shall not fall into that trap.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Secretary of State make it clear—I am sure that it was inadvertent—that Saddam Hussein did not unequivocally accept the United Nations resolutions in the speech that was broadcast this morning? Will he further make it clear, in the absence of access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to our prisoners of war who are being held by Iraq, that Saddam Hussein will be held personally responsible for their safety?
Mr. King: In case I gave any impression that I thought that Saddam Hussein had unequivocally accepted, I am glad to take this opportunity to make it clear that he did no such thing; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a pretty depressing experience trying to read Saddam Hussein's speeches and to work our what on earth they do mean, but it is quite clear that they do not mean that. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, implied within the speech is a very sinister threat indeed—to regroup and to seek to have another go.
On the wider issue, we have made our position very clear. People are individually responsible for their actions. There is a worrying and increasing roll of evidence of some of the things that have happened, and they will need to be given careful attention.

Veterans
4.8 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs with responsibility for resettlement of veterans, care and rehabilitation of disabled veterans, support for veterans' families, and related matters; and for connected purposes.
The Bill—which is supported by the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association and several other ex-service organisations—also enjoys wide support in the House, as I hope to demonstrate when I give the names of its sponsors.
I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and other organisations for their work on behalf of veterans. The Bill's purpose is to help that work by making the Government more accountable in the way in which it deals with the concerns of veterans. Currently, some 18 million veterans and their dependants are in this country; compared to those in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, only a small proportion have any special status in terms of either pension provision or specialised welfare services. Responsibility for dealing with the needs of veterans lies with 16 different Government Departments: most right-minded people would agree that that is a recipe for red tape and confusion, which indeed result from the present system.
The scope and nature of the problems caused to individuals can be illustrated by the case of Corporal Blackburn, which has been raised before in the House. Corporal Blackburn is a young soldier who was injured in service and consequently became paralysed, which necessitated long hospitalisation and confinement to a wheelchair for life. Quite apart from his disabilities, which were traumatic enough in themselves, the man had to cope almost entirely on his own with resettlement and rehabilitation. Paradoxically, there was no Ministry of Defence social worker in the military hospital to which he was confined, although such a facility was available to NHS intake patients.
Corporal Blackburn eventually managed to leave hospital, but his departure was delayed because of the problem of finding accommodation that had been suitably adapted for his severe disablement. The whole process of
808
rehabilitation involved several agencies and Government Departments, and, while that would have been difficult enough for an able-bodied person to deal with, it was much more of a problem for someone who was virtually paralysed and trying to come to terms with his condition. The corporal was single; had he been married, that might have solved some of the problems, but it would obviously have created many others.
Corporal Blackburn has spent some two and a half years trying to get his problems solved, and they are not all solved yet. That case highlights the difficulties that many people experience.
The Bill seeks to streamline the service and the support given in such a way as to minimise the stress and hardship that confront ex-service personnel and their families, particularly in cases such as that of Corporal Blackburn. It will ensure that they receive all the help with resettlement, care and rehabilitation, and all the support for their families, that is necessary. It will also co-ordinate responses, which at present are scattered and confusing.
Soon we shall have a new generation of veterans, as service people return from the Gulf—people who joined the services and, lately, have fought for the United Nations resolutions and other Gulf causes, and who carry out the tough and often bloody work that is necessary from time to time. During such conflicts, however, our support should not be confined to fine words. We must also turn our minds to setting up a system that will help such people to adjust to leading lives that are as normal as possible. So far, we have failed in that task; the Bill provides a framework within which we can remedy that failure and recognise our responsibilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Rupert Allason, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Michael Foot, Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Sir David Steel and Mr. Brian Wilson.

Veterans
  VETERANS
  Mr. George Howarth accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs with responsibility for resettlement of veterans, care and rehabilitation of disabled veterans, support for veterans' families, and related matters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
Orders of the Day
  Road Traffic Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Road Traffic Bill
    New Clause 4

      SUPPLY OF UNROADWORTHY VEHICLES ETC.
      '.—(1) Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (vehicles not to be sold in unroadworthy condition or altered so as to be unroadworthy) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3), sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) shall be omitted and for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
      "(b) it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person".
      (3) In subsection (4), after the words "that condition" there shall be inserted—
      "(a)",
      and at the end there shall be added the words "or
      (b) would involve a danger of injury to any person."
      (4) In subsection (6), paragraph (c) shall be omitted.
      (5) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
      "(6A) Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above shall not apply in relation to a person who, in the course of a trade or business—

      (a) exposes a vehicle or trailer for sale, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful, or

      (b) offers to sell a vehicle or trailer, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the offer was made was aware of that fact.".'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.15 pm
      The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
      Mr. Chope: The new clause arises out of concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. At present, the existing provisions which are designed to prevent the sale of unroadworthy vehicles do not operate satisfactorily because when confronted with the fact that a vehicle on the forecourt is unroadworthy traders often claim that they would have repaired the vehicle or warned the customer about its condition before a sale was made. That is clearly unsatisfactory, and I believe that the new clause will help to remedy that problem.
      The new clause provides that, where an unroadworthy vehicle is exposed for sale—for example, on a garage forecourt—the trader must prove that he has taken all reasonable steps to make potential purchasers aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful. One way of doing that would be for the trader to put warnings, in the form of notices, on each vehicle. However, we do not intend to prescribe exactly how that requirement should be satisfied; it will be for the courts to determine on the facts of each case.
      810
      In the case of an offer for sale, which is directed at an individual rather than at the world at large, the trader would have to prove that he has taken all reasonable steps to make that person aware of the facts. The new requirements will apply only to those who deal in vehicles in the course of a trade or business, which is where the major problem lies.
      Ms. Joan Ruddock: As with much of the Bill, Opposition Members are happy to support the Government in introducing measures that are clearly designed to help with the safety of people driving on our roads and the standard of vehicles.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      DISAPPLICATION OF RTA SECTIONS 1 to 3 FOR AUTHORISED MOTORING EVENTS
      '.After section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
      "Disapplication of sections 1 to 3 for authorised motoring events.
      13A.—(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under sections 1, 2 or 3 of this Act by virtue of driving a vehicle in a public place other than a road if he shows that he was driving in accordance with an authorisation for a motoring event given under regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (2) Regulations under this section may in particular—

      (a) prescribe the persons by whom, and limit the circumstances in which and the places in respect of which, authorisations may be given under the regulations;

      (b) specify conditions which must be incorporated in authorisations;

      (c) provide for authorisations to cease to have effect in prescribed circumstances;

      (d) provide for the procedure to be followed, the particulars to be given, and the amount of any fees to be paid, in connection with applications for authorisations;

      (e) make different provisions for different cases.".'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 72, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      '( ) Any competitor in or official of a motor sport event licensed by an appropriate body approved by the Secretary of State shall not be treated as being in a public place whilst taking part in such an event.'.
      Mr. Chope: The new clause was tabled in response to concern about the possible consequences for motor sports events of extending the scope of the bad driving offences in the Bill to public places other than roads.
      It is desirable in principle that the laws relating to dangerous driving should be extended to public places, but motor sports events give rise to several questions. Where motor sports events such as rallies take place on the road, the Road Traffic Acts do and should apply. Nothing in the Bill affects race tracks such as Silverstone or Brands Hatch, to which the Road Traffic Acts have never applied. The events with which we are concerned are time trials and similar rally stages organised in areas such as Forestry Commission land, where spectators can move freely throughout the area in which the rally is taking place. The

      811
      tracks on which the events take place are likely, in such circumstances, to come within the definition of "public place".
      No one is suggesting that it is right for rally drivers to drive irresponsibly but the manner of driving and the state of the vehicles being driven in off road events is such that they cannot properly be judged by the same criteria as driving on the public highway. It is right, therefore, that such events should be treated differently and that the provisions of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 should not apply.
      I hope that the House will accept the new clause and that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will seek to withdraw his amendment, as the present proposal goes rather wider.
      Mr. Gary Waller: I thank my hon. Friend for listening so carefully to what was said in Committee. The Royal Automobile Club and many of my hon. Friends were concerned at the risk that would have been posed to motor sports had the Bill remained unamended. We warmly appreciate the change that my hon. Friend has brought about, and I thank him for it.
      Question put and agreed to
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 12

      VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS
      '. In section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits on roads other than restricted roads), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
      "(1) An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—

      (a) the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,

      (b) the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or

      (c) the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.

      (1A) An order made by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above may—

      (a) make provision restricting the speeds that may be indicated by traffic signs or the periods during which the indications may be given, and

      (b) provide for the indications to be given only in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the order;
      but any such order must comply with regulations made under subsection (1B) below, except where the Secretary of State authorises otherwise in a particular case.

      (1B) The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the provision which may be made by orders of local authorities under subsection (1)(c) above, and any such regulations may—

      (a) prescribe the circumstances in which speed limits may be imposed by or under an order,

      (b) prescribe the speed limits which may be specified in an order, and

      (c) make transitional provision and different provision for different cases.".'.—[Mr. Chope]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 95.
      Mr. Chope: As I said in Committee, we have been considering the possibility of taking powers to enable a more flexible approach to speed limits. This new clause is intended to give mandatory force to variable speed limits that are indicated by traffic signs. It will provide both the Secretary of State and local authorities with a new, additional power to enable them to introduce variable speed limits.
      The idea arose from the Department's M25 review, and was originally recommended by the consultants as a means of improving traffic flow at peak periods. However, I believe that there may well be much wider benefits to be gained from having enforceable variable speed limits in other circumstances. It would be reasonable to enforce lower speed limits on motorways when there were adverse weather conditions or when a major accident had occurred. That would, however, require signs that complied with existing requirements—that is, with a red outer ring—and these could be introduced only when the technology had been developed and was in place.
      Another, equally important, area of application is local roads, where lower speed limits may be beneficial at certain times of the day to protect vulnerable road users, such as children or pedestrians. A good example is outside a school on a busy road, where it might be appropriate, depending on local conditions, to introduce a lower speed limit, which would apply when children were entering or leaving school. We would need to design and to implement such schemes carefully, to ensure that they operated satisfactorily and were cost-effective in reducing casualties.
      This new power would, I believe, give us the opportunity to develop a more flexible approach to speed limits, so that they might more closely reflect actual driving conditions.
      Mr. Roger King: Does this new clause relate solely to the reduction of speed limits on a variable basis, or would it enable the Secretary of State to increase speed limits?
      Mr. Chope: The new clause is drafted very widely. It is not envisaged that my right hon. and learned Friend would use the power to have speed limits higher than those that would normally apply.
      I hope that the taking of this new power will be welcomed by the public at large. It would be a very useful additional tool in the range of measures that we have for improving road safety, particularly in relation to the more vulnerable road users.
      Ms. Ruddock: There is grave anxiety among Opposition Members that the measure could be used to allow increased speed limits. I do not think that the Minister's answer was absolutely clear. My understanding of what he said is that an increase would be possible. I think the Government share our concern that higher speed leads, if not to more accidents, certainly to more severe injuries resulting from collision. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to use a measure of this kind, which could very sensibly be used to lower speed limits, to take account, say, of roadworks or of accidents, for the purpose of increasing speed limits. It would be quite inappropriate to increase speed limits by the back door.
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The Minister has mentioned the part that could be played by parents. I think that schools were mentioned. In Committee, I referred very briefly to a case in which, following an increase in the speed limit outside a school from 30 mph to 40 mph at certain times of the day, a child who stepped out from behind a tree was killed. I wonder whether road signs that specify 30 or 40 mph will cause confusion among parents. Would it not be possible to stick to 30 mph on roads outside schools?
      Mr. Chope: At present, the standard procedure is to have speed limits that apply at all hours of the day and night. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that in certain circumstances—especially when children are going to or coming from school—extra care should be exercised by drivers, and that there is a case for having a lower speed limit then than at other times of the day or night. We are including the new power in the Bill to make available the necessary flexibility.
      Mr. Fearn: At present, local authorities install flashing lights outside every school to let drivers know that they should slow down. The warning continues during the period in which the children are on their way to and from school, and seems to be quite effective. If we introduce a different system which varies the speed limit between 30 and 40 mph, it could lead to confusion.
      Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the hon.Gentleman thinks that there will be confusion. I hope that most hon. Members will consider that this important new power will increase the ability to be flexible. I am not prescribing the circumstances in which the power should be used.
      As for the question of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), the power cannot be used to override existing speed limits. We do not need primary legislation to do that. As I shall say during a later debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), the power already exists through secondary legislation to alter speed limits.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      DESIGNATION OF PRINCIPAL ROUTES
      '(1) The Metropolitan Police may apply to the Secretary of State to make regulations to designate a trunk road or a designated road as a principal route.
      (2) Before making an application to the Secretary of State the Metropolitan Police shall consult—

      (a) the London authorities through which the road passes; and

      (b) London Regional Transport.'.—[Mr. Tracey.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tracey: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments. No. 1, in clause 56, page 50, line 27, after 'it', insert
      'makes any regulations as to waiting or loading (except where these are on a priority route as designated under section 35 of this Act or are on a road designated as a Principal Route) or'.
      No. 2, in line 33, after 'it', insert
      'makes any regulations as to waiting or loading (except where these are on a priority route as designated under section 35 of this Act or are on a road designated as a Principal Route) or'.
      814
      No. 3, in clause 57, line 35, after 'vehicle', insert
      'in a road subject to waiting and loading regulations (except where these are on a road designated as a priority route under section 35 of this Act or are on a road designated as a Principal Route) or is'.
      No. 4, in line 45, after 'to', insert
      'waiting or loading or to'.
      Mr. Tracey: The new clause represents a further stage of the discussions that took place in Committee. Both sides of the Committee were in total agreement and I assume that, this afternoon, both sides of the House will agree that the question of parking enforcement—particularly on single and double yellow lines—has raised many problems in London. The London boroughs, represented by the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities, feel that enforcement is not being adequately carried out.
      The Bill makes various changes and proposes new powers of enforcement in areas covered by parking meters and residents' parking permits. As we said in Committee, Londoners are concerned about the further issue of enforcing parking restrictions on yellow lines. At present, enforcement is dealt with by the Metropolitan police and traffic wardens. It is widely accepted—not only by local authorities and Members of the House but also by many police officers, from the rank of superintendent downwards—that an inadequate job is being done.
      Police officers and those who control traffic wardens recognise that their numbers are inadequate. They enforce the law and protect the citizen in relation to matters that are certainly much graver and weightier than the infringement of parking regulations. It is to the benefit of all of us—whether we work in commerce or transport authorities or are private citizens—that parking should be controlled and enforced. We do not want people to park illegally or illicitly in our streets, preventing buses and private cars from passing freely through the streets.
      4.30 pm
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic began to say that the Government would be prepared to accept some amendments to the proposed legislation in relation to London. Following that undertaking a number of us thought that it would be sensible to seek further amendments. The new clause specifically calls for the Metropolitan police to apply to the Secretary of State for regulations allowing them to enforce parking on the main trunk roads and those which, under the Bill, will be designated as principal, or red, routes.
      We understand perfectly well that the police require the power to enforce regulations on main roads, so that they retain major powers over the movement of traffic in the capital city, but we believe, and we made it clear in Committee, that on side roads and more minor roads it makes sense for the enforcement powers of the police to be transferred to local authorities. The local authority associations have told the Government that they are prepared to take on enforcement powers across the board for parking on yellow lines and parking meters and where residents' parking permits apply.
      The new clause meets the desire of the police to retain powers on main roads, but provides the sensible solution of transferring the rest of the enforcement powers to local authorities. That would also remove the frustration felt by London borough authorities and the public's inevitable confusion. It is ridiculous that districts in our capital

      815
      should be controlled by double or single yellow lines yet we all see that those regulations are constantly not enforced, whether for good reasons or not.
      Will my hon. Friend the Minister give further consideration to the new clause, and the amendments associated with it? Will he agree to the sensible suggestion of allowing reason to prevail, so that the powers for controlling most of the capital's roads are transferred to local authorities?
      Mr. John Bowis: I support the spirit of the new clause, but shall wait to see whether its exact wording is the best way forward. I am sure that the intention behind it is right. I entirely agree on the need for the Metropolitan police to have responsibility for enforcing red routes and strategic routes. Equally, I entirely agree that something has gone sadly astray in the enforcing of other parking regulations, both permitted parking and illegal parking.
      My constituents are frustrated for two reasons—first, because cars wrongly parked outside their homes are not moved. Secondly, they become frustrated when they are penalised, because their own cars, which are perhaps illegally but not obstructively parked, are towed away. The new clause seeks to put right such inadequacies of enforcement and promote greater sensitivity among the enforcers. When I received many complaints from my constituents about the way in which parking regulations and tow-away vehicles were operated, I went out with my tow-away crew. While I was with the crew that was organised by the local police station, I saw a degree of sensitivity and understanding in the way that parking was enforced. But we soon started to receive calls asking why we had towed away vehicles from outside, for example, the doctor's surgery. The crew were immediately able to say, "That was not us. It was the team that came out, on spec, from Scotland Yard."
      That was an example of the police operating without local knowledge and causing aggravation to local residents. The new clause would put that right and would stop the nonsense that occurs when one authority enforces parking regulations on a parking bay, on a parking meter or on residents' parking places, which are next to yellow lines that are enforced by a different authority. In such circumstances, the vehicle can move from one to the other and escape whichever authority happens to be monitoring that strip of road at the time.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause, which would put some sense onto the parking regulations in London. That idea is supported by just about every London borough, and certainly by Wandsworth.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: At the moment, there are a mere 1,400 traffic wardens in London, and they will be needed to concentrate on the red routes and on the main routes. The London boroughs must be given powers to enforce yellow line and parking restrictions. I am sure that the Government will respond to that issue but, when they do, we may be left in a curious position. The London boroughs will be responsible for yellow lines, but local authorities outside London will not be responsible for parking issues. It would be sensible to include in the Bill powers to give local authorities outside London the power to handle parking.
      Dr. Ian Twinn: I agree with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), and I add my support to that given by other
      816
      hon. Friends who represent London boroughs. I have no doubt that the Minister has listened carefully. He and his officials also listened carefully in Committee and gave us some encouragement to believe that the proposals which are all-party proposals, would be seriously considered. We shall look forward to what he has to say.
      If the Bill were passed unamended, we should be in the ludicrous position of having traffic wardens to police yellow lines, the police to police moving traffic offences and local authority traffic attendants to look after parking bays. That would increase the cost of regulating traffic and parking in London, which would be foolish. The new clause would overcome that and would provide local control of parking which was sensitive to local needs but still allowed the police to keep traffic moving on our major roads.
      Careful thought must be given to what is a major road and to whether, in the future, boroughs should also be allowed to control parking on the principal red routes. In view of the way in which the boroughs operate, it may be worth while for the Government to consider adding powers to the Bill when it goes to another place to enable Ministers to make changes in the future without having to introduce primary legislation.
      There is also concern about who should police parking on the pavements in London. Perhaps the Minister could consider that issue as well as the problem of parking on cycleways. As an occasional cyclist, I find that it is a problem when cars are parked there and one has to pull out into the main carriageway. There is some confusion about who should be enforcing the cycleways.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: In principle, many people in London will see merit in the new clause. I may be the only hon. Member present who was not a member of the Committee, so I was not entirely privy to the discussions there.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: That applies to me as well.
      Mr. Spearing: Yes, that may be true of other colleagues.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) will ensure that the proposals are comprehensive and complete when he—or the Minister—replies. In principle, all London boroughs favour the proposal. However, I am not clear about some points, and it may be as well to make clear, in the few columns of Hansard that this short debate will fill, any changes in the responsibility for the funding and running of traffic wardens.
      Local authorities deal with meters and with residential parking. I know that traffic wardens are centrally organised, as a sub-organisation, by the Metropolitan police and that the Metropolitan police operate the tow-aways in some areas. That has recently been extended. It would be ridiculous to have a triple-tiered structure. Perhaps we shall hear more about cost, and about the recruitment and running of traffic wardens. Although there would be some merit in the control of and discretion given to traffic wardens being in the hands of the boroughs, the central organisation, making available the training and organising, might not be a Londonwide service under borough control.
      The hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) made a suggestion about the control of red routes. I do not want to trespass on further debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must say that there may be some merit in that. The red

      817
      routes will be controversial, as are some of the restrictions on the principal roads. Newham way in my constituency is at least a three-lane fast road in each direction. In one place, there is a fourth lane with a single yellow line. There is a doctor's surgery there, and residents have also been in the habit of parking there. They do not cause an obstruction or any change in the flow of traffic, they do not provide a hazard for most of the length, yet they are subject to raids by traffic wardens or by the police. I get letters about that. It is nonsense.
      There is one power for operating enforcement and another for the designation of a yellow line, a double yellow line or a red route. We shall discuss the designation of red routes later. Under the new clause, would the responsibility for the designation and distinction between single and double yellow lines be in the hands of the borough or of a wider authority?
      Mr. Chope: It is obvious that there is much common sense behind the contributions in this short debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the constructive way in which they addressed the issues in Committee and for the way in which they have carried forward the debate. As I said in Committee, I have considerable sympathy with the principles underlying the new clause and the associated amendments. I told the Committee that the Government were considering what provisions would be needed to allow for a wider measure of local authority responsibility for enforcing parking controls beyond those already provided for in the Bill. I also said that I had it in mind that local authority parking attendants could be responsible for enforcing almost all parking regulations within particular designated areas within controlled parking zones. I am able to tell the House that we have developed the outline of a suitable scheme and will be bringing forward Government amendments in the other place.
      The principles of the scheme are that there will be a further rationalisation of the distinction between illegal or "prohibited" parking controls and "permitted" parking controls and the arrangements for enforcing them. This further rationalisation acknowledges the strategic importance of traffic flow on main roads and the responsibilities of the local authorities to their residents.
      The fundamental underlying point is that, in London, the police are responsible for the day-to-day management of traffic flow and have specific responsibilities for security control, emergencies and ceremonial occasions. To fulfil those responsibilities, it is important that they are able to control strategic traffic flows on the main arteries and certain roads serving them. It is, therefore, proposed that illegal parking on and adjacent to those arteries will continue to attract criminal sanctions and will be enforced by the police and their traffic wardens. Off the main arteries, traffic and parking has fewer strategic implications, but raises heightened environmental and residential issues, so it is proposed that most illegal parking in those areas—except for endorsable offences—will be decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities.
      4.45 pm
      It will be for the local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport to establish "designated" parking areas in their boroughs. In those areas, most non-endorsable illegal parking offences will be decriminalised. The offences to he decriminalised will include waiting, loading, unloading and delivery prohibitions and
      818
      restrictions, parking controls at bus stops, pavement parking and breaches of the commercial vehicle overnight waiting ban. The new system of penalty charges will be applied to those breaches and they will be enforced by the local authorities, which will have extended powers to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles contravening the new controls.
      It will also be for the local authorities to propose the extent of the "designated" parking areas. The areas might begin in controlled parking zones, but they could also cover other areas. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with the proposals because there will be traffic and safety implications. He will need to be sure that local authorities are able to take on the new responsibilities and to arrange a smooth transition to avoid any major problems or disruption. He will consult the police about the proposals. When he is satisfied with them, he will make orders bringing the "designated" parking areas into force and subsequently extending them as required. In practice, there will be a link between the introduction of the new system of "permitted" parking and the designation of "designated" parking areas.
      Further consideration will be given to the way in which the former illegal parking controls are marked and signed in the "designated" parking areas. For example, yellow lines have a specific force in law under the Traffic Signs Regulations 1981, and it may be necessary for the waiting and loading prohibitions to be marked in a different colour where the offences are decriminalised.
      The police will retain overriding powers for use against parked vehicles anywhere in London where security or other policing issues are involved. They will be responsible for enforcing all parking controls on the main arteries other than those associated with "permitted" parking. Contravention of those controls will remain criminal offences. The main arteries will include priority routes and some other roads as well. The precise selection of roads will be a matter for discussion between the local authorities, the police and the Secretary of State.
      In "designated" parking areas off the main arteries, the police will continue to enforce endorsable parking offences, such as parking on a pedestrian crossing and dangerous parking, and will retain the power to deal with vehicles causing an obstruction.
      The aim of the scheme is to improve the arrangements for enforcing parking controls in London in a way which reflects the prime nature of the controls and the primary traffic interests of the police and the local authorities. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friends and, indeed, the whole House to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) will feel able to withdraw the new clause, which puts the onus on the police to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have said that, in the Government's view, the presumption should be that the police would be responsible for enforcement on main routes and that local authorities will be able to apply if they wish to take over the burden of enforcement on the other routes. Our open debate on the issue shows the value of a constructive Committee.
      Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister clarify the matters of cost and of traffic wardens? Do I take it that the cost of policing the new local authority-controlled areas will he borne by the local authorities in a manner that they can best achieve? Obviously the cost cannot be met from parking meters. Will the Metropolitan police traffic

      819
      warden service be confined to the functions of the Metropolitan police, or will that service be made available—with or without a fee—to the local authorities?
      Mr. Chope: The cost of enforcing the local authority-controlled areas will be borne by the local authorities. The local authorities have assured us that they can generate sufficient income from the penalties associated with enforcement to cover their costs. The zeal with which local authority parking attendants in Westminster carry out their responsibilities is clear. Westminster has a healthy surplus on its account.
      The traffic warden service will continue to be the responsibility of, and funded by, the Metropolitan police. I have heard no suggestion that local authorities want to use traffic wardens on a contractual basis. There is more than enough work for traffic wardens on the main routes under the control of the Metropolitan police.
      Mr. Fearn: The new clause is welcome, although I hope that we can have some clarification in another place if the new clause is withdrawn. Although the local authority and the police are involved, will the Secretary of State take the ultimate decision?
      Mr. Chope: Yes indeed—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the ultimate decision on applications.
      Ms. Ruddock: We tabled amendments in Standing Committee to give boroughs powers to enforce yellow lines. We also tabled a new clause to create permitted parking zones. Therefore, we believe that we have contributed to the constructive discussion to which the Minister has referred.
      We referred in Committee to the duplication of powers that would have to exist if the local authorities are to be responsible, as is made possible in the Bill, for the parking bays and meters, but cannot enforce the areas with yellow lines which so frequently occur between those bays.
      We also referred to the fact that decriminalisation of certain offences already occurs in the Bill, and we therefore thought that the argument that those yellow lines had to be enforced by the police did not hold up. The Minister said in response to our argument in Committee that enforcement of prohibited parking offences must, as a matter of policy, remain with the police and the traffic warden service. However, he raised our hopes when he said that he would try to find some way to bring forward controlled parking zones and the designation of special parking areas.
      We are more than delighted by the fact that the Minister seems to have listened to our pleas. The Association of London Authorities will also be delighted that at last the measure for which it has pressed for so long will, one hopes, find its way on to the statute book.
      In Committee we referred to the fact that there are considerable problems of enforcement due primarily to attitudes within the police and to the scarcity of traffic wardens. We recorded that although traffic flows had increased dramatically in the past five years, the traffic warden service had decreased by 15 per cent. We are more than aware that effective enforcement requires transfer to the local authorities, which have such vested interests in enforcement that they will do it well. The Minister said
      820
      that the authorities would propose the extent of designated areas within the control zones under their influence and I am sure that those designated areas will be extensive.
      We agree with the Minister and hope very much that there will be no proposal to reduce the present level of person power within the traffic warden service. We believe that much stricter enforcement is necessary. A reduction in numbers in the traffic warden service would have a deleterious effect on enforcement on the major routes and main arteries.
      We are cheered by the fact that the measure will make progress. We support it and we congratulate the Minister on being so co-operative. However, it has been suggested that the yellow lines should adopt another hue—I believe that purple and blue have been suggested. I hope that the Minister will not make up his mind about that. Such a change might appear to be an unnecessary concession to opinions expressed by the police and the idea that they must hold on to control of yellow lines. Perhaps it would be more helpful to maintain yellow lines for all purposes so as to give a clear message to the public that yellow lines mean that they may not park at certain times in particular areas. I urge the Minister not to have a set mind about the colour of those lines under the new arrangements.
      Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend the Minister must surely believe that he has got off to rather a good start in terms of the unanimous approval of the new clause.
      Ms. Ruddock: Not for long.
      Mr. Tracey: Well, he has it at this stage anyway.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has closely met the spirit of the new clause and the associated amendments. We will read my hon. Friend's detailed comments when we receive the Official Report tomorrow. The Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association will also examine his comments closely before the Bill moves to another place. Naturally we want to consider the details that my hon. Friend has given us today and other details that presumably we will be given in another place. Obviously, the details of the amendment to the legislation will have to be scrutinised closely.
      I am particularly interested in the definition of a main road or route that will still be controlled by the police and traffic wardens. I will also be interested to examine my hon. Friend the Minister's wording with regard to enforcement in relation to parking on footways. A number of my colleagues and I raised in Committee the serious problem of inadequate enforcement of controls on parking on footways which can be very dangerous. There is an additional anomaly in that, until now, only the police have been able properly to enforce controls on heavy vehicles parked on footways—a practice that is completely unacceptable to all citizens in London.
      I will be very interested to learn how far the Government are prepared to develop the idea of orders giving the local London authorities the power to enforce things other than yellow line parking and parking bays. My hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), also referred to boroughs enforcing rules on parking on red routes.
      We have made considerable progress today towards good reason and common sense prevailing over what was previously apparent bureaucratic intransigence. That spirit has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. I give thanks for the co-operation that we and the London

      821
      authorities have received from officials at the Department of Transport and at the Home Office as this issue also involves the police.
      I look forward to the Government's proposals being introduced in another place. In the light of all that we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      RANDOM BREATH TESTING AT ROADSIDE CHECKPOINTS
      'In subsection 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be
      inserted after subsection (2) the following subsections:—

      "(2A) The Secretary of State may make provisions, by regulations which shall be subject to approval by each House of Parliament, for roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles may be stopped by a constable in uniform under section 163 of this Act for the purpose of administering breath tests to their drivers at or near the place where such vehicles are stopped to ascertain whether any offence has been committed under section 4 or 5 of this Act.

      (2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) above shall provide for any roadside check under subsection (2A) above to be authorised in writing by a senior police officer and for the display of signs making the purpose of the check clear to road users and for the maintenance of records of the authorisation and of the location, date and time of such checks.

      (2C) Regulations under subsection (2A) shall be made by the Secretary of State for the 'Home Department in relation to England and Wales and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland.

      (2D) The Secretary of State shall consult chief officers of police and other organisations on a Code of Practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks carried out in accordance with the Regulations under subsection (2A).".'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5 Pm
      Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As hon. Members have said, we began this afternoon's debate in considerable harmony, but I fear that I am about to change the mood somewhat. However, I rise to move the Second Reading of the new clause, conscious of the fact that the majority of hon. Members support its provisions. They and I believe that introducing random breath testing should be one of our highest priorities for road safety in this country. The new clause commands all-party support.
      However, sadly for all those who are affected by the actions of drunk drivers, I fear that the new clause may not succeed. I understand that the Government have imposed a three-line Whip despite the strong support for the new clause among their own Back Benchers, and despite the many requests that a free vote should be allowed to enable hon. Members to vote according to their consciences. I can assure the House that a free vote has been granted for Labour Members. We cannot help but suspect that the Government knew that they would be defeated on a free vote.
      Tonight, hon. Members could act in concert to introduce a measure that is supported by over 70 per cent. of the population but, because of the Government's intransigence, I suspect that they will be prevented from doing so. I hope that many Conservative Members will feel
      822
      able to show the Government by their votes tonight that they are not to be bullied into rejecting this important measure.
      The list of organisations that support random breath testing is impressively long. It includes not only the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, to which I pay tribute for its persistent and excellent work in this area, but the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain, and the County Road Safety Officers Association, to name but a few.
      Public support for random breath testing has been consistently strong.
      Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Lady is making a good and telling point early in the debate. Does she know of any agency that supports the Minister's view?
      Ms. Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and confirm what I suspect he thinks—I know of no agency that supports the Government's view——
      Mr. Chope: What about the Royal Automobile Club?
      Ms. Ruddock: The Minister will have an opportunity to list his own supporters when he makes his speech.
      Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the RAC is in favour of the Government's view on this matter?
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: What about the police?
      Ms. Ruddock: I have not received any communication from the RAC to suggest that position. If the Minister has such a testimony, I am sure that he will use it in support of his own case when he makes it.
      I repeat that public support for random breath testing has been consistently strong. Over the past three years, seven surveys have shown more than 70 per cent. public support for it, including a survey conducted last November by the Government's own transport and road research laboratory. A survey last March by the Harris research centre showed that drinking and driving is among the top three offences that people felt should be given priority by the police. By contrast, fewer than 50 per cent. of the police who were interviewed thought that it deserved priority attention.
      In Committee, when we were discussing a similar amendment, the Minister suggested that random breath testing would involve too much police time and too many resources when the incidence of criminal behaviour in other areas is increasing. However, about 800 deaths a year are caused by drink driving. Surely, that number is serious enough to make this issue a priority for police resources. If those 800 drink-drive deaths were perceived as 800 murders, as they frequently are by the bereaved, surely they would be a police priority.
      Mr. Ashton: Does that figure of 800 deaths represent deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking, or drink-related accidents which, in many cases, mean that perfectly sober drivers have knocked down a drunk who was coming out of a pub and who stood in front of their car? There is a difference in those statistics. Will my hon. Friend make the statistics clear?
      Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his point, but I see from frantic signs on the Conservative Front Bench below the Gangway that another hon. Member wishes to enlighten him on that point.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not know whether it will enlighten hon. Members, but a casualty report has shown that, in 1988, there were 840 deaths where the driver or motor cycle rider had an illegal level of alcohol in his blood. The dead drunk pedestrians come on top of that.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful for the help that I am being given, but I am under no illusion that that assistance will continue.
      Like the whole House, I am deeply concerned by the fact that 800 deaths per year arise from drink-drive offences. The public understand that that should be a major priority for our police forces. I suggest that they will not understand any rejection of these provisions today, especially given the fact that on the last occasion when a similar proposal was tested in the House, on a ten-minute Bill that was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), it was supported by 165 votes to 49. Does the House really want to give an entirely contradictory message today?
      Mr. Ashton: Yes.
      Ms. Ruddock: Returning to the new clause, its purpose is to insert into the Bill a clear and straightforward procedure to enable the police to carry out random breath testing. It would authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations for roadside checks to be carried out by the police at which either all vehicles or a sample may be stopped for the purpose of administering a breath test to the driver. The new clause states that the purpose of the checkpoint must be clearly signposted and authorised in writing by a senior police officer. The proposed subsection (2D) authorises the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice for the operation of the roadside checks.
      The Minister suggested in Committee that such provisions would still require the police to suspect that a driver had been drinking before they could breath-test him. I am happy to assure the House that I have taken further expert advice and feel sure that the Minister was mistaken.
      Mr. Paul Channon: The hon. Lady mentioned sampling a moment ago. What does she mean by "sampling"? Under her new clause, would the police be entitled to stop all young people, for example, or all women or all men? How does sampling work? I had thought that random breath testing would have to involve everyone.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for posing those questions, because we are very clear in our minds about what we mean. I believe that there is a scientific definiton of "random". It has to be proved that it is truly random. Testing can be random if every passing car is stopped for the obvious reason that no-one knows into which category the driver of that vehicle may fall. Testing can also be shown to be random if, for example, every 10th vehicle is stopped because, by the same token, the person stopping that vehicle could not have anticipated whether its driver was young, old, female or black. That is random. That, indeed, is the purpose
      824
      behind this new clause. We are clear and we have checked extremely carefully with several authorities that our new clause truly offers the opportunity for random, accountable and controlled breath testing.
      The case for random testing has been made many times, and undoubtedly it will be made many times again today. I make no apology for repeating some of the arguments. It is true that there has already been a gradual reduction in the number of accidents resulting from drinking and driving. That can be attributed to several factors, including publicity campaigns and changing the public's perception. But we cannot afford to be complacent about our rate of progress. Research suggests that one in 50 drivers at any one time is over the prescribed limit.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not that one in 50 at pub closing time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, not at any one time?
      Ms. Ruddock: I shall look into that. I have taken on trust the information that I have been given. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, the information comes from an expert source. I have no reason to question it. If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is certain of his facts, I am prepared to accept that. It does not alter in any significant way the case that I make. It is obvious that a substantial number of people in Britain are prepared to say when questioned that they have driven when they believed that they were over the limit.
      Mr. Bowis: Does the hon. Lady agree that, where recent campaigns against drinking and driving have been successful, it appears that it was because the public perception that there was already a degree of random testing? When I talk to my local police they say, not that they do not want to enforce the law against drinking and driving but that they already have adequate laws to enforce. Will the hon. Lady explain what is lacking in the law that persuades her that we need to strengthen it through the measure that she proposes?
      Ms. Ruddock: I am happy to do that. I shall come to those arguments in a moment. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the public perceive that there is already a degree of random testing. He will also acknowledge that the public have become aware through reports that such testing is carried out by certain police forces but that in other areas it does not happen. Therefore, if there is any deterrent value in random testing, as I believe that there is, it is not available uniformly, even through the present system. As I shall explain in a moment, the present system is not the same as random breath testing, as proposed in the new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: I have great sympathy with the idea of random breath testing, not least because anything that can be done to stop drinking and driving must be done. But the hon. Lady implied in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that she would want directly to interfere with the operational decisions of individual police forces by compelling them to operate random breath testing on the basis that she suggests. My police force in Sussex has advised me that it has all the powers that it needs in practice to stop motorists whenever it wishes.
      5.15 pm
      Ms. Ruddock: If the measure became law, it would be apparent to police forces everywhere that the procedure was better in that it was clearer. It provides one power that could be used to establish random breath testing whereas at present, as I have promised to describe, the police rely on two powers and seek to combine them to create a type of random testing which we believe is inadequate.
      We do not suggest that police throughout the country will have to undertake testing. We seek to provide powers for them to do so. We believe that there is such tremendous public support for the measure that police forces will wish uniformly to use the new powers made available by the House.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: There is public support for hanging, but we do not have hanging.
      Ms. Ruddock: Let me continue with my argument. We are talking about what we believe are the preventable deaths of up to 800 people per year. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) does himself and the House no favours by bringing hanging into the debate.
      Lest hon. Members fail to keep figures in their minds, let me repeat that about 800 deaths and up to 22,000 injuries per annum are caused by drinking and driving.
      Mr. Ashton: How many deaths occur on the roads which are not drink-related?
      Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend asks a fair question. There are about 5,000 deaths in road accidents per year in Britain. That figure is far too high, and the deaths occur through a variety of causes. However, I remind my hon. Friend that a single cause accounts for 800 deaths and 22,000 accidents resulting in casualties. That is the subject of our debate tonight. I believe that the House treats the subject with great seriousness and that, if there is anything that we can do to reduce the figure by 15 per cent., 5 per cent. or even 0·5 per cent. we should carefully consider it.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: I have been following the hon. Lady with great care and great interest. She used the words, "if there is anything that we can do" and "if there is something that we can do". I have argued on the Floor of the House on many occasions that modern technology provides a complete solution to drinking and driving. There is something and there is anything. If the Government so chose, every motor vehicle could be required by law to be equipped with a device which made it impossible to drive it if the driver was over the prescribed limit, whatever that might be.
      Does the Labour party support that? If so, we are at one in our objective and at one on the method. New clause 2 takes an entirely vindictive approach, but we should seek a solution. The solution is available. There is a variety of methods. The technology is available. If, as my new clause suggests, we encouraged the public to be fully aware of whether they were near the limit, drinking and driving would be reduced. Experience in Australia shows that the massive reductions achieved were largely attributable to that approach.
      Sir Bernard Braine rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. One intervention at a time, please.
      Ms. Ruddock: I fear that I am in great danger of being distracted from my speech, but I am willing to give way to the Father of the House.
      Sir B. Braine: Is there not a device for overcoming the dreadful problem of deaths and injuries on the roads which is much simpler than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), whose knowledge of modern technology no one would dispute? The solution is that people must be deterred to the point where it becomes the natural thing not to get into a car when one has been drinking. Either one does not drink or one does not drive.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for their interventions. I assume that they will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They will make their own speeches which, of course, will contribute greatly to our discussions.
      Mr. John Prescott: They should vote in the Lobby with us.
      Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, hopefully they will vote in the Lobby with us tonight.
      We need to do more work to reduce the level of deaths and injuries caused by drinking and driving. Those of us who are in favour of random breath testing believe that efforts must be directed at changing the perception of drivers of the risk of being caught. In Britain that perception is still low; 42 per cent. of drivers admitting to drink-driving believe that the risk of getting caught is small. Clearly, we need to increase the deterrent as well as continue to detect offenders.
      Countries which have introduced random breath testing believe that it has been successful in heightening drivers' perception of the risk of being caught, and that it has made a major contribution to reducing the number of deaths and accidents on the road. I acknowledge that overseas comparisons are difficult because of different systems, legal alcohol limits and procedures. Nevertheless, experience in New South Wales, which still has a higher accident rate due to drink-driving that we do, and in Sweden and Finland, which have lower rates at 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively of all deaths, shows that random breath testing works.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The last time I looked at the Swedish figures, they were counting only the accidents on which they had done an analysis; they estimated that there were twice as many as those whom they caught. Therefore, the Swedish figure may be the same as that for Britain. That needs checking, but that is my research.
      My question may be technical. Over the years, we have had estimates of the number of lives that would be saved if we had random breath testing or what is proposed in the new clause, which is not what the Association of Chief Police Officers wants. Has the hon. Lady any estimate of how many lives might be saved if we introduced the new clause, gave unfettered discretion or introduced the mass random testing which they have in New South Wales?
      Mr. Spearing: Fewer deaths.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.

      827
      Spearing). If the public perceive the provision as a considerable deterrent, and if people are prepared to admit that they are drinking and driving because they feel that they will get away with it and not be detected, we have every reason in logic and in our knowledge of human behaviour to expect that they are more likely to curb their habit if they think that they are likely to be detected in a criminal offence. That being the case, we believe that there would be a fall in the number of accidents associated with drink driving if the provision were introduced.
      Before I began this part of my speech, I acknowledged that it was difficult to make international comparisons, but we know from the subjective evidence, at least of those which have brought in such measures, that a fall in deaths and casualties due to drink driving has resulted from their introduction. That is good enough for me, and I believe that it is good enough for the majority of hon. Members. The research which would follow the introduction of the measure would show whether our case was proved. There is no evidence in this country—and there cannot be until the provision is introduced—but there is every reason in logic to believe that it would be effective. That is what the public at large—the people who would be affected—themselves believe.
      I cannot give figures, but let me put it on record that I believe there would be a reduction in road deaths. That is what matters—that there should be a reduction of any kind and at any level, because any life saved as a consequence of new legislation is a life worth saving.
      In Britain the current procedures are cumbersome and inefficient. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the provision was thought by the Minister to involve too much police time and resources. Chief police officers, who seek a form of randomised testing, have to use two procedures. That cannot in itself be helpful to their administration. It is not true to suggest that the police already have the power for random breath testing. Only by the use of two existing powers can the police do anything that corresponds to random testing. The police have the power to stop any vehicle at random. Under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a constable may administer a breath test only if there is reasonable cause for suspicion that alcohol has been consumed.
      We are seeking to give the police new powers to complement the existing powers. We are not seeking to remove any powers. The police could still stop any vehicle and, having stopped that vehicle, conduct a test if they had reasonable grounds for suspicion. In addition, the new clause would enable them to establish roadside check-points where they could administer truly random breath tests.
      We must ensure that breath testing is conducted on a truly random basis to avoid any potential problems of the infringement of civil liberties.
      Mr. Ashton: In 1986, Nottinghamshire police, who at Christmas have always breathalysed four or five times more drivers than police in any other county, got to the stage where they were breathalysing people who were queueing for petrol. The police were stopping long queues of cars at the side of the road to do, they said, checks on windscreen wipers, and then they breathalysed the drivers. There were strong rumours that policemen had been told
      828
      that they had a quota of 35 breathalyser tests a day. At the end of that tremendous purge in 1986, they did not catch any more motorists than they had ever done.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it absolutely proves my case. My hon. Friend has given an example of an area which, in his view, was over-zealous in trying to introduce random testing. He acknowledges that it caused consternation among the public because the police were stopping people on one pretext, when he suggests that they were endeavouring to test them for drink-driving. It is clear to me that, because of what he says rather than in spite of it, we need the new clause.
      We must ensure that breath testing is conducted on a truly random basis to avoid potential problems of the infringement of civil liberties or of any one group being singled out for testing. We do not support giving the police unfettered powers such as they have requested. Such discretion might lead to abuse or might be perceived to be discriminatory, thus undermining relations between police and public. Roadside checks are a guarantee of objectivity.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is disappointed that there was no detection of drink-driving as a result of a roadside check such as he described, that is not necessarily a problem to us. We are concerned about providing a deterrent. If the majority of people going through a roadside check are found on random breath testing not to be over the limit, it suggests to us that the deterrent of random breath testing is working.
      Mr. Tracey: May I raise with the hon. Lady a question which I asked in Committee and which presumably she may now be able to answer? In order to carry out what she is suggesting, on behalf of the Labour party, how many extra tests and how many extra police officers or other officers of enforcement would be required, and what would be the cost of that operation? The House and the country should know those facts.
      Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows that, neither in Committee nor here, have I had the resources to prepare the answer to that question. If the authorities decided to adopt the proposal, they would have the ability to make the appropriate resources available. I have said repeatedly that the provision is not designed dramatically to increase detection rates but dramatically to increase deterrence.
      Sir Bernard Braine rose——
      5.30 pm
      Ms. Ruddock: I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, having already delayed the House for a considerable time, and I am nearing the end of my remarks.
      I am convinced that it is such a worthy proposal—I repeat, we are talking of the loss of 800 lives a year—that it would be appropriate to allocate the resources necessary to introduce the new deterrent element in an effort to persuade people to change habits that are still causing a significant loss of life through drink driving.
      If the Government defeat the new clause and continue to set their face against what is clearly a majority view in the country, their road safety campaign will lose much of its force. We believe that random breath testing should be

      829
      introduced without delay. In any event, we make the commitment to introduce it as a priority when we are in government, if the present Government fail to introduce it.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has an engaging manner, and in her closing words she came to the heart of the matter. On one side of the balance sheet is the question whether there is a case for a further deterrent. On the other side are 800 lives, fewer than the number killed some years ago, but still a considerable number.
      I begin where the hon. Lady finished. I firmly believe that the new clause would greatly strengthen the capacity of part I of the Bill to deal with the still serious problem of drinking and driving and would thereby help to achieve the objective—with which I hope Members in all parts of the House agree—of reducing the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads.
      The debate about random breath testing has gone on for many years. During that time, the figures have fluctuated, but more and more people, including children, have been killed and injured on our roads for various reasons, but one cause has clearly been the behaviour of drunken and irresponsible drivers. I guarantee that there is not a Member in the House who has not in the last year had an example—perhaps two or three—in his constituency of a child being killed wantonly by somebody out of control of the machine he was driving because he was under the influence of drink. I wonder how many Members have escaped the procession of relatives coming to one's constituency office asking for something to be done about this scandalous state of affairs.
      As the hon. Member for Deptford said, the overwhelming majority of road safety organisations and the British public support the purpose of the new clause, and they, like many hon. Members, have become impatient with the Government's obdurate refusal to take the necessary action.
      The arguments for random breath testing are well known, and I need not repeat them at length today. I shall make three points that go to the heart of the matter. The first concerns the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the existing law. Ministers often claim that random breath testing is unnecessary, because the police already have power to stop drivers at random, including stopping, them at roadside check points and breath testing those whom they suspect of having imbibed alcohol. Basically, that means the police officer engaging the driver in conversation so that he can form an opinion about whether he may have been drinking. This elaborate rigmarole takes time and is more likely to irritate the driver than the blow-and-go procedure of random testing proper.
      The whole argument about random stopping seems odd for Ministers to employ, because it surrenders the main point at issue, which is the appropriateness and desirability of roadside checkpoints, the sole purpose of which is the breath-testing of motorists. The perversity of the existing law, and of Minister's arguments, is precisely that these concede the principle of random breath testing, but then allow it to be carried out only in a cumbersome and unsatisfactory way which is less effective than random breath testing proper and is more likely to alienate the travelling public.
      That factor may help to explain why—as the House knows, I have had some connection for many years with senior police officers—some chief constables seem
      830
      reluctant to use these powers. Moreover, what I would describe as this poor man's version of random breath testing is made possible only by the use of two different sections of the Road Traffic Act, the combined use of which has never been explicitly affirmed or approved by the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has had considerable experience of transport and road safety matters, said on Second Reading, this kind of equivocation is simply not good enough. As he said, if we want random tests, there should be clear provision for them in legislation, and that should be clear to the police and the public.
      I shall not delay the House, because many hon. Members wish to speak. My second point concerns what appears to be one of the principal, though one of the silliest, arguments against random breath testing employed by its opponents. We have been told many times that random breath testing would not work because the number of over-the-limit drivers detected at roadside checkpoints would be so low that, to achieve the present level of convictions, the police would have to carry out millions of tests, which would represent a clear waste of resources. That argument was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), in an article entitled "Why random testing won't work", in the Evening Standard of 30 June 1988.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: It appeared only in the racing edition. It was subsequently thrown out in favour of an article to save Elstree.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend accept the statement made in the article:
      "With 300,000 tests a year, random breath testing might catch between 1,500 and 9,000 over-the-limit offenders. That figure compares badly with the 120,000 convictions secured by the police using their existing powers"?
      Mr. Bottomley: If the article said that, it contained a misprint. In simple terms, to catch as many people by random breath testing against target testing, there would have to be as many tests in a week as there are now in a year.
      Sir Bernard Braine: As we know, the figures have declined, partly as a result of campaigns that some of us have waged over the years about irresponsible drinking, in regard not only to driving but to everything else. One can make two statements, the first being that alcohol taken in moderation is a pleasant adjunct to living, makes for conviviality and friendliness, encourages conversation and so on. The second is that alcohol taken to excess shortens life, undermines health, is a potent cause of marital break-up, non-accidental injury to children, road deaths and injuries, and is found in practically every category of violent crime. If there has been an improvement in recent years it has been largely due to the campaign that some of us have waged to try to change public attitudes to drink. I am still engaged in that campaign.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am almost the Father of the House, and I take my hat off to the right hon. Gentleman for his lifelong campaign on this matter. However, I think he got hold of the wrong end of the stick when he alluded to alcohol making people feel pleasant. Alcoholics suffer from a major disease, and some such people fall to the floor and break limbs. That is not too pleasant.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have been friends for many years. However, people who drive a motor car or any vehicle should not drink. The new clause seeks to increase the power of deterrence and to make people think twice or even three times before getting into a vehicle when they are under the influence of liquor.
      The argument against the new clause is absurd, because it is based entirely on the bogus assumption that random breath-testing checkpoints would replace existing police activities rather than being an additional power used precisely for its deterrent effect. The hon. Member for Deptford spoke about that. Of course only a small proportion of drivers who are tested at roadside checkpoints are over the limit. Checkpoints are designed to be deterrents to drinking and driving, and if they did catch a large number of drinking drivers that would indicate not success but failure.
      Thirdly, some hon. Members have spoken about the cost of random breath testing. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic estimated that the police costs of carrying out random breath testing would be about £12 million per annum. He added:
      "In essence, that would be money invested in abortive work because it would not result in more people being charged with drink-driving offences."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 January 1991; c. 167.]
      Once again, the argument is confused. Despite the objective of deterrence, the failure of random breath testing in the Minister's eyes seems to be that it does not catch enough offenders. If my hon. Friend is to be consistent, he must presumably regard random breath testing as a failure, even in New South Wales. I understand that people in Australia have a great propensity to consume alcohol. Perhaps it is due to the climate.
      The Federal Office of Road Safety reported in 1989, and stated:
      "Following the introduction of random breath testing there was … a sharp fall of about 30 per cent. from 1982 to 1983 in the number of proven drink driving offences, suggesting that ther may have been a very real drop in the incidence of drink driving."
      My hon. Friend the Minister has his own view, but I think that most of us would welcome a reduction in the incidence of drinking and driving as a sign of success rather than failure. We would also welcome economic savings commensurate with those produced by random breath testing in New South Wales.
      The same report also stated:
      "Federal Office of Road Safety data suggest an estimated net economic saving to the community of $169 million over the first three years of the operation of random breath testing in New South Wales."
      I am not suggesting that it is possible to make simple comparisons between one country and another, and the hon. Member for Deptford did not fall into that trap either. We cannot expect savings directly proportional to those enjoyed by New South Wales. However, the Minister should not estimate the cost of random breath testing in this country without taking into account the likely economic benefits, because experience elsewhere suggests that one of the main advantages of random breath testing is precisely its cost-effectiveness. Even if it were to transpire that random breath testing costs us some money, it would still be worth the price. Indeed, what price should be placed on a human life wantonly destroyed by a drunken driver?
      5.45 pm
      Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend speaks about price and mentions New South Wales. He will have seen most of the reports and figures that I have. Does he agree that the most significant cost saving occurred where self-breathalysers were introduced to all the service messes? In that case, the reduction, which may have been coupled with random breath testing outside, was about 80 per cent. A large percentage of that figure was considered to be due entirely to the fact that giving people the opportunity to find out whether they would be dangerous on the road in itself made a large contribution to the results.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I always listen to my hon. Friend with the greatest attention, because he is careful about the facts that he adduces. He seeks to reinforce my argument. Any device or propaganda or legislation which increases deterrence and makes it less likely that somebody will get into a car and behave in a way that will destroy life or injure somebody must be right.
      The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) during the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford is worthy of study, although I do not think that the hon. Lady took up his suggestion. It is not the first time that my hon. Friend has imparted wisdom to the House, and I hope that everyone will listen to him more carefully in future. The first person to whom he should talk is the Minister.
      Like other hon. Members, I have received a letter from a Mr. John Knight, co-founder of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. He enclosed photographs of some of the innocent victims of drinking drivers, and I wish that every hon. Member could see those photographs before entering the Division Lobby tonight. Some of them depict the happy, bright-eyed faces of young children who are full of the joy of life, a life that was shortly to be extinguished by an accident that could have been prevented, at a cost, we are told, of a mere £12 million a year.
      For those children it will be too late, but it is not too late for the House to take a step that would save many other lives. The great majority of our constituents—perhaps I should say the great majority of our constituents, because I cannot speak for other hon. Members—wish us to take that step. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the arguments and let those of us who have a conscience on this matter vote freely.
      Mr. Ashton: Unfortunately, all too often in debates such as this we hear arguments from hon. Members who are not so much against drink-driving as against drink. Hon. Members who feel that way should be honest and say so. There is nothing wrong with people saying that they are against drink or that they are abstainers who believe that drink should be abolished. If people did that, at least we would know where we stand. I am against smoking and I am a member of the Committee examining the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill. I do not try to stop people smoking cigarettes. I use statistics in my arguments, and they show that 100,000 people die every year from smoking. Perhaps 1 per cent. of them die from secondary inhalation. That is 1,000 people—more than the 800 we are debating—but I am not aware of any big campaign against it.
      I do not propose to blind the House with statistics, but I should like to examine some of the facts and figures.
      Ms. Ruddock: I hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that those of us who are so enthusiastically moving the new clause—this is certainly true in my case—are abstainers or would seek to ban all alcohol or dissuade people in a general sense from taking alcohol with it is safe to do so. It would also be wrong to imply that I am not concerned about the hazards of smoking and that we have not done our best to campaign against that as well.
      Mr. Ashton: That is not the case that I am making. I was trying to weigh one campaign against another.
      Last week, the EC reported on the annual cost of road accidents. It said:
      "The UK death rate from road accidents is just under half the EC average."
      It is about time that we started giving drivers some credit for the fact that, year after year, our roads become safer and safer. If my hon. Friend were to compare the number of vehicles on the roads in the 1960s and the number of deaths from drinking compared with the situation now, she would see that the percentage rate has declined. Nobody gives drivers the credit for that. I accept that too many are still killed, but the numbers are declining all the time. The system is working.
      Ms. Ruddock: If my hon. Friend had been present for any of the road safety debates in the House he would have heard Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen acknowledge on every occasion the great efforts and achievements of the Government in reducing the number of deaths and injuries due to road accidents. Nevertheless, 5,000 deaths are not acceptable.
      Mr. Ashton: We might have one of the best accident rates in Europe, but we have the second worst accident rate when it comes to children on their way to school. Why do we not have a campaign to stop people killing children going to school? Hardly any of those drivers have been drinking. [Interruption.] That is a valid point. All these arguments are often put together by people who are against drink, full stop.
      The greatest number of deaths from drink-driving occur not at Christmas but in May when the nights become lighter and people start driving into the countryside. But it is always at Christmas that the Government announce big expensive campaigns 'with television advertisements and the police go on to the streets with their breathalysers. Such campaigns often have the wrong emphasis.
      My part of the world has experienced exactly the type of system that my hon. Friend wants to introduce. I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Britain has 43 different police forces and the chief constable of each is a law unto himself. He decides, often on a whim or a fancy, what sort of breathalyser campaign he will launch.
      For five years, Nottinghamshire had a chief constable—he has now passed on and I shall not denigrate him in any way—who was vehemently against drink in any way, shape or form. Those five Christmases were a nightmare. On one side of the River Trent, about 200 people would be breathalysed; on the other side of the River Trent, 200 yards away, 4,000 would be breathalysed. In the other direction, in Derbyshire, about 200 were breathalysed, while in Nottinghamshire there were 4,000. That created an atmosphere which almost killed off Christmas for many people. In places such as Worksop in my area, nothing
      834
      moved—people were frightened to go to parties, dances would be half empty and the pubs and Christmas entertainments lost thousands because of the police campaign. In the end, the campaign proved nothing.
      The police were stopping traffic to test windscreen wipers or lights. People were stopped on their way home from work at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. God knows what it cost in police manpower. Many of the drivers were very annoyed. They had not had a drink, they were being delayed on their way home from work and in the end the campaign produced next to nothing.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone is stopped for a windscreen wiper check but has not been involved in a moving traffic accident and does not give obvious signs of drinking, the police are acting illegally in asking such persons to take a random breath test?
      Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is right, but who will challenge the police? What brave man or woman in the street will refuse to take a breath test and be prepared to go to court? It does not work that way. Most people just blow in the bag to get it over with and obey what they think is the law.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I may eventually come to the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I think that he is wrong. It is not the public perception of testing that matters. The person who never drinks and drives looks on himself as a potential innocent victim; the person who does some drinking says, "Thank heavens I wasn't above the limit"; and the person above the limit is caught bang to rights. That is not the objection. The objection is whether it will do much good.
      Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman can make his case when he makes his own speech.
      I represent a rural area. Many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench represent cities. Labour Members tend to represent city constituencies. My constituents cannot get a bus down to the pub, and there is no tube, as there is in Deptford.
      Ms. Ruddock: There is no tube in Deptford.
      Mr. Ashton: There is public transport in London. If I lived in London, I would not even have a car—it would be a waste of money—but in rural areas people cannot work without a car. They cannot get their kids to school or go shopping—they cannot do anything without a car. Without a car, the quality of life is vastly different.
      If one of my constituents went to the village pub in his car and had a couple of pints, the only thing that he might knock down would be a rabbit. The roads are deserted in rural areas. People do not speed down to the pub for a couple of pints on Saturday night. It does not happen. My hon. Friend is trying to make one law which will apply throughout the country and it will not work. Closing hours are not as rigid in rural areas as they tend to be in cities. There is a much more relaxed attitude. It is a different life.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but he is going over the top. He is not treating the matter as seriously as he should. He is virtually saying that his constituents in Bassetlaw are exceptional and should be excluded from drink-driving laws. It is crazy to say that they should have a special dispensation.
      Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. There are 43 different police forces, representing a wide range of areas—from inner cities with high crime rates to rural areas where there is little crime. To say that this is the law for 43 different police forces to administer as they like will result in the shambles that we have seen in Nottinghamshire.
      Dr. Godman: I have been here since the start of the debate. Debates such as this, and drink-driving legislation passed by the House, may well be upstaged and overruled by the EC. Is it not the case that at this moment the European Commission is anxious to bring about a dramatic reduction in the permissible level of alcohol in a drivers' bloodstream?
      Mr. Ashton: I did not mention the European Community, so I do not know how the hon. Gentleman's intervention is applicable. I mentioned our rate of accidents and said that we have half the number of deaths that they have in Europe, but I shall let that pass.
      To return to my argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that random breath testing is Labour party policy. I do not remember that being debated at any of our conferences. I do not remember anyone, anywhere, saying anything of the sort. The Labour party prides itself on its grass-roots democracy. Resolutions come from the constituencies, from the ordinary rank and file members who pay their £10 a year, make the policies and send resolutions to Blackpool or Brighton where we have a long debate about them. I have never read one line of debate about random breath testing in Tribune or anywhere else.
      Ms. Ruddock: It is in that document there.
      6 pm
      Mr. Ashton: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend may have a fat document on transport in which she has smuggled something through on the bottom of page 419, chapter 21, without anyone knowing about it, and she is now saying that it is Labour policy.
      Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Member—I shall not call him my hon. Friend—has taken as long on this argument as on everything else that he has mentioned in his speech.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not turn his back on the Chair.
      Mr. Prescott: You need not look so serious about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not such a major crime.
      At the party conference, we debated a document entitled "Moving into the Nineties", which made policy absolutely clear. After major discussions in the movement, after resolutions, discussion at the executive council and at the conference—whether the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) chose to debate it at the conference is a matter for him—the whole document passed through the democratic process through which Labour party policy has to pass. Therefore, I am entitled to say that he should withdraw his remark because there was debate, the policy was clearly defined and was a matter for amendment and discussion in the executive council, which came to the view that we are putting forward today.
      Mr. Ashton: If the hon. Member can show me the report of the Labour party conference at which it was
      836
      debated in Brighton, Blackpool or wherever—I have been to every conference for the past 28 years—I shall certainly withdraw my remark.
      Mr. Allason: I do not wish to intrude into other people's grief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but is it appropriate for the Labour party to discuss what is or is not party policy when we are supposed to be discussing the Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will keep a little closer to the amendments and the new clause.
      Mr. Ashton: I pursued that argument because my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Deptford, have been saying what they would do if we were in power. So far as I am concerned this matter has not been debated at our conferences and my hon. Friends the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has not taken up my offer to show me the report of the Labour party conference where it was debated.
      Mr. Prescott: Where the document was debated?
      Mr. Ashton: No, where the policy was debated.
      Mr. Prescott: If you did not raise it, you twit, it may not have been debated.
      Mr. David Nicholson: Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to call his hon. Friend a "twit"?
      Mr. Ashton: The trouble with my hon. Friend is that when he loses in debate he loses his temper.
      I shall move on to my next argument. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will listen to me, as I have been in the House longer than he has and I can tell him what happened. There was a by-election in Leicester when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Transport—she could not even drive, but we made her Secretary of State. She introduced the breathalyser and Labour lost a safe seat at the by-election because of it. The former Labour Chief Whip, Mr. Bert Bowden, whom you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, fought that by-election and lost the seat for Labour. He retired, went to the Lords and became chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Association. The Tories went around every working men's club and miners' institute in Leicester before the by-election—they would do it again now—to tell them that the breathalyser was to be introduced. It cost us hundreds of votes. There was no question about it.
      The same is true in many of our constituencies today. We represent miners' institutes in rural areas and areas where there has been a lot of slum clearance, where working mens' clubs are trying to hang on. [Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would listen instead of rabbiting all the time.
      Mr. Prescott: I am trying to counteract some of the reactionary elements in the hon. Member's argument.
      Mr. Ashton: I am not reactionary—I am speaking for the working-class Labour voter.
      Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Ashton: No.
      Mr. Spearing: I speak for those voters, too.
      Mr. Ashton: I have given way about 15 times and I am trying to make a speech.

      837
      Many working men's clubs are hanging on by a thread because the houses around them have been pulled clown, and because members are getting older and dying off. This is true of any large city. It must be the same in Hull as it is in Sheffield, where there used to be 65 working men's clubs but the number is now down to about 30. It is probably the same in Doncaster, which you represent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is killing them off most is fear—people are afraid of going out at night and of taking the wife out on a Friday or Saturday and getting breathalysed. Members of working men's clubs will tell hon. Members that. Why do members not bother to come? Why cart they not even get enough people for a game of bingo? Club members do not want to get breathalysed; they would sooner buy a six-pack, sit at home and watch television.
      Mr. Spearing: I understand many of my hon. Friend's arguments, but in his catalogue of what may be justifiable crimes, is he telling the House that we should not be worried if people drive around having had not just two pints but sufficient alcohol to be above the limit? If my hon. Friend analyses what he has been saying—apart from some of the justifiable criticisms that he has made—he will surely realise that he has not tackled the proposals made in the new clause.
      Mr. Ashton: Yes, I have. I am trying to get across the message that every person and every area is different.
      Mr. Spearing: Even if they are over the limit?
      Mr. Ashton: Let me finish putting my case.
      Everyone I know who drinks and drives occasionally is in favour of tougher sentences for drunk-driving. They think that a drunken driver who kills someone should go to prison for 10 or 15 years. Everyone I know who is against random testing is in favour of tougher sentences. To say that because one likes a drink one is in favour of drunken driving is like saying that because one likes sex one is in favour of rape. It is not true. It is nonsense.
      It is not true to say that, because people like to drink a pint of beer and then drive home from the pub, they are in favour of killing people on the roads or that they support drunken drivers who are a menace to society. However, they object strenuously to people who do not drink but who assume that because they would feel woozy and unfit to drive a car after one pint of beer everyone else is the same. People who do not drink make far too many generalisations, and assume that, because drink has a powerful effect upon them, the bloke sitting next to them who has drunk a pint is not fit to drive either. That is not true.
      Mr. Spearing: I cannot have expressed myself sufficiently clearly. My hon. Friend may be justified in making some of those remarks, but is he saying that a person who agrees with the legal limit—I think that we all do, even those who drink two pints and then drive home—thinks that people who go above that limit should not be subject to some sort of check? He must realise that someone who has had more than the legal limit is a dangerous driver—whether that limit is too high or too low is another argument.
      Mr. Ashton: The average person would accept it if the existing check prevailed. If someone drives a car which is swerving or if there appears to be something wrong with the car or the way it is being driven, it is perfectly
      838
      acceptable for the police to stop them. No one is arguing about that. The average bloke, who might drink one pint and then drive home, is saying that it is monstrous if testing becomes a lottery, depending on where one lives, the time of day and whether one takes a chance and has a pint. That is too much of a lottery.
      As always, the King Herod principle is in operation—because a handful of football hooligans cause a riot at Tottenham, away supporters are banned from every ground in the country, or because there is a problem with Leeds football supporters, one does not let them go to Hull. That is not what policing and justice are all about. Justice is about punishing criminals.
      Mr. Roger Gale: Is not the crux of the hon. Gentleman's argument simply the fact that the random breath test will not work? Is it not a fact that the police do not want to be pinned down at a road block, stopping motorists and breathalysing people who have probably not been drinking, while all manner of mayhem is going on just around the corner? They would much sooner go out on patrol to do the job that they have been trained to do.
      Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member is absolutely right. There will be a lottery, depending on where one lives. In Nottinghamshire, they are red hot on breathalysers. In Derbyshire, they are red hot on speeding. If you happen to live in Sheffield, then for God's sake don't park on a yellow line. Every police force has its foibles and whims. The public know that if they do certain things in certain areas they will get the chop.
      Mr. Spearing: That is a criticism of the police.
      Mr. Ashton: Yes, it is. Let me tell my hon. Friend, however, that elected councillors have no say in these matters. I would not mind if it was the county councillors who told the chief constable, "We want you to crack down," but it is not—the chief constable himself decides. It is for him to say, "This is operational—you cannot tell me that I can or cannot implement it."
      The public have no way of protesting democratically. If they think that the chief constable is being too tough with the breathalysers, there is not a damn thing that they can do. They cannot vote against it; they cannot complain about it; they cannot raise it in the House by putting down a question asking the Secretary of State for Transport to go and see the chief constable. We have been through this before, although when the issue last came before the House—two years ago—it was not even raised during a transport debate; it was raised during discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill, and it was beaten then, but now it is trying to surface again.
      Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford that the number who are killed by drunken drivers-800 out of 5,000—is far too high, she gave us no figures to show how many people are killed, for instance, by lorries on the motorway which are carrying too much Weight and cannot brake in time, or by fog, or by speeding. All those are killers, and all need seeing to, but we never debate them or vote on them. This is the campaign that has been adopted, perhaps because it is considered a vote winner, with the result that a section of the motoring public are continually driving in fear.
      If the new clause is passed, many towns and villages will find that Saturday nights become drastically and

      839
      traumatically different. Social life will be affected, and employment will suddenly vanish for those who rely on catering and the pubs and clubs for their living—waitresses, for instance, and other working-class people who may have part-time Saturday night pub jobs.
      Mr. Stephen Day: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, so I am giving him an opportunity to clarify his position. He seems to be trying to excuse drink-driving.
      Mr. Ashton: I am putting a case for the status quo. The present system is working—the number of drink-related deaths is falling every year. The hon. Gentleman may think that, if drink had been abolished, those 800 lives could have been saved, but 400 of them would probably have been lost in other circumstances. Accidents happen.
      Random breath testing would have a major impact on Nottinghamshire life at Christmas. The average person wants tougher penalties to be imposed on those who cause accidents when they have been drinking and driving. The other day, someone who had killed a young man did not even lose his licence; he was simply fined £250. A famous television star was involved—I mention no names, but hon. Members will know who I mean. That caused tremendous anger—understandably so—but no drink was involved. There are massive inconsistencies in the penalties handed out by the courts. The alternative is mandatory confiscation for 12 months for those 2 per cent. in excess of the breathalyser limit.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless speeches are briefer and interventions fewer, we shall be here until very late.
      Mr. Channon: Let me bring the debate back to the point at which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that we must address the matter very seriously. It is indeed a serious issue, and I congratulate her on bringing it to the attention of the House.
      The debate has shown that views differ strongly across the parties. The feeling of the House is not monolithic; many Conservative Members agree with the new clause, and I suspect that some Opposition Members apart from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) oppose it. Surely we can all agree, however—indeed, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw just said as much—that we want a continual reduction in drink-driving.
      Admittedly, the figures have fallen substantially. I believe that they have halved over the past 12 or 13 years, from about 1,790 to about 840. That is a great success, but it is not good enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and others are quite right to say that we should do all that we can to reduce the number who are killed or maimed in accidents caused by drink—or, indeed, by any other factor. The question that the House must decide is whether random breath tests will achieve the desired effect, and I do not think they will.
      6.15 pm
      I readily concede that many people outside, and masses of well-meaning organisations of high calibre, think that random testing is the answer, and those who argue against it may sometimes feel that they are in the minority. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree. Unlike the hon. Member
      840
      for Bassetlaw, I do not think that it will make an enormous difference, nor do I think that the way in which the House decides tonight will have the dramatic effect anticipated by either the hon. Gentleman—as an extreme opponent of the new clause—or its extreme proponents. As we have been told time and again, the police already have the necessary powers.
      Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Channon: This is the one and only time that I shall do so. I am sure that hon. Members want me to get on with my speech.
      Mr. Day: Again, I seek clarification. My right hon. Friend has referred to extremist viewpoints; will he identify those viewpoints in the well respected organisations that have supported the measure?
      Mr. Channon: I am not trying to criticise any organisation. I am merely saying that there are those who are enthusiastically in favour of the new clause, and those who are enthusiastically against it; and that, whatever the outcome, they will find that it does not make as much difference as they feared or hoped.
      The present law has been cited several times. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has explained what goes on in Sussex; as we all know, in effect, random testing already exists. I have read the persuasive speech made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who rightly said that the police already have the requisite powers. Over the years, there have been many instances of police forces stopping people in such circumstances.
      The powers already exist; do we need to increase them? There may be a case for clarifying the law, but I think that it is already fairly clear. It has been explained again many times this evening: it is well understood that the police have the power to stop drivers and, if they have reasonable cause to believe that they have been drinking, to apply the breathalyser. Well, once he has stopped someone, it is not very difficult for a constable to decide that he has reasonable cause: he may not like the way in which the driver answers him, or the driver's breath may smell of drink.
      What is the attitude of the police to the proposals? Some years ago, when my hon. Friend the Minister and I dealt with the issue, the police were altogether against random breath tests, but they changed their minds with remarkable speed over 24 hours: having been violently anti, they became violently pro. They have now made it clear, however, that they are not in favour of the random roadside checks recommended by the hon. Member for Deptford. The want unfettered discretion: they want to be able to stop any driver, regardless of whether he has committed an offence. I wonder how much they will use the measure if it is enacted. I have read an article in which the chief constable of Warwickshire, who I believe was president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and who is very concerned about the matter, explains that the police want unfettered discretion rather than what the Government propose.
      The new clause will force drivers to pass through a check; the police will stop every car, or one in 10—as suggested by the hon. Member for Deptford—or one in five, or one in 20. I do not think that that will add much to the number of people who are caught. According to a

      841
      parliamentary answer given the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), some 100,000 tests would have to be carried out to establish that 1,000 extra drivers were over the limit.
      There are many other better ways of using police resources to prevent drink-driving, and that is my point. If the police want to increase their efforts in that regard, as they clearly did in Nottinghamshire—and I certainly would not oppose such a move—they can target tests and are much more likely to get convictions than under a system of random breath testing. What the police want is either to have unfettered discretion or to target people—to say that all young people, for example, must go through the checks. That is what some Opposition Members and the National Council for Civil Liberties and others find objectionable; they think that young people or people in their thirties are most likely to fail the breath test.
      Even the most jaundiced observer must agree that this country's record of road accidents is better than that achieved elsewhere in the Community. No wonder the European Commissioner is worried about traffic accidents. Elsewhere in the Community, the record is very bad; Britain's is much better. That is not to say that we should be complacent. We should try to find ways of reducing the number of accidents still further. We have had campaigns to protect children—I have been involved in them myself—and on other important issues.
      What is the best way forward? The efforts made over the years by successive Ministers at the Department of Transport to increase publicity and deal with the treatment of offenders and the whole question of breath tests—I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, who did much during his period of office to increase public awareness of the issues—have ensured that the public are now much more aware of the risks of drink-driving, and people feel far more strongly about the subject than they did five years ago.
      Would random breath testing change the situation? The police already have powers, and they do not want the powers that the hon. Member for Deptford would thrust upon them. Moreover, if the police increased their efforts in a more targeted way, they would be more likely to be effective and to catch drunken drivers, which is our whole purpose. I shall be voting against the new clause, and I hope that a great many hon. Members will join me.
      Mr. Fearn: I added my name to the new clause because, in Committee, I was adamant that something needed to be done to restrict drink-driving. We need a deterrent. We have all met the person who thinks that accidents never happen to him or who believes that he will be all tight because he knows—or thinks that he knows—his limit and feels that his ability will not be impaired. We have all met people who think that they will never be caught; there are many of them.
      As we have already heard, a recent survey by the transport and road research laboratory showed that 42 per cent. of those who admitted to drinking and driving did not think that there was any great chance of detection under existing practice. Until drivers are convinced that there is a good chance that they will be stopped, tested and charged, drink-driving will continue to cause death and destruction on our roads.
      Before I deal with civil liberties—the subject on which I wish to concentrate today—I must express my disappointment that, on a matter such as this,
      842
      Conservative Members are not to be allowed a free vote. I do not understand why. Clearly there are many arguments for and against the new clause, and hon. Members ought to be able to express their views and beliefs through a free vote. The Liberal Democrats are to have that opportunity. It was evident from the vote on the Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing) Bill 1987, introduced by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and sponsored by myself and others, that, given the opportunity, hon. Members would overwhelmingly support the new clause. I am sorry that they are not to have that opportunity.
      We have heard the cry that random breath testing will infringe a person's civil liberties. That may be true, but the claim can be refuted. As I have pointed out both in the House and in Committee, anybody who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence of alcohol automatically and immediately infringes the liberty of others. Random breath testing will protect the liberties of the majority of road users.
      The roadside checks that the new clause advocates will be conducted in controlled conditions, with authorisation in writing from senior police officers. In some respects, such checks would represent less of an infringement of individual liberty than the present system, because all drivers would be treated equally. At the moment, individual police officers or traffic patrols can pull a car over when they want to test for drink-driving or when they suspect that the driver may have been drinking, if the car has any defects, no matter how minor—it could be inadequate lighting over the licence plate. They have discretion at that level to make a random breath test.
      That has often led to the accusations that the police target certain individuals, especially the young. The statistics tend to back that up, although surveys show that those most likely to be guilty of drink driving are in the older age groups. Unnecessary ill feeling and friction often arise as a result of present practice. That would not happen if motorists knew that any driver was likely to be pulled over and we have heard how, in New South Wales, random roadside testing is believed to have improved public relations between motorists and the police.
      As I said, I do not want the discretionary powers of the police to be reduced, but I believe that they would become less necessary if we introduced roadside checks. Such checks would certainly be less of an infringement of people's civil liberties than certain measures advocated by the anti-random breath testing lobby. I refer in particular to the measure in early-day motion 495, which suggests that one method to be used as a deterrent should be
      "inquiry by police and courts as to the drinking locations and companions of the illegal driver".
      Surely such measures would lead to greater infringement of the liberties of innocent persons. I do not think that the clientele of public houses, wine bars, or other drinking establishments would greatly appreciate the courts or the police making inquiries into how they spent their leisure time.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman and I were drinking and I knew that he would be driving afterwards, I would say to him, "You should not be taking alcohol." My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) would also insist on that. If people continue to believe that they have no responsibility for those with

      843
      whom they are drinking, and if those with whom they are drinking then kill someone, it is perfectly reasonable for the police and the courts to make inquiries.
      Mr. Fearn: I wish that everyone were like the hon. Gentleman and me. Perhaps he and I would do and say that, but not everybody would, and irresponsible people do go out and kill people—we know that the figure is at least 800.
      Random breath testing is supported by many organisations, including the NCC and the Consumers Association. Some 3,000 of the 3,400 responses to the Home Office consultation paper on changes to breath testing legislation favoured additional powers for the police. Surveys conducted on behalf of the Consumers Association and others show that the public at large would support more random breath testing and are willing to surrender part of their individual liberty in the interests of the liberty of the majority.
      The House is representative of the people. It has the power to do something on their behalf. I hope that, in the interests of preventing the carnage on our roads, hon. Members will break ranks tonight and support the new clause, which is a most worthy proposal.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Day: Before coming to the points that I want to make in support of the new clause, I should like to thank the Minister for his forebearance in the meeting that he had this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and myself. We are very grateful to him for listening to our views.
      I wish to make it clear that, in my remarks on the new clause, I speak not just as an individual but in my capacity as co-chairman of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Also in that capacity, I wish to put on record the disappointment of the council that our amendments on retesting for alcohol-related offences—amendments that had all-party sponsorship—were not called. We feel that those are central to the potential of the Bill. Indeed, they reflect a major part of the recommendations of the North report.
      The case for introducing random breath testing in the United Kingdom can be summarised by reference to three pieces of Government research—one Australian, and two British. First, research conducted by the transport and road research laboratory found that a large proportion of drivers in the United Kingdom who admit to drinking and driving believe that the chances of their being caught are small. This perception is confirmed by information on the actual risk of detection from the British crime survey, which suggests that the chances are as little as one in 200 excess-alcohol driving trips.
      Secondly—this has been referred to already—research conducted by the Government of New South Wales shows that highly visible mass random breath testing, targeted at times when drinking and driving is most prevalent, increases the driver's perception of the chances of his being caught, thus deterring potential offenders and reducing the number of road accidents.
      Thirdly, there is evidence that United Kingdom drivers surveyed by the transport and road research laboratory believe that routine random breath testing would provide an effective acceptable way of reducing the number of road
      844
      accidents. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Joan Ruddock) presented all the arguments supporting the case for random breath testing.
      I propose to deal with some of the arguments that have been advanced against its introduction, none of which I find particularly convincing. I was surprised by the recent motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), which suggests that the available evidence does not support the belief that mass random breath testing would be helpful. A number of countries have introduced the measure, but I shall restrict my remarks to the evidence from New South Wales, as the experience there has been rigorously monitored, and there is much information on the effects.
      Random breath testing was introduced in New South Wales in December 1982 as a three-year experiment. The overall objective was to create a very high perceived risk of being randomly breath tested if one continued to drink and drive. The figures that I am about to quote may be found in a paper entitled "An Overview of the Random Breath Testing Trial in New South Wales", which was produced by three members of the New South Wales traffic authority. I commend that paper to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham in particular.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend have a copy?
      Mr. Day: I shall show my hon. Friend a copy afterwards.
      Part of the monitoring exercise of the trial to which this document refers was to look at the effect of the measure on accidents and casualties. It was found that, as a direct result of random breath testing, the average yearly reduction in the number of all fatal crashes was 21 per cent. The average yearly reduction in the number of crashes involving injury of all levels of severity in which the driver or rider was over the legal limit—in the case of New South Wales, 50 mg per 100 ml—was more than 35 per cent. Public support for the measure rose from 64 per cent. before random breath testing to 85 per cent. afterwards. Social security savings amounted to 20 times the cost of implementing the measure. So convincing were the results that the measure was placed permanently on the New South Wales statute book. Michael Knight MP, the then chairman of the parliamentary committee charged with assessing the affects of the measure, concluded:
      "Random breath testing has been the single most effective tool in the struggle to reduce the road toll in the history of New South Wales."
      Therefore, it is simply not the case that the call for random breath testing cannot be supported by good evidence. Evidence from Sweden shows that random testing works not only in countries that have higher levels of drinking and driving than does the United Kingdom, but in countries where the levels are much lower.
      It is important to point out that simple comparisons, between international rates of progress in this field can be misleading. I am sorry that they have been used as an argument against random breath testing. The argument runs that as the United Kingdom has reduced drink driving faster than most other countries, why should the existing policy be changed? That question has been asked in the House today. It is a welcome fact that we have made good progress during the last 10 years, having reduced the rate of over-the-limit deaths from one in three to one in five. This has come about as a result of a number of

      845
      factors: changes in the 1981 Act providing for evidential equipment; increases in breath testing; and increased social pressure as a result of Government publicity campaigns and the efforts of the campaign against drinking and driving.
      However, if we stick to simple comparisons, we shall not do as well as we could. Sweden, for example, could be said to be doing better, having got the rate of over-the-limit deaths down to one in 14. But in reality, these figures do not mean very much. We have to remember that different legal limits, mixes of traffic, climate and road conditions all confound meaningful and scientific comparison between international rates of progress in this area. We heard this type of argument during the debate on the legislation making the wearing of seat belts compulsory for front-seat passengers, when crude number-crunching exercises were advanced to suggest that seat belts did not appear to save lives, because savings did not show up easily in some national data. It is fortunate that those negative arguments did not hold sway.
      I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham. Indeed, I think that he was one of the best Transport Ministers we have ever had—especially in road safety. I am particularly surprised at his attitude in advancing this sort of argument. I find it difficult to square his present stance with the stance that he took when he was responsible for roads and traffic. In answer to a parliamentary question on 4 April 1989, he advised against drawing simple international comparisons of this kind. He
      "Simple comparisons and statistics may be misleading; for instance, the legal limit for blood alcohol content in New South Wales is 50 mg/ml, and in this country it is 80 mg/ml."—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 18.]
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that I shall get an opportunity later to speak in my own right, but I should like to put this matter in context now. As I understand the situation, the difference between the figures produced by the 50 mg level and the 80 mg level is probably two percentage points. My understanding is that the figure for dead drivers above the legal limit in New South Wales is 33 per cent., and that in this country it is 19 per cent. If the two percentage points were added, the figure for dead drivers above the legal limit in this country would be 21 per cent. There does seem to be an unexplained difference. Perhaps New South Wales would gain by copying us.
      Mr. Day: I readily acknowledge my hon. Friend's great understanding of these matters, but the assumption at the end of his intervention did not necessarily correspond with the facts that he had put forward. However, I take note of what he said.
      I wish to return to the suggestion that sufficient breath testing is being done at present and that, somehow, conducting random breath testing would be going over the top. According to the last set of annual figures for England and Wales, only one in 50 drivers was breath-tested annually. That means that, on average, drivers are breath-tested only once in their driving career. That is hardly excessive or overbearing. The figures provided to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary suggest that the average number of breath tests per traffic officer is only one per week. Again, I do not feel that that is in any way excessive. Even the most enthusiastic random breath testing policy, which aims at the testing of one in two
      846
      drivers annually, would result in every driver being breath-tested only once in two years. In my view, that is hardly excessive.
      I emphasise that this new clause does not seek to give the police unfettered discretion to stop motorists and breath-test them. Despite the explanation by the hon. Member for Deptford, the intention seems to have been misunderstood as being to increase the rate of detection. In fact, it is to increase the level of deterrence. We do not want to detect drunken drivers; we do not want to have drunken drivers on the road at all.That is what the new clause is all about.
      I do not accept that because the police can act to stop motorists under two separate sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, they necessarily have sufficient powers. That legislation has led to great confusion, particularly regarding interpretation. The chances of detection range between one in 250 journeys in some parts of the country, and one in 4,000 in others. Such a lottery can hardly be fair.
      The extra power in the new clause would clarify the position for drivers and, more importantly, for chief constables. As I said on Second Reading, I have heard Ministers say that the police already have adequate powers to act and that no further measures are necessary. That implies that the Government accept the principle of random breath testing—we are arguing only about the practice—so why cannot they accept the new clause?
      I would welcome an explanation of how the Government hope to achieve casualty reduction figures while rejecting the major contribution that the new clause would make towards achieving those figures. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how he hopes to convince the 42 per cent. who admit to drink driving yet believe that they will get away with it, to change their ways, if the Government are not prepared to take further action. There is a danger that the public will believe that the Government find that 42 per cent. acceptable.
      As for civil liberties, I am sure that no hon. Member would agree that people have the right to take whatever action they wish, irrespective of the consequences for others. We all broadly accept that responsibilities go with rights, and we must therefore also accept that drink drivers are, tragically, often guilty of that.
      I remind the House that drink driving-related accidents account for 800 deaths and 22,000 casualties a year. Furthermore, half of the victims will not have been drinking and driving.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: While my hon. Friend is on that subject, does he agree that a possible alternative way to deal with the problem is to ensure that every driver who is caught driving over the prescribed limit is charged with reckless driving? Such a charge could be made on the basis that, in this day and age, to get into the driver's seat knowing that one is over the limit is a reckless act. It therefore follows that if, as a consequence of drinking and driving, they cause death, they should be tried for causing death by reckless driving.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Day: My hon. Friend's remarks are worth considering. Although penalties are important, they are not the main factor. Deterrence is the most important factor, so, to some extent, penalties apply, but the greatest

      847
      deterrent is to know that one has a chance of being caught. The new clause is important, because it will increase the public's perception of the possibility of being caught.
      A significant number of my hon. Friends have asked whether we could have a free vote on the new clause, and I register my disappointment that that has not happened. The Government could have paid no greater or more eloquent testimony to the arguments of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety than to apply a three-line Whip. The measure should have been dealt with in the same way as the seat belt legislation and left to the individual conscience and intelligence of hon. Members. Many hon. Members, whatever their views on the matter, would have wanted that.
      I hope that hon. Members, whatever they feel about the issue, will consider the matter in depth. They must all agree that lives are important and that drinking and driving is silly and wrong. Notwithstanding the three-line Whip, I hope that they will join me in the Lobby in support of the new clause.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, particularly as so many of the arguments have already been put most volubly by other hon. Members.
      When I added my name to the new clause, I did not expect the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to call me a killjoy, especially as I represent no fewer than 43 distilleries on Speyside, and have a strong interest in the future of the whisky industry. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that, although I have that interest at heart, I also recognise the importance of the new clause. He may care to reflect on that fact that people who now visit distilleries on Speyside as part of a tourist visit, instead of being offered a dram of whisky at the end of the visit, are now offered a miniature to drink when they get home. That shows the responsible attitude that the distilleries have adopted to the problem of alcohol abuse.
      Like the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I represent a substantial rural constituency, but I cannot accept his argument that the introduction of random breath tests will result in many restaurants, bars and clubs closing down because people will be frightened to move.
      In my constituency, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, most of the vehicles going to social gatherings are taxis. Taxi drivers have benefited from the introduction of the breathalyser test. My constituents must cover vast distances but they join together to share taxis in order to avoid drinking and driving. Alternatively, one person in a group exercises self-discipline and says, "I am driving so I shall not drink, and that is the end of it." I have sat through many a party into the wee hours of the morning, nursing a tonic or a soda water. I wish that all drivers would exercise the same self-discipline.
      Also in my constituency, I have the chairman of an organisation known as SCID—the Scottish Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers. That organisation would agree with many of the arguments about sentencing policy and about the need to look at other aspects of road safety—for example, how many years' driving experience people should have before they sit beside a learner driver, and other aspects that it considers part and package of its campaign against irresponsible driving. However, it has also consistently emphasised the need for random breath testing. It sent to me, and presumably to many other hon.
      848
      Members, case histories of the families of victims, where young people had been killed by drink-drivers. They show the sheer psychological torture through which those families go as a result of such bereavement. One cannot help but be touched by those stories.
      The House has a responsibility to those families who have been deprived of one of their loved ones in such a way and should back a campaign that is worthy of support and has clear public demand. We also have a responsibility to remind drivers what they stand to lose if they are convicted of drink-driving. They will suffer the humiliation of being found out. Many of them will lose not only their licences but their jobs. Their loss can bring family tensions, and their recklessness can destroy the innocent lives of their own families. I am making a plea for drivers to exercise greater self-discipline and to remember what they may lose.
      The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) mentioned self-test kits. Just before Christmas, there was a possibility that such kits might be introduced in Scotland. The idea was rejected by representatives of the Scottish Office, so it was not encouraged. It seems possible that putting self-test kits in any establishment where alcohol is served might encourage people to drink up to the maximum legal level, rather than discourage them from drinking at all.
      I would prefer it to be an offence to drink any alcohol when one takes a car on the road. A car is the most lethal weapon that any of us are likely to own in our lifetime. To take alcohol while driving that lethal weapon seems to be the height of irresponsibility, and I shall not encourage the use of self-test kits. I listened to the intervention of the hon. Member for Havant with care, but was not persuaded that encouraging people to drink up to the legal limit was the best way forward.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: I have carefully studied the issue, and I know that, where such instruments have been generally and widely available, there is no evidence that they encourage people to drink up to the legal limit. The obverse is true—the lower the limit, the greater the obligation on those who may take a drink or half a drink and then drive, to find out specifically, before taking the risk, whether they are in a position to drive.
      Mrs. Ewing: While I accept that point, I believe that various tests have shown that different kits give different readings. If they are to be introduced, they will have to be critically monitored to ensure that they are effective. I am not yet convinced that they are that efficient. We must try to become a society in which people do not drink and drive at all—we should legislate for that, as many other European countries do.
      Many hon. Members who are opposed to the new clause have argued that it will not resolve the problem, because there is no guarantee that we will catch additional drink-drivers. The purpose of the new clause is not to catch drink-drivers, but to deter them. If an individual feels that the police are able to use random breath testing, that will act as a deterrent. If we keep off the road just one more possible drink-driver who is likely to cause an accident, the new clause will have the potential to save lives and avoid injury. The purpose of the new clause is to act as a deterrent—surely we should support that.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made a powerful speech, with almost every word of which I agree.

      849
      I do not think that any of us would dispute the fact that drink driving is a serious social and human problem. Since the breathalyser was first introduced 25 years ago, at the end of the 1960s, more than 25,000 people have been killed by drink-driving on this country's roads. In a quarter of a century, the number of humans we have wiped out is equivalent to the entire expeditionary force in the Persian Gulf.
      The position is improving. During the past 10 years, the number of people killed and injured by drink-drivers on our roads has decreased by 50 per cent. There are a number of reasons for that, including a changed perception within society. The fundamental reason why the number of deaths and injuries on our roads has dropped so sharply is that the number of breath tests during the past 10 years has trebled—three times more breath tests were given in 1990 than in 1980. The public's perception that the police now put far more effort into carrying out breath tests has led to that quite dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and injuries.
      There are more breath tests than there were, because the police take a much broader view of their powers to stop drivers. During the past few years, we in this country have developed a system of de facto random testing. There is random stopping, which almost invariably leads to testing. The police have introduced a system which is, in effect, random testing, but the House has not yet given them the powers to implement it.
      We tell the police to stop people randomly, but we hesitate to give them the powers for random testing. It is interesting that so few people want to abolish the power of random stopping. Even the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who made a powerful speech against the new clause, does not want to abolish that power. He said that he was in favour of the status quo, but he did not say that he wanted to go back on the status quo and abolish the right of random stopping. Even he is happy with that power as it exists.
      If there were an amendment giving the police what they want—unfettered powers to stop and test—I would vote in favour of it, but there is no such amendment. Instead. we are discussing the much more limited new clause, which was moved so well by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I am prepared to vote for it because I believe that it will increase the deterrent power, which is all-important.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said that our acceptance of the new clause and its implementation by this country's police forces would cost an additional £12 million a year, which is a lot of money. However, the 800 deaths a year caused by drink-driving also cost society a great deal. If increased deterrence leads to a further reduction in such deaths of 10 per cent. a year, and we save an additional 80 lives a year at a cost of £12 million, that money will be well spent. I intend to support the new clause this evening.
      Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. My speech will not be as learned as some that we have heard this evening, and I intend to offer no comparative evidence in support of the new clause.
      I have been astonished by the level of knowledge of the traffic laws of other countries shown by some hon. Members. It seems that many hon. Members have visited New South Wales, Sweden and other places. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) is but one of the hon.
      850
      Members who used comparative evidence extensively in his support of the new clause. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) seems to be a brilliant expert in the methodology of statistical analysis. I shall skip that approach.
      I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle said that drink-driving is silly behaviour. He seems to be nodding, but I am sure he would agree, on reflection, that drink-driving is dangerously irresponsible behaviour, whether the driver has drunk one pint—to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—or four or five pints, or two or three glasses of the best Chardonnay. To drink and to drive is to commit an irresponsible act.
      Mr. Day: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I added something to that statement which is more in tune with what he is saying.
      7 pm
      Dr. Godman: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened.
      The new clause would act as a pretty powerful deterrent, and that is how we should regard it. The police forces involved would need a code of practice, as the new clause states, which would emphasise the need for civility, courtesy and firmness when checking people. The number of people who are killed and maimed because others commit the dangerously irresponsible act of getting behind the wheel of a car after having drunk alcohol should persuade hon. Members to ignore the Whips and to support the new clause.
      I wish to make one criticism of the irresponsible behaviour of courts in Scotland. I say "irresponsible" because some of our sheriffs impose appallingly slight sentences on people who have been convicted of drink-related offences. When a driver's skills have been impaired by drink to such an extent that he or she causes an accident or hurts someone, he or she should receive condign punishment when convicted in a court of law. Too many sheriffs have let people off with trivial sentences.
      If the new clause is to act as a deterrent, people who are convicted of such offences should be punished, and punished severely. I look forward to the day when the European Community, by way of a qualified majority vote, introduces to the 12 nations a drastically reduced permissible level of drink for drivers. When that issue was raised in the Council of Transport Ministers, it just failed to get the qualified vote. I look forward to that vote being reversed.
      As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, people should not drink before getting into a car. That is why I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. There should be no question of having a pint and then getting into a car. If one is driving, one should not drink at all. That is the message that the House should send out, whatever happens to the new clause.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree. It is important that people get the message that they should either drive or drink, but not both. The choice is the bottle or the throttle—"If you have the wagon, stay on the wagon." People should get together with their friends and appoint a driver.
      I disagree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on one point. Cutting out drink-driving—rather

      851
      than reducing it to the legal limit—is not against the interests of the country pub. Anyone who thinks that it is should get in touch with Ron Jones who used to be the president of the National Licensed Victuallers Association and is landlord of the Friar Tuck and of the Little John, in Hatfield Woodhouse, nine miles east of Doncaster. He is a Yorkshire publican who will confirm that, if a pub does its job correctly and provides an attractive range of non-alcoholic and low-alcohol drinks, and if people either walk to the pub—one advantage of having a local—or allow one person to drive others, the pub's takings will increase because three people will not each feel guilty about their car or motor bike in the pub car park.
      There are three problems with which we must deal—apathy, ignorance and stupidity. I usually tackle the problem of apathy by quoting the first paragraph of an article written by Auberon Waugh in The Spectator on 15 February 1986. It was the first article that affected me when I went to the Department of Transport as one of the predecessors of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is well worth reading for those who have not yet done so. It appears in most road safety debates.
      However, I prefer today to read from a booklet produced by MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is an American organisation. The booklet is called "Will It Always Feel This Way?" The first page is entitled "What it feels like now". It states:
      "Right now, if you are like most people responding to the killing of their child, you are experiencing pain.
      The pain can feel as though it is in one special place—your head or chest. Or it can feel as though it has taken over your whole body. Or it may just be pain, not settled anywhere.
      The pain can be so intense that it is almost intolerable.
      You feel driven to do something, even while knowing there is nothing that can be done.
      It is hard to concentrate, easy to become distracted. You may start an activity, forget what you were about to do, start again.
      If you are thinking about the child killed, however, you don't become distracted. Then you are focused. You may have the feeling of still being able to do something for the child. You may feel this way even if in the back of your mind you know that it isn't so.
      You may feel filled with anger. You are likely to be angry at the drunken individual who was truly responsible for the killing; but you may also be angry at members of the legal system or the hospital staff. You may be angry at anyone who doesn't understand.
      Your anger can be directed against yourself for not having done something that would have prevented what happened—no matter how illogical this is."
      It continues. No one should doubt that we have a serious responsibility in terms of legislative powers, as do the police and everyone involved—the driver, the passenger, the host, the drinking location, the breweries, the Scotch Whisky Association, and others.
      We all have a responsibility to cut out the remaining 840 deaths a year, but I suspect that the figure is probably down to about 650. There were 840 deaths in 1988. Each year we have, on average, cut the deaths from drink-driving by 100. We have halved the number of those deaths in the past 10 years. Sadly, that cannot be claimed by other countries.
      We have talked about New South Wales, and I congratulate it on its achievements between 1982 and 1984. I do not have the information necessary to allow me
      852
      to congratulate it on its achievements since then, but there is no doubt that it cut its drink-driving deaths between 1982 and 1984. It introduced mass random breath testing.
      If we introduced testing to that extent, we should have as many tests each week as we currently have each year. There would be 25 million tests a year instead of approximately 500,000 a year. Every statistic may not be right. Some refer to England and Wales, some to Great Britain and some to the United Kingdom, but the rough figure is that there would be 25 million tests a year instead of 500,000. That would not do a great deal to increase detection.
      I disagree with. the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on one point—deterrence must be built on the experience of detection. People would believe that they were being deterred only for about six months if there were not increasing detection.
      In 1967, when the breathalyser was introduced, for a few months, nobody took alcohol and drove. People then discovered that they did not get caught every time, so they slipped. There was a momentary boost to life—a momentary reduction in drink-driving casualties.
      I came to the subject in 1986, although I had the normal interest of a Member of Parliament before that, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, with whose speech I basically agreed.
      In 1986, at the Department of Transport, I rediscovered the transport and road research laboratory. An inter departmental committee also recommended that we should move money from the publicity budget to research.
      I discovered that the probable reason why our road deaths in this country have improved so much faster than those in other countries and the reason why our road deaths are at half the level of the Community average—and dramatically lower than those above the Community average—is that, almost always, what we did was based on fact or on a disprovable hypothesis.
      I recommend those who are some years out of university, of college, or of the Workers Educational Association, to go back to Karl Popper's book about the open society and its enemies. It helps to find a disprovable hypothesis.
      From 1984 to 1989, for which we have the most reliable and easily available figures, we achieved more than any other country that I have yet been able to discover in the reduction of drink-driving fatalities. Let us all remember that the only aim is to save lives. We sometimes become carried away about saving lives. At the age of 80 or 90, I do not want heroic efforts to be made to give me an extra six months. If there was a way to cut out drink-driving among the young, many parents would avoid the misery to which the booklet by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving was directed.
      In a wide alliance, which I helped to construct, we built on the work of those before 1986 to continue the reduction in drink-driving. If people refer to page 25 of the article by Derek Jones in "The Casualty Report—Road Accidents, Great Britain 1989", which was published in October 1990, they will see table 2J, which shows the transformation in drinking and driving by younger people.
      The number of young men who normally drank beer in pubs or clubs was reduced by two thirds if one judges by the proportion of those who died who were above the legal limit. That does not solve all the problems. Auberon

      853
      Waugh is right to say that more people die in sober accidents than in alcohol-related accidents, but the alcohol adds to the risk.
      Let us consider whether what we have been doing has worked. People kept referring to the comparison with New South Wales. In 1984, 33 per cent. of dead drivers in New South Wales were above the legal limit. In 1989, 33 per cent. of dead drivers in New South Wales were above the legal limit. There were fluctuations in between, but over that five years, the figures did not improve. Anyone who comes to the House and who uses that as an argument to switch away from what we do to what the authorities do in New South Wales will be killing people.
      I want to postpone my remarks about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has a responsibility to share. I hope that he will return to the Chamber, because I do not want to refer to him without his being present.
      In this country, we have cut the figure from 28 per cent. of our dead drivers being above the legal limit in 1984 to 19 per cent. in 1989—and the figure may be lower now. I do not think that there has been a dramatic continuation of the trend in 1990 or this year. The reason is that received opinion is suffering from a fashionable fallacy—that random breath testing, if introduced in this country, would make a significant difference to saving lives. There is no reason to believe that. If 40 per cent. of dead drivers were above the legal limit, there might be a difference. It would probably bring the reduction that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) mentioned. However, our figure is less than half of 40 per cent. What are people doing if they do not read the information?
      7.15 pm
      I should love to support random breath testing. If I thought that it would save a significant number of lives or if, on balance, it would save lives more effectively than the alternative approach has saved, I should support it, even if there was a three-line Whip.
      However, I ask all those who have any doubts to vote against the new clause because, if it were introduced now, it would have the same effect as it would have had if it had been introduced two, four or six years ago. It would cause people to chase a system that does not have persistent results.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was right to say that there are three ways to cut casualties. First, every host, whether in a pub, at a party or in a family home, should have an attractive range of alcohol-free drinks available on display—people should not have to ask for them—and the host should expect people to take them. The County Surveyors Society was the first group in Great Britain—except perhaps for a temperance party—to put on the menu card, "Your hosts have provided alcohol-free drinks on each table and they encourage drivers to take them." In Northern Ireland, the vintners—the Northern Irish term for victuallers or publicans—at their first annual banquet, were the second group of people to do that. I do not see that happen at dinners of medical societies, at police dinners or at parliamentary dinners, although it is the host's responsibility to make risk-free drink available to drivers.
      If we could have swapped half the random breath testing for the three points mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, we should have had fewer drink-drive deaths this week. Instead of 21 people in
      854
      the United Kingdom dying through drink-driving, the figure might have been down to 15. One cannot always lead the media and one certainly cannot lead some of the leaders in the media to realise these points. I must make passing reference to Adam Raphael's succession of articles in the Observer over the past four years in which he has never given any of these facts.
      The second point is that the passenger who includes their own driver in a round of alcoholic drinks is something that none of us would tolerate for an airline pilot, a train driver or a member of a crew of a ferry.
      I have an image—perhaps a false image—of a 2CV with a hairy man with earrings sitting in the passenger seat. He goes into the pub and comes out, having bought a drink for the woman who is driving. They have a sign on the back saying "Nuclear power, no thanks", as though the risk of a scrap of radioactive dust resting on their noses for a second was in some way more dangerous than sinking a half pint or a pint or two in the pub and then going driving. Passengers, especially if they are over 18, are consenting adults in those circumstances. They are not totally innocent victims. Every passenger should pre-plan to be driven by an alcohol-free driver.
      The third point concerns the drivers themselves. No driver should wait until half way through a party or a pub session before deciding how he is to get home or what he is drinking. We should encourage drivers to pre-plan.
      Random breath testing will not help with any of those points. It is another part of the game of cops and robbers with the police. We do not want people to come anywhere near the legal limit and then to say that they are all right if they are below the level at which they can be arrested and convicted virtually automatically. We want less offending and less drink-driving.
      It is fashionable to support random breath testing. When James Dunbar, the police surgeon from Tayside, first discovered what had been happening in Sweden and in New South Wales in 1985–86, he did a service to the country. He started to show that one could cut drink-driving pretty dramatically. His work was shown to various people, including myself. I went to New South Wales to check the figures, although I did not go to Sweden. I kept ringing up Sweden and asking people there to provide the information.
      The time series was not easily available. There were two or three sessions of years for which James Dunbar had information. He may have had the information for Finland. However, the time series for each country is not easily available. If it is, I should love it to be sent to me.
      The National Audit Office, in one of its most shoddy pieces of work—report No. 517 in 1988—began to talk about random breath testing. Its job is to examine Government Departments, not to interfere in ministerial decisions. The decision whether to have random breath testing is clearly a decision for Parliament and likely to be based on a ministerial recommendation to Parliament.
      The National Audit Office also has a responsibility to consider the effectiveness, efficiency and economic operation of Departments. Irrespective of those three Es, in the 15 months before the National Audit Office reported we were dramatically successful at a lower cost to the taxpayer. In the 15 months before the Select Committee on Transport examined the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, the number of drink-driving offences committed by young men under 30, appeared

      855
      from surveys to have fallen from 2 million occasions a week to 600,000. That was a reduction of two thirds in the incidence of that criminal and lethal activity.
      That approach has clearly saved lives, reduced crime and has not relied on a police officer behind every lamp post. One would have expected the National Audit Office therefore to extend that principle into other areas of crime reduction where silly lives are not lost.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend accept that, during that period when there was a substantial improvement, there was an enormous increase in random stopping? Random stopping by the police is surely the key.
      Mr. Bottomley: I was describing what I could call the ignorance area. I was learning about what to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
      I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the former Secretary of State for Transport, who was involved in many of the decisions and in whose name many press releases were issued. I hope that he will not mind if I share that credit with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was the first Secretary of State for Transport to endorse the message that people should not drink and drive at all. He moved away from the message "keep low".
      The number of breath tests may have increased from 300,000 to 500,000. However, because of the white noise from the random breath test brigade, people do not consider the facts. Those facts are available in the road accident statistics and they are available in the transport and road research laboratory studies.
      They do not reach the general public because the media will only allow the public to learn that people will not run the risk of being caught unless they are caught by a random breath test. If the 42 per cent. of people who are caught driving above the legal limit for drink-driving did not believe that they were likely to be caught, they were wrong.
      If it were not so serious, it would be entertaining to hear someone explain that what matters is the perceived risk of being caught and not the real risk of being caught. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred indirectly on 10 December to someone being caught three times. Such a person must not rely on being caught—he must change his behaviour. I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should resign, but not because of his behaviour. We all make mistakes. I drove badly on the day of his court case and I did something that could have resulted in a loss of life. I do not argue that the hon. Gentleman did that. He should resign because the facts show that opting for random breath tests would cost 200 lives a year within two years. That rate over a decade would cost thousands of lives.
      The Opposition's policy is wrong. If they were to offer suggestions which would work, I would support them. All the evidence is that random breath testing at best is a distraction, and at worst would cause more lives to be lost than could now be saved.
      Ms. Ruddock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks. It is unacceptable for him to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I or any other hon. Member would table a new clause if we believed that it would result in the
      856
      loss of 200 lives a year. We would not, and we have not, done that. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has offered his personal opinion, but he has produced no evidence to support it.
      Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is plain wrong. I do not blame her, because she is not the boss. I am following the habit of her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who is the boss. If we had introduced random breath testing in 1982, as New South Wales did, or in 1986 or 1988, or if we introduced it now and relied on it to reduce the rate at which people die in alcohol-related accidents, we might have achieved what New South Wales achieved. There would have been 50 per cent. more deaths as a result of drink driving then we now have.
      Ms. Ruddock: It is not a question whether the boss is here or not. I made the speech and I will defend it. We have not suggested, as I made absolutely clear, that our proposals in the new clause for random breath testing are a substitute for measures which the Government are pursuing. Nor do we suggest that with hindsight it would have been a better alternative. We propose an additional measure that we believe will result in a further reduction in the number of drink-driving offences and so build on the good results of this country in that respect.
      Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is leading on to what really matters. If we believe that random checks, even under the method proposed in the new clause, will not add to detection of the crime, in the long term that will not be an effective deterrent. It will not achieve anything. It caused Alcohol Concern to write to hon. Members stating that 500 lives a year would be saved and that that figure is more than half the number of lives still being lost in alcohol-related crashes. That is not possible. A similar argument is made by Derek Rutherford, and it is led by people like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). They are all wrong. In fields such as medicine or education, if people can be shown to be wrong, they keep quiet.
      I want to consider what measures would actually work. First, the police around the country should follow the lead of what happens in Scotland, where police try to test every driver involved in a crash. That does not happen in most parts of England, and particularly not on Merseyside or in London.
      If we are to have a change in the law, all drink-drivers as a condition of bail should be expected to surrender their licences until they attend court. There would then be no delay in facing the consequences of one's actions. We should also ensure that we try to discover where people got into a condition that is criminal and so often lethal. In that way, people would have to face up to their own responsibilities, instead of relying on the mystique or white magic of random breath testing.
      We must make progress so that drink-drive deaths are so infrequent that, when one occurs, the Opposition spokesman on transport calls for the resignation of the Transport Minister. When I was Under-Secretary of State for Transport for three and a half years, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not once call for my resignation, even though 14 people a day were dying on our roads. He was not interested in that. He wanted the

      857
      glamour. The Opposition and my colleagues should agree on ways to make progress and to continue to reduce deaths on our roads.
      Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has experience as a junior Transport Minister, but he said nothing to convince me that my Front-Bench colleagues are wrong.
      Any additional activity should be pursued in the campaign to stop drinking and driving. As has been said earlier, people who drink and drive have a lethal weapon in their hands. That is enormously dangerous. Those people are careless. They are not all drunkards or alcoholics, although the number of alcoholics is increasing. Princess Di came to my constituency not too long ago to open an anti-alcohol clinic called Turning Point. The movement to combat alcoholism is increasing and has had to do so. People in a drunken state will be prone to take risks, a point that has not been raised so far.
      7.30 pm
      As many other hon. Members have said, the power of this new clause is that it must increase the deterrent. It is a matter of logic. We are asking the police to undertake an additional activity. I am glad that Labour Members have a free vote on the new clause, because that will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to do, what his conscience guides him to do, so that he can go down to his working men's club and look those present in the face. However, I am considering the new clause in the broad range and asking myself whether it will decrease the possibility of drunken drivers killing other people. I think that it will.
      I take on board what the hon. Member for Eltham said about the occasion when the former Member for Blackburn, who is now a Member of the other place, introduced the first breathalyser legislation. The hon. Gentleman implied that the pubs suddenly emptied. They did not. In my own constituency, racially prejudiced publicans who had previously refused to serve black and brown people, when faced with a sharp reduction in their custom, were glad to serve anybody, and welcomed everybody with open arms, even those wearing turbans. Those are the difficulties that we encountered in the early formative years of the legislation.
      I have been breathalysed twice when driving from my surgery. The first time was some time ago, because I have now learnt my lesson. On that occasion, one of the councillors with whom I shared my surgery wanted to take me to the nearest pub to have a chat. He bought me a double whisky, which I do not normally drink, but as he was paying, I accepted it with open arms. Down the road we went, and I was pulled in near Southall police station. The policeman did not know me, but I do not think that he would have acted any differently if he had recognised me.
      Fortunately, I was not over the top, but the experience frightened me. I did not want to be a companion of those other hon. Members who have been done under the breathalyser test and have then had to issue a public apology. Because I do not want to be put in that position and because that experience frightened me so much, I do not drink and drive nowadays. If any action to which the House can agree will push people in that direction, so much the better.
      858
      On the other occasion when I was breathalysed, I had had only a couple of cups of tea at a local Indian social, but I was pulled up in Hayes. I served in Committee on the Bill that introduced the existing regulations on deterrents. Of course, policemen always call one "Sir", and this young man said to me, "Well, sir, you were driving erratically." That was what had given him the suspicion that I might he drunk. I said, "I do not remember us including 'suspicion of driving erratically' in the legislation. I always drive erratically." That shows that breath testing used to happen on the basis of suspicion, but that we are now moving to the new idea of random breath testing.
      I am sorry that the Government are not allowing their Members to vote according to their consciences. I do not agree with the suggestion that the new clause is an attempt by teetotallers to take it out on drinkers. I agree entirely that the new clause would be a step forward in the fight against drunken driving, and I wish it all success. I hope that Conservative Members who agree with my attitude to the new clause will join us in the Lobby and will say, "Throw this three-line Whip out of the window."
      Mr. Conal Gregory: There cannot be any right hon. or hon. Member who at some stage has not lost a constituent or a constituent's child as a result of a drink-driving case. Alcohol contributes to an estimated one in 10 of all road traffic accidents in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, it causes over 800 deaths and a staggering 22,000 casualties each year. However, more than a quarter of male drivers and one in five female drivers believe that their blood alcohol concentration has exceeded the legal limit at some time in the previous year. It is true that inroads have been made into the problem of drink-driving during the past decade. I welcome the detailed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) as part of that statistical debate, although that is about the point where my hon. Friend and I diverge.
      Further deterrents are needed, of which the random breath testing that is proposed in the all-party new clause would be one, but only one, way forward. However, based on evidence from other countries, that deterrent should work. We should not dismiss such evidence out of hand.
      In a recent survey, 42 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving thought that they ran little risk of detection. As long as people think that they can get away with it, the penalties will not work. Stopping the offence is clearly better than punishment—and the police agree. Mr. Peter Joslin, the chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said:
      "A deterrence-based enforcement system is far more effective in reducing drink-drive fatalities than the traditional enforcement model."
      At present, the police can require a breath test in three circumstances. As there seems to be a little confusion in the House about this matter, I shall reiterate those three circumstances clearly. First, the police can require a breath test when the driver is suspected of having alcohol in his or her body; secondly, when a moving traffic offence has been committed; and thirdly, when the driver has been involved in an accident. The police also have the general power to stop a vehicle at any time.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has made precisely the point that the police have the general power to stop vehicles. Like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I too have been stopped and

      859
      breathalysed. It happened just before Christmas. When I stepped out of the car, the policeman said, "This is a routine check, sir." If that is not random stopping and effectively random breath testing, I do not know what is, because the policeman then asked me whether I had been drinking. I confirmed that I had, but thankfully I did not even register on the machine.
      My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) owes it to the House to make a much better case than he and the hon. Members supporting the new clause have done so far, because there are already sufficient powers. Indeed, when I told the policeman that the House was debating the point that very evening, he said, "Sir, we have enough powers as it is, but if you want to give us some more, that's fine by us."
      Mr. Gregory: With respect, my hon. Friend jumped into the argument a little prematurely. The next time that he is stopped, he can refer to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. With respect, the correlation between that section and random breath testing seems to have escaped him. I did not go on to make that analogy; I merely referred to the occasions when a police officer in uniform can stop any person driving a vehicle. I have not yet gone on to extrapolate that argument in terms of random breath testing, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a little longer, I shall do so.
      According to case law, the three circumstances to which I have referred may be combined. A police officer may stop any vehicle to establish suspicion that the driver has been drinking, after which the breath test may be required. The police argue that establishing grounds for suspicion before testing should be unnecessary and that they should have unrestricted powers to require a breath test.
      The new clause provides for random breath testing at roadside checkpoints, and the regulations included in the new clause would permit roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles could be stopped by a constable in uniform for the administration of breath tests. Roadside checkpoints would be authorised in writing and clearly signposted.
      As a deterrent to drinking before driving, the great virtues of the new clause are its visibility and the fact that roadside testing could be encountered anywhere at any time, although there is no reason why testing should not be targeted. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety favours the new clause, as do many other experts and members of the public. In due course, I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic summon all the agencies and organisations at his command which oppose the view of PACTS. In an intervention, he referred to the Royal Automobile Club. The view of the RAC is ambiguous, as my hon. Friend should know from its press notice. I am sure that he has many other organisations at his command which support his argument.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gregory: I am conscious of the time, but I will give way.
      Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has done a great deal of research into the matter. Will he confirm that all that PACTS and other organisations wish to achieve is legal
      860
      under the present law? It is possible to have marked road checks and to test everyone except a driver who, after being stopped, is found not to have taken a drink, who has not been involved in an accident and who has not driven badly.
      Mr. Gregory: Rather than considering exceptions, I am concerned to deter people. When enshrined in statute law, the new clause should be used not only to deter but to catch people. My hon. Friend constantly looks at the exceptions and perhaps introduces an element of the civil liberties argument, which I shall come to in a moment.
      Experience abroad, notably in Scandinavia and in most of Australia, supports the case for the new clause. New South Wales has been referred to frequently tonight. Many in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association must have visited New South Wales, judging by the number of hon. Members who seem to be aware of that fine state. In the first four years of random breath testing there, the average number of fatal or serious accidents related to alcohol fell by one third. That is a telling and practical argument which my hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind.
      One aspect has been referred to only obliquely. If there were ever any doubt about the new clause, it should be dispelled by this aspect. We are debating the measure as a motoring matter. If Department of Health Ministers and those responsible for budgeting for the health service were present tonight—they are not—they would be in favour of the amendment. The hospital and social security savings in New South Wales were over 20 times the initial cost of implementing the scheme. If the new clause does not find favour tonight—I hope that it will—such a measure might be included in the Finance Bill after the Budget on 19 March. The measure would certainly appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health.
      An argument which is sometimes used against random breath testing is that the rate of detection is low. Up to a point, that was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. However, no one suggests that random breath testing should be a substitute for existing procedures. It would be an additional weapon in the armoury of the police. Only in the completely impartial context of roadside checkpoints would the requirement for establishing suspicion be waived. The impartiality of random breath testing is a crucial aspect.
      Mr. Michael Irvine: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gregory: I must make progress. I am mindful of the time and the admonitions of the Chief Whip.
      Over 77 per cent. of people interviewed in a Government survey last September praised the impartial aspect of random breath testing.
      New clause 2 provides for the introduction of random breath testing. By that I mean that the police will be able to breath-test randomly selected samples of drivers without reasonable cause for suspicion at specially designated roadside checkpoints authorised by a senior police officer.
      I stress that it would not give the police unfettered discretion to breath-test any driver anywhere at any time. It is an additional power, which provides an element of deterrence which is difficult to achieve under current procedures and which is so important for reducing road

      861
      deaths. I am convinced that there is substantial support among professional, public and parliamentary opinion for this change in the drink-driving law.
      It is essential that the message from the House tonight is that drinking and driving do not mix. The power to deter that lethal concoction is with right hon. and hon. Members, and I urge them to accept this straightforward new clause.
      7.45 pm
      Sir Ian Lloyd: I wish to detain the House for a few minutes to discuss some important aspects of the new clause. The first is the matter of definitions. The definition of the word "random" is important. It is clear that some hon. Members are under the impression that the new clause asks for a power that would virtually give the police permission to stop anyone they chose at any time and any place. That is not my understanding of the term "random".
      A random number generator, as any statistician would agree, produces random numbers by choice, by means of a computer or, more simply, by taking numbers out of a bag, as in a lottery. For example, if 150,000 establishments which sell alcohol, such as hotels, pubs, clubs and so on, were chosen by a random number generator and one was the House of Commons, the police would be obliged to carry out checks at the exit of the House.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: They would have a field day.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: They might, but there might be other places, in the country where they would have an equally good field day. If it was established that every 10th, 20th or 50th car should be checked, and the 50th car going out of the gate was that of the Prime Minister, his car would have to be stopped under genuine random testing.
      The second definition with which I wish to deal is the difference between drink-driving and drunken driving. For perfectly understandable reasons, many hon. Members use the two terms as if they were entirely interchangeable. Sometimes, they take the absolutist view that there should be no drink-driving when, effectively, they mean that there should be no drunken driving. The scale of the problem clearly defines the difference. t have already given all the figures to the House, and I shall not detain it by doing so again tonight, but a clear distinction must be made between a system with the legitimate objective, of catching the incompetent, dangerous, drunken driver—someone who is over the limit—and a system directed with vast resources at the rest of the driving community.
      I state once again with all the force at my command that, in a free society, we cannot attempt to use motor vehicles—22 million of them—to enforce prohibition, which is what a zero limit would be. Even if there were no legal zero limit, the social idea expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—that whether or not it is a legal offence, it is a moral offence to take any drink and get into a motor car and drive—is an absolutist view. We could never achieve that objective in a free society.
      As one gets nearer to the limit, so the processes of enforcement become more rigorous. I have argued before on the Floor of the House that, even if the death penalty were attached to drunken driving, in a free society there would still be those who would take the risk.
      862
      My main argument is based on an entirely different set of premises. The House—and, in a sense, the Government—continues to adhere to an old technology or set of institutions. I find that difficult to understand. We are always reluctant to say, "Here is a solution which we know could work and which, if it worked, would work perfectly." As I have shown in more ways than one, the technology is clear and is being applied elsewhere. One Opposition Member said that people should lose their jobs if convicted of drunken driving. I believe that in certain circumstances they should not lose their jobs.
      In California, where there is considerable experience in the matter, the use of the breathalyser ignition lock enables a person who has been involved in a case of drink-driving which was not serious to be given a lesser sentence. It is not necessary for a driver to lose his or her job.
      Some hon. Members may have seen an excellent programme some time ago on television; I think it was "Horizon". It dealt with traffic problems in Los Angeles and showed some of the ways being developed all over the world to deal with the problem of the motor car. One thing which struck me forcibly was that we saw eight or nine vehicles going along a motorway, completely under computer control, some with the driver in the back seat. We are not there yet. It may be 10 to 15 years before it will be illegal for anyone who is over the legal limit of alcohol consumption to take a car on to a motorway. The technology will exist to prevent accidents, and it will be safer and better than human judgment.
      If we are serious, we may say that, by the year 2000, every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a breathalyser ignition lock. If that takes place, it will be impossible for anyone to drink and drive unless the driver cuts the wires, and that would be a serious offence. The technology might exist for a central register to show that he had done so.
      Do we want to eliminate drunken driving, or do we not? If we want to bring it down to zero, that is the way to do it. If it is not the way to do it, I should like to see a better way. If that is the target that we must achieve, will we do so by using deterrence, which will involve vast police forces trying to achieve by random breath testing the final eliminator test? Do we do it in that way, or do we say, "Here is a technology which enables the human being to reconcile his wish to drive his motor car and also to drink up to the point where, if he is in the least dangerous, he cannot physically do so"?
      If the limit of 80 mg is too high, we can bring it down to 50 mg. If 50 mg is too high, we can bring it down to 30 mg. If 30 mg is too high, we can bring it down to zero. But at every stage of the reduction, I believe that the case that I have made in my proposed new clauses for self-breathalysing and subsequently for the use of a breathalyser ignition lock becomes stronger and stronger. I ask the Minister to give us the Government's view on my proposals.
      Mr. Allason: I should like to share with the House my experience of the breathalyser, both as a police officer who has administered it and as a motorist who has been breathalysed. During the period that I spent in the police, I was satisfied that I had the equivalent of the power proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). When I was breathalysed shortly before Christmas two years ago, I had not been drinking. When asked by the police officer who stopped me on the Embankment whether I had had a drink, I denied it. He

      863
      nevertheless administered the breath test, which was negative. But examples surely show that we already have the power.
      The hon. Lady gave two platforms for the new clause. The first was public pressure. I am reluctant ever to criticise the Labour party for adopting Conservative policies, but I urge it not to adopt the policy of proposing amendments like the new clause in order to be seen to be doing something, or to be responding to what is termed public pressure. The Government have made a habit of doing that. I point to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and to the Football Spectators Act 1989 as two classic examples of the Government misconceiving legislation and bringing it before the House.
      The second plank of the hon. Lady's platform was the deterrent value—the likelihood of being caught. I entirely agree with her that the likelihood of being caught is indeed the principal element in deterring criminal activity. If we analyse what she is suggesting, it means greater police deployment in that sphere of activity. I interpret that as meaning greater interference with the operational decision-making which is the responsibility of chief police officers.
      There is a hard core of persistent offenders, and the only way to change their behaviour is to change the culture and make it unacceptable to buy rounds for people who will later be driving.
      It has been said that organisations such as the Consumers Association and the National Council for Civil Liberties support random testing. There is a belief that random testing is a panacea, but it is not. The police do not want such a power. They already have the powers that they need. I therefore urge the House to oppose the new clause.
      Mr. John Browne: I wish briefly to support the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has spoken ably on it, and I agree with almost every word that he said.
      Of course, to have legislation on random breath testing is a curb on individual freedom, but we already accept curbs on individual freedom. We have to drive on the left of the road, we have to wear safety belts, and we have to obey the highway code. Those are all curbs on individual freedom, but they are all designed for safety and that is the purpose of the new clause.
      I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who made a persuasive argument, but as a layman I still believe that the new clause would have a deterrent value, although the powers already exist. That value is enormous in relation to the human suffering of those involved, in relation to the human anguish of the relatives of those involved, and in relation to money for the national health service and the taxpayer. I believe that about £600 million per year is involved.
      As a deterrent, the new clause would help to save lives. I support it, and I urge the House to do likewise. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his opposition to the new clause and to remember that we demand these standards of airline pilots, bus drivers and train drivers. I believe that we should bring in the new clause as a deterrent to drink-driving.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I support random breath testing, but not the nonsense of the new clause. I cannot
      864
      think of any single way in which the police could more infuriate ordinary drivers than to have such a roadside test. Whenever I am stopped at a roadside checkpoint, I get infuriated. If we want to improve relations between the public and the police, the new clause is not the way to do it.
      The kind of random breath testing that I favour is the kind that we already enjoy. I do not say that with any great pleasure. The fact is that police officers can stop the driver of a car and, whether they pretend or whether they have real justification for doing so, they can inflict a breath test upon anyone. The trouble is not that that is being done, but that the public do not perceive that there is a power of random breath testing.
      We could fulfil a useful purpose if we made it clear to the public that there is random breath testing already, that it is already legal and that they had better watch out when they drink and drive, because they may be stopped and disqualified. That is the random breath testing which it is within my bounds to support as one who believes in the freedom of the individual.
      8 pm
      Mr. Chope: We have had a three-hour debate and I doubt whether anything that I could say would have much influence on the way in which hon. Members will vote. This has been a debate about random breath testing, although the better expression might be untargeted breath testing, because that is what the proponents of the new clause are arguing for. The House is united in its condemnation of those who drive with excess alcohol. Where there have been differences in the debate, they have been about the means to the end—of reducing the numbers who drink and drive and thereby the numbers who are killed and maimed as a result.
      It is unworthy of those who support the new clause to accuse those who do not of being complacent or uncaring about road safety. The Government are proud of their record on road safety and, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, we have the best road safety record in the European Community.
      Government policy on this issue has been arrived at after the most careful and rational analysis of the evidence and arguments. On 1 February 1989, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when Home Secretary, initiated the debate, in response to a request from the police, for more powers. References to the background to that were made during the debate, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
      As a result, there was public consultation. It emerged from that that there was much public ignorance about the extent of the powers that the police have. To clarify the position, on Tuesday 5 November 1989 the Attorney-General, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), set out the legal position. It is not necessary for me to recite that again tonight.
      That position ensures that the police have power to stop motorists whom they wish to stop and then to ask for a breath test of motorists whom they suspect of drinking, of being involved in accidents or of moving road traffic offences. The Government view is that the existing powers strike the right balance between the need for effective enforcement of the law and the freedom of the individual.

      865
      The arguments on the other side have been largely concerned with the issue of deterrence. I think that, in the end, perception and reality over time have a tendency to coincide. We saw in the examples from New South Wales, and earlier from France, that, as soon as there was a change in the law, people thought that a random test was just around the corner, and as a result there was a reduction in the incidence of drink driving. But that was only a temporary phenomenon. It is more important that there should be a change of attitude.
      One can see the difference in connection with speeding. I do not think there has been a change yet in attitude towards speeding, and that is why, when one observes police vehicles going along a motorway, most people, if they are sensible, reduce their speed while in the vicinity of those police vehicles. But as soon as they have gone past, they increase their speed.
      In connection with drink driving, we do not think that the incidence of a large number of road checkpoints would add significantly to deterrence. Indeed, Government policy is to use public progaganda advertising for the purposes and to try to create a public atmosphere in which drink driving is not tolerated.
      The Legal and General Insurance Company, following a recent Gallup survey, found that 84 per cent. of people said that, as a result of Government advertising, they had been made to think twice about drinking and driving. That is a more cost-effective way of proceeding than spending £12 million a year in police time setting up road blocks at which probably fewer than one in 100 of the people tested would be found to have been a drink-driver.
      Mr. Day: My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, the exercise in New South Wales proved to be cost-effective.
      Mr. Chope: I had not intended to mention New South Wales in detail. There is a code of guidance there, and my hon. Friend and others will be interested to know that as part of that code says:
      "A random breath testing station is not to be established in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises."
      I do not understand why that provision is included. Many people who support the principle of the new clause may be concerned when they analyse what might be contained in the controls that would be introduced under it.
      This has been a high-quality debate. We had moments of passionate intensity and serious deliberation and we had expressions of brotherly love in the Labour party, as exemplified by the exchanges between the hon. Members for Bassetlaw and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The latter called his honourable enemy a twit, which elicted the memorable response from the hon. Gentleman that he was speaking as a working-class Labour voter. On the evidence of tonight's debate, working-class Labour voters may be an endangered species, and we should place a preservation order on the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
      Mr. Ashton: I should put it on record that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) apologised for losing his temper. I accepted his apology and we are now the best of friends.
      Mr. Chope: On that happy note, I shall resume my seat.
      Ms. Ruddock: I shall delay the House for only a few moments to respond to the debate on the new clause that stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends.
      I regret that the Minister concluded his remarks in the way he did, because this has been an extremely serious debate. We should concentrate our thoughts on the main issue involved, that of deaths and injuries. During the debate, a number of myths have been peddled by those who oppose the idea of random breath testing, and they have suggested that the powers to have random breath tests already exist. They do not. What is being used by some police forces in Britain is a combination of the power randomly to stop combined, with the power to test on suspicion. Those two powers have been combined by some chief police officers in a way that has not been authorised by the House and is a combination of powers that many other police forces have chosen not to use.
      By tabling the new clause, we seek in no way to remove those powers from the police. We have no intention of trying to end targeted testing, of which we thoroughly approve and which has produced good results by reducing the number of drink-related accidents. We seek to add an additional power to permit truly randomised testing. That testing would be accountable. It would not distinguish between people—types, classes and so on—but would say, in effect, "If your car is passing a random test point and you are a chosen number, you will be stopped for a legitimate purpose," and that purpose would be to deter those who choose to break the law by drinking and driving.
      This is not, as has been suggested, a response by my party designed to court popularity. I have called in aid the support of the general public. That supports our case, and we cite it because we are convinced that, if our proposal were introduced, it would have public support. So the public would understand what it was all about and would be willing to co-operate in its implementation.
      I remind the House that 800 deaths per annum are involved in this argument. My hon. Friends and I believe that if we can do something to help reduce that number of deaths, we should do it. We are convinced of our case. There is room for improvement on all that has been done by the Government to date. For that reason alone, we urge support for the new clause.
      Confident though we are of our case, we have allowed our Members a free vote. I hope, with hon. Members anxious to vote on the issue, that those on the Government Benches who support us will have the courage to follow their consciences.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 265.

      Division No. 81]

      [8.9 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joseph

      Alton, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Boyes, Roland

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Battle, John

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Beggs, Roy

      Caborn, Richard

      Beith, A. J.

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Cartwright, John

      867

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clay, Bob

      McKelvey, William

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McLeish, Henry

      Cohen, Harry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Corbett, Robin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      McWilliam, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Madden, Max

      Darling, Alistair

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Day, Stephen

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Michael, Alun

      Dobson, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Doran, Frank

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Douglas, Dick

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mudd, David

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mullin, Chris

      Eastham, Ken

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      O'Brien, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Fatchett, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Pendry, Tom

      Fearn, Ronald

      Prescott, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Primarolo, Dawn

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

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Fisher, Mark

      Redmond, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Reid, Dr John

      Foster, Derek

      Richardson, Jo

      Galloway, George

      Robertson, George

      George, Bruce

      Rogers, Allan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rooker, Jeff

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rooney, Terence

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Gould, Bryan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Graham, Thomas

      Salmond, Alex

      Gregory, Conal

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Short, Clare

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Haynes, Frank

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

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Kilfedder, James

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wallace, James

      Lamond, James

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Leighton, Ron

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lewis, Terry

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Livsey, Richard

      Wilson, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Winnick, David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McAllion, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McCartney, Ian

      Mrs. Maria Fyfe and

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Dr. Lewis Moonie.

      McFall, John

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Baldry, Tony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Allason, Rupert

      Batiste, Spencer

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Benyon, W.

      Ashby, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ashton, Joe

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Atkins, Robert

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      868

      Body, Sir Richard

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

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Harris, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bowis, John

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Brazier, Julian

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Bright, Graham

      Hill, James

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

      Hind, Kenneth

      Budgen, Nicholas

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

      Burns, Simon

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Butler, Chris

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Butterfill, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Irvine, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Cash, William

      Jackson, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Janman, Tim

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jessel, Toby

      Chope, Christopher

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Churchill, Mr

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Key, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Conway, Derek

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knapman, Roger

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Couchman, James

      Knowles, Michael

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Knox, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Latham, Michael

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

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Devlin, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lord, Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Eggar, Tim

      Maclean, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Evennett, David

      Madel, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fallon, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Favell, Tony

      Marlow, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Mates, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Forth, Eric

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Franks, Cecil

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fraser, John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Freeman, Roger

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      French, Douglas

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gale, Roger

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Needham, Richard

      Grist, Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hague, William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      869

      Norris, Steve

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Page, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Paice, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Patchett, Terry

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thorne, Neil

      Portillo, Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Price, Sir David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Trippier, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Turner, Dennis

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walden, George

      Rost, Peter

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Whitney, Ray

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shersby, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Stevens, Lewis

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      DESIGNATION OF PARKING CONTROL AUTHORITY
      'After section 95 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 there shall be inserted—
      "95A(1) The Secretary of State may in the circumstances specified in subsection (2) below and subject to subsection (5) below by Order designate any Metropolitan District Highway Authority in a Metropolitan County as a parking control authority.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall make an Order under this section in respect of any metropolitan county area where—

      (a) he has been requested to do so by all the Metropolitan District Highway Authorities in the relevant county; and

      (b) he is satisfied that the designation in necessary having regard to—

      (i) the level of unenforced contraventions of the law relating to stationary vehicles in the area concerned;

      (ii) the transport policies of the authorities concerned; and

      (iii) the effect of the level of unenforced contraventions on these policies.

      (3) Before making an Order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult any Police Authority all or part of whose area comprises the metropolitan county concerned.
      (4) Any Order made under this section shall—
      870

      (a)specify under which provisions of this Act regulations may be enforced by the parking control authorities in the Metropolitan County concerned;

      (b) provide for the contravention of regulations made under those provisions to cease to be a criminal offence;

      (c) specify the means by which the parking control authorities shall discharge their responsibilities under this section.

      (5) No Order may be made under this section before 1st January 1994.".'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The effect of the new clause will be to allow the Secretary of State to designate metropolitan district councils as parking control authorities. He would have to be satisfied that designation was necessary because the level of unenforced parking contraventions in the area concerned was undermining local transport policies. The powers provided by the new clause would not be used until 1994.
      The new clause is necessary because part II deals with parking enforcement exclusively in relation to London. The highways committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is concerned, and the Opposition share that concern, that parking problems in the major urban areas outside London are increasing rapidly and that action is needed in relation to them as well as in the context of London. That view is shared by the AMA's public transport committee, which is concerned about the effect of illegal parking on the reliability of bus services.
      The best detailed information on the problems of enforcement is from joint police and highway authority studies of parking enforcement in Sheffield and Rotherham, commissioned by the Home Office working party on parking enforcement.
      In Sheffield, surveys were carried out in three areas, including 20 per cent. of the city centre. Agreed beats were patrolled between five and 10 times over two days. The surveys adopted the same five-minute loading rules as that adopted by traffic wardens. The Sheffield survey found that fewer than 1 per cent. of vehicles found parking on yellow lines in the city centre had been served with a parking ticket. It found 55 vehicles parked on yellow lines in a northern part of Sheffield and 49 in part of south Sheffield. None had been subject to enforcement action.
      The Rotherham survey was carried out on a similar basis. In Rotherham town centre, 132 vehicles were found parked on yellow lines, only one of which had been the subject of enforcement. In the outer areas surveyed, 47 contraventions were spotted, but not one parking ticket was seen.
      Those surveys show that only a minute proportion of vehicles found on yellow lines had been served with a parking ticket. In response to that finding, the police state that the contraventions found were often in side streets and had resulted in no major congestion or road safety problem. On that basis, they argue that the findings did not support the case for change outside London.
      The AMA highways committee accepts that many of the contraventions found in the Sheffield and Rotherham studies did not result in major congestion or road safety

      871
      problems, but it does not accept that that in any way undermines the case for change. The fact is that the law is not being enforced.
      It is particularly important to understand the police view and their objective, which is parking enforcement strictly in the narrow terms of maintaining the free flow of traffic. Yet parking is increasingly also being viewed as an important transport policy. The availability of parking space can be an important influence on a person's decision whether to travel by car or by public transport. The availability of additional free parking space—that is, unenforced parking on yellow lines—can seriously undermine broader transport policies designed to encourage greater use of public service vehicles.
      It is also important to acknowledge that yellow lines are introduced for a range of reasons other than maintaining the free flow of traffic on main routes. Local traffic management and environmental considerations are often, and increasingly important. Those are local authority rather than police objectives, but the responsibility for allocating enforcement resources rests with the police.
      Concern is not confined to south Yorkshire. For example, Manchester city council is currently lobbying for parking enforcement powers to be transferred to its authority. Its proposals are based on the important role that parking policies are likely to play in transport strategy designed to tackle that city's worsening problem of road congestion.
      When the subject was discussed in Committee, the Minister rejected out of hand the case for change outside London. He said that the view of the Home Office working party was
      "that the most pressing problems were in London. That is why we have brought forward proposals in the Bill to deal with the problems in London."
      The Minister acknowledged that problems existed outside the capital, but maintained that they could be resolved by improved liaison between the police and highway authorities, but the Minister's remarks included a glimmer of hope for the future. He said:
      "There is not sufficient evidence to warrant changing parking regimes outside London, but that will be reviewed in the light of the experience of the coming months and years in London."
      We accept that the most pressing problems are in London, but that fact in itself is not a reason for not taking action in relation to other urban areas. The new clause is intended to meet most of the Minister's concerns.
      First, the powers available in the clause could not be exercised until 1994. That is intended to enable trends in the other urban areas to be monitored, experience to be gained with the new arrangements in London, and discussions to take place between local highways and police authorities. If the new clause is accepted today, the legislation will be ready once those new steps have been taken.
      The new clause is deliberately drawn in flexible terms. If the Secretary of State were allowed to determine by order the range of powers to be given to parking control authorities, he would be able to take on board the lessons learned in London.
      In Committee, when debating the issue, the Minister further said:
      "It is fair to say that local authorities sometimes abuse yellow lines by painting them on the road against the advice
      872
      of the police. If the police advise against, it is hardly surprising that there is not much enforcement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 5 February 1991; c. 324–29.]
      That goes to the heart of the problem. Highway authorities introduce parking restrictions for a range of reasons—including, increasingly, support of broad transport objectives. Yet the enforcement of those restrictions—the decision, as the Minister suggests, whether they are enforced or not—is left to the police who, in relation to parking, have two important but narrow objectives—maintaining the free flow of traffic and protecting road safety on main routes.
      The way ahead does not lie in the direction set by the Minister, who, in practice, has given the police carte blanche not to enforce restrictions with which they do not agree. The way forward involves vesting public policy making, regulation making and enforcement in one authority—the local highway authority.
      The Minister's response also highlights a contradiction between the recognition now being given by his Department to the importance of parking to transport policy and his attitude to enforcement. The new clause attempts to address the issue head on by including as factors which Ministers must take into account when designating a parking control authority the transport policies of the areas concerned and the impact of the level of enforcement of those policies.
      The Minister may well argue about the wording of the new clause, but that is not important at this stage of the Bill's process. What is important is that the Minister should acknowledge that parking enforcement is a problem in urban areas outside London; that it is likely that changes to the enforcement regime will be needed to tackle those problems in due course; that experience in London could provide valuable lessons for other areas; and that it would be sensible to take enabling powers in the Bill so that steps could be taken to tackle the problem outside London, as soon as the Department and the police accept the local authorities' case for change. That stage may not be reached in the immediate future, but it will almost certainly be reached before further parliamentary time is found for this important area of debate.
      Mr. Chope: I cannot accept the amendment. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has explained, it is along similar lines to one that we discussed at considerable length in Committee. I said then that part II of the Bill had been brought forward largely in response to detailed consideration of the issues by a working party chaired by the Home Office during 1987 and 1988. Its report concluded that the problem was in London and that, although it is not true to say that there are no problems outside London, we should tackle the problems there first.
      8.30 pm
      In Committee, I said that it ought to be possible to arrive at a reasonable accommodation on appropriate levels of enforcement effort for traffic and parking controls in the provinces, given that the county is both the police and the highway authority. In many cases, that is what happens in practice.
      As the hon. Lady reminded us, I also said that we would reconsider this matter in the light of experience. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a flexible attitude to the subject and that, if he were persuaded of the need to extend these powers outside

      873
      London, he would have no hesitation in introducing the necessary legislation. At this stage there is no case for proceding in that manner.
      Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister have any thoughts on how many years it will be before congestion problems in other major cities reach the stage that they have now reached in London? Does he believe that associated problems and the need to enforce parking restraints are relevant to that?
      Mr. Chope: I cannot speculate. There is some significance in the fact that no authority outside London has requested the introduction of wheel clamping powers from the Secretary of State, which suggests that authorities have not yet exhausted the enforcement mechanisms available to them under existing powers. Authorities can also employ their own parking attendants to enforce excess charges at paid-for parking meters on the streets, and few authorities yet do so. Those authorities which are introducing new parking controls—whether with meters, parking vouchers, or pay-and-display schemes—find that they can help to achieve their traffic objectives, as well as yield a satisfactory financial return.
      I am not sure whether there is a demand for the changes that the hon. Lady suggests. Even if we had sound

      'For Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prosecution and Punishment of Offenders) Part 1 (Offences under the Road Traffic Act) RTA section 143, there shall be substituted:

      (1) Provision creating offence

      (2) General nature of offence

      (3) Mode of prosecution

      (4) Punishment

      (5) Disqualification

      (6) Endorsement

      (7) Penalty Points

      Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (continued)

      RTA section 143

      Using motor vehicle while

      (a) summarily

      6 months or level 5

      Discretionary

      Obligatory

      6–8

      uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks

      (b) on indictment

      12 months or a fine or both

      Discretionary

      Obligatory

      8.'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 17 seeks to reintroduce a custodial sentence for driving while uninsured. This was thoroughly discussed in Committee and I do not want to detain the House long on the subject tonight. However, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the great concern that has been expressed by the Magistrates Association, among others, about the inability to impose anything other than a fine for the free-standing offence of driving uninsured.
      I am acutely aware that, in many cases, magistrates have powers to impose other sentences because driving uninsured occurs as an offence on its own on relatively rare occasions. However, there are slightly more than 200,000 convictions each year for driving uninsured, which leads me to believe that at any one time the number of people driving uninsured is somewhere in the region of 500,000. Apart from those involved in other offences—for example, theft of a car for use in a burglary or taking and driving away, which account for a number of cases—it is clear that there is a hard core of people who take a calculated risk. Rather like those who knowingly choose not to pay for a television licence, in the belief that they may get away with it, there is a hard core of people who decide, with malice
      874
      evidence for extending our proposals beyond London, it is by no means certain that we would want to limit those powers to metropolitan districts in the way that the new clause does. Why should they be singled out? If the principle were agreed, it would be reasonable to consider extending the powers to the counties as well.
      Ms. Ruddock: We limited powers to the metropolitan districts because we have received evidence that it is in those areas that the problem is perceived as being worse. That is the reason for the limitation in the new clause.
      Mr. Chope: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but it is not necessary to repeat why the Government feel that the new clause should not be accepted. It does not mean that some of the powers that will soon be implemented in London may not be applicable to provincial areas at some stage in the future. We are not ruling that out, but it would be wrong to include the new clause in the Bill.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 17

      PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS
      aforethought, that in the long run it is cheaper not to pay for insurance. Clearly that is worrying. They may get away with it for quite a long time and, as things stand, they may save money.
      Yesterday, the House carried the Criminal Justice Bill through its final stages. It provided for an increase in the level of fine to more than £2,000. I do not wish to pretend that that is not an improvement and that it is not likely to be some deterrent. However, the courts feel that there is a case for enabling them to impose a community service order on people who drive uninsured.
      In 1974, the custodial sentence for this offence was abolished. That was first moved by the Conservative Government in the first half of 1974. The Bill was picked up and carried through by the Labour Government which was elected in 1974. The Bill faced fierce opposition in Committee but was carried on the Floor of the House. The sentence was abolished because the Government—it is fair to say that both sides of the House agreed—felt that the custodial sentence was, in most cases, too draconian, and I agree. When the House took that decision in 1974, the community service order was not on the statute book. As the House knows, community service orders depend on a custodial sentence. Magistrates would like the opportunity to impose community service orders, which they believe

      875
      would be more effective than a fine in some cases, because of the inconvenience caused to the person concerned. There is a feeling that fines are generally treated lightly and with some disdain. Only rarely does the bench—or, in the case of a trial on indictment, the court—find it necessary to impose a prison sentence. The problem is that the custodial sentence, which the House is trying to recommend less, in general, is the key to the community service order.
      As I have said, I do not wish to be doctrinaire about the matter. The problem caused by those who drive without insurance is important. It would indeed have been highlighted in three new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), which I had intended to move for him, but I am afraid that I let him down very badly. I sprinted along the corridor, but did not quite make it in time. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember, as I do, that there was unanimity on the issue in Committee, and I had the distinct impression at the time that my hon. Friend was not entirely opposed to the amendment that we discussed then.
      I accept that what the House decides to do—I hope that it will decide to do something—must be in keeping with both the Criminal Justice Bill, which we passed last night and which is now in the other place, and the other sentencing proposals in this Bill. I know that my hon. Friend has already considered the matter carefully, but I ask him to continue to do so, and, if necessary, to tell me that he is prepared to table an amendment in another place if it is felt that my proposals are too draconian or out of keeping with the general context of both the Criminal Justice Bill and the Road Traffic Bill.
      Mr. Allason: Driving without insurance is a serious offence: anyone without insurance causing an accident involving injury will ensure that the victim is not compensated. Not many people know that the Motor Insurers Bureau exists to compensate those involved with another vehicle so that their own vehicle can be repaired. The new clause has a deterrent value; another deterrent would be provided by the adoption of a disc along the lines of the road fund licence disc, which, if displayed in the car, would prove that the driver was insured. It is astonishing that anyone can buy a vehicle in this country without having to provide proof of an insurance policy. The only occasion when that needs to be done is when a vehicle needs to be retaxed: as we know from bitter experience, few people renew their road fund licences.
      I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) should not feel too concerned about his inability to be present for the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I would certainly have been prepared to consider the first seriously, in the light of what I knew that he wanted to say, although the second would have caused more difficulty.
      Driving without insurance is a serious offence, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee supported the principle that it should be dealt with as such by the magistrates court. The new clause would make the offence triable on indictment, because a maximum penalty of six
      876
      months' imprisonment would be involved: if the sentence were limited to three months, it would be triable only in the magistrates court.
      I believe that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is ultimately responsible for deciding on matters relating to imprisonment and on the maximum penalties. I know that my right hon. Friend is willing to discuss the issue with the Magistrates Association, on whose behalf my hon. Friend and others have spoken: indeed, it is because of the magistrates' interest in the issue that we are discussing it today.
      8.45 pm
      I know that my right hon. Friend is also willing to consider the possibility of increasing the maximum financial penalty even further, to the maximum penalty that the magistrates are empowered to impose. That would not deal with my hon. Friend's anxiety about the magistrates' ability to impose community service orders; it would, however, show the extent of the Government's concern about the offence of driving without insurance.
      In the seven years between 1975 and 1982, the number of such offences increased by 60,000; in the seven-year period between 1982 and 1989, it increased by only about 17,000. The rate of increase is slowing, at a time when the number of private cars on the road has increased by some 30 per cent. and the number of road traffic offences has increased by 38 per cent. My hon. Friend is right in saying that, in many cases, driving without insurance was not the most serious offence—other offences were involved, such as taking a motor vehicle without authority, which used to be called taking and driving away—but in 1989 it was the most serious offence to be tried by the courts in about 127,000 cases.
      Disqualification clearly protects the public from uninsured drivers by removing them from the roads, and, given the level of penalty points, it will not be difficult to reach the stage of disqualification under the totting-up procedures. I think, however, that it would be wrong to base sentencing purely on the deterrent effect. Experience and evidence suggests that that is not always the most important issue, and that is why the approach of the Home Office is to base sentencing on the gravity of the offence. I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government take the matter seriously and are willing to keep it under review, and that my right hon. Friend will be able to meet the Magistrates Association.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) raised an issue that has been raised many times in the past: the desirability of insurance certificates being displayed on windscreens. That happens in some other countries, but we see severe practical problems in the practice, which would need the co-operation of the insurance companies and a specified period for the duration of the certificate. We consider that the present system of an annual or, in some cases, six-monthly road fund licence renewal—to qualify for which a driver must show his insurance certificate and, if the age of the vehicle makes that appropriate, his MOT certificate—is sufficient.
      One of the biggest problems is that, in this country, a single insurance certificate can cover more than one driver and more than one vehicle. In France, insurance has traditionally been based on a single driver and a single

      877
      vehicle. Clearly, it would be much easier to have one certificate which would appear on the windscreen of the vehicle covered by the insurance.
      I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to keep the matter under review. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Gale: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous understanding of the fact that hon. Members sometimes have to be in three places at once and for the undertaking that he has given, although not forced to do so. I hope that the matter can be dealt with in the other place. I warmly appreciate the time that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office gave me today and for his undertaking to meet the Magistrates Association to discuss the matter.
      Clearly, the new clause would have ramifications that I did not wholly appreciate when I first tabled it, not least in terms of the general sentencing in context. I hope that the new clause will at least have shed some light on matters that require further discussion—I would not say, opened a can of worms. I hope that it will be possible to reconsider the matter in the other place. With that proviso, and with many thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 19

      PROHIBITION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON BYWAYS
      'Before section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
      "Prohibition of motor vehicles on byways
      34a(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle on any byway he is guilty of an offence.
      (2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the motor vehicle was driven in contravention of subsection (1) above for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.
      (3) In this section 'lawful authority' does not include the exercise of a public right of way over a byway except where—

      (a) the right of way is being exercised in connection with agricultural or forestry operations; or

      (b) the exercise of the right of way has been authorised by an order under subsection (4) below.

      (4) A local authority may, by order, grant authorisation for the use of motor vehicles on a byway in its area, and such authorisation may provide for use to be restricted to named persons, to a class of vehicle or to specified times.
      (5) In this section—
      'byways' means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic; but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are so used;
      'local authority' has the same meaning as in section 33 above.".'.
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause arises from the concern expressed by many people—the Ramblers Association in particular—about the damage that can be done to footpaths by driving of motor vehicles upon them. The problem is becoming increasingly serious. Our byways—the green lanes in the Pennines, the ridgeways in the downlands and public footpaths throughout the country—are being seriously damaged and churned up, often by joy riders.
      The problem needs to be tackled. The new clause makes it clear that we would not in any way want to inhibit access
      878
      for emergency vehicles or for genuine and legitimate farming and forestry purposes, but we must do everything we can to protect our byways, many of which are in glorious parts of our landscape and offer unparalled opportunities for recreation to many thousands of people. It is incumbent on us to do what we can to ensure that they are protected. The new clause seeks to do precisely that, and I hope that the Government will respond positively to it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this well-motivated and necessary new clause.
      Mr. Chope: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      The law already makes adequate provision for the matters to which the hon. Gentlemen referred. Highway authorities are obliged under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to hold "definitive maps". These are open to inspection by the public and they record the status of routes in the locality. Routes presently shown as "road used as public paths" may be reclassified as footpaths or bridleways where there is no evidence of established vehicular rights. Where there are established vehicular rights, the routes must be shown as "byways open to all traffic". The definition is found in section 127 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and is one used in the new clause. Such a byway conveys a public right of way for vehicles, as the definition itself expressly states. That is how the law stands at present, and we believe that the procedures are satisfactory.
      The new clause seeks to extinguish vehicular rights on byways open to all traffic, with exceptions only for emergencies and in respect of rights of way exercised in connection with agricultural or forestry operations and so on. "Procedure" is probably a misnomer for what is provided by the new clause, which simply gives a summary power to the local authority to grant "authorisations". The new clause is silent about the criteria against which these would be given, and the procedures to be followed. It represents an extraordinary withdrawal of long-established rights of way and would be extremely controversial were the House to accept it and incorporate it in law.
      Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that most local authorities do not have definitive maps? Many give the excuse that they do not have the time or the staff to produce them. Apparently, the Minister requires such maps to be produced. How long will authorities have to produce them? I am thinking in particular of my own authority, Sefton. With my support, the ramblers have been asking for a definitive map for the past five or six years, and it has still not been done. Is there a time limit?
      Mr. Chope: I am not aware that there is a time limit. We are talking about an Act of Parliament passed in 1981. I should certainly hope that local authorities are making some progress towards the establishment of definitive maps, as they are under an obligation to do just that. I shall look into the matter and ascertain whether authorities have until the millennium—or until the next millennium—to produce the maps, or whether they are under an obligation to do so sooner. Obviously, they

      879
      should be brought under some local political pressure, particularly in the light of concern about the unsuitable vehicular use of ancient byways.
      In many cases, it should be possible to establish voluntary management arrangements, which would limit use by, for example, trail bikes or off-road vehicles. Representative bodies have sought to promote responsible use by bikers and four-wheel-drive users. That is a reasonable way in which to deal with the problem.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I fear that the Minister's response is, indeed, disappointing. He places too much reliance on the possibility of voluntary management agreements, which do not always work and which are not always possible. He has failed to recognise the problem identified by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn)—the absence in a number of local authority areas of the definitive maps to which he devoted so much attention. He has also ignored the fact that there is undoubtedly a failure of enforcement even where definitive maps exist and the fact that, in some places—the green lanes are a classic case in point—where the supposed long-standing rights of vehicular access apply, there is none the less a serious problem with the destruction of our countryside heritage. The issue requires more attention and less complacency from the Government.
      Of course I accept that the new clause, in setting out its objectives, is far from perfect. For example, it does not lay down criteria for the local authority concerned. That being the case, it probably would not be sensible to press it to a vote. However, I hope that the Government have noted that among hon. Members there is considerable concern about this matter. We shall certainly wish to return to it in due course.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      CAUSING DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRINK OR DRUGS.
      9 pm
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
      '(c) he is, within 18 hours after that time, required to provide a specimen in pursuance of section 7 of this Act but without reasonable excuse fails to provide it,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
      Mr. Chope: These amendments deal with a technical but important point relating to the refusal to provide a specimen where the new "causing death" offence is alleged. It is important that there be no built-in incentive to refuse a specimen in drink-drive cases, but there is also a need to have a proper safeguard. This amendment incorporates a safeguard—that a person who has refused to provide a specimen more than 18 hours after the incident to which it related would not be able to be convicted of failing to provide a specimen. The time limit is 18 hours: although
      880
      obviously not exact, it is a proxy for a maximum period during which a person whose level was more than three times over the limit would probably have his blood alcohol level reduced to within the limit.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'he'.
      No. 29, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.
      No. 30, in page 3, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'above' and insert 'Subsection (1)(b) and (c)'.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Clause 5

      CAUSING DANGER TO ROAD-USERS
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert

      '(a) anything lawfully placed on or near a road by a highway authority;

      (b) a traffic sign lawfully placed on or near a road by a person other than a highway authority;'

      This amendment arises out of concern, expressed during the debate on clause 5, that the new offence did not adequately cater for traffic equipment placed by anyone other than a highway authority. I explained then that the clause as drafted already catered for equipment placed by contractors working on behalf of a highway authority, but did not go far enough.
      The intention of the amendment is therefore to provide a new definition of "traffic equipment" for this purpose. It will extend the application of the new offence to interference with all traffic signs and safety equipment put up by undertakers executing street works in accordance with the requirements imposed by the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 or which will be imposed under the new roads and street works legislation. I hope that it will be helpful.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 18

      INFORMATION AS TO IDENTITY OF DRIVER ETC.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 14, line 14, after 'corporate', insert
      ', or in Scotland a partnership or an unincorporated association,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 74 and 36.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 correct an omission in clause 18. Where a body corporate is charged with an offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988—failing to provide information as to the identity of the driver at the time of an alleged offence—it can only benefit from the "due diligence" defence if it can show that no record was kept of drivers using the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable. The amendments will make certain that the same qualification will apply in the case of offences by Scottish partnerships and unincorporated associations.

      881
      Amendment No. 36 responds to concerns expressed in Committee. It deals with the offence of failing to provide information about the driver of a vehicle, particularly a vehicle involved in an offence detected by the use of camera technology. There is already an obligation on a registered keeper, when required by the police, to give such information as he is able about the identity of a driver who may have committed a road traffic offence. Obviously, this is particularly important for camera-detected offences, where the camera will have recorded the vehicle's registration plate but not the driver.
      If these provisions are to work, there must be no built-in incentive for the registered keeper to withhold information when he may himself be the driver, so the offence of failing to provide information must be treated with the same level of seriousness as the offence about which information is sought. Companies should have the same responsibility to provide information as a private individual, and it is right that a director or other officer who has connived at failing to provide information or who is negligent should share in that responsibility. There will be a defence that a company could not ascertain who the driver of the vehicle was at a particular time, if it can be demonstrated that failure to keep a record was reasonable. I do not, therefore, believe that companies should be absolved of responsibility.
      A point was raised in committee by a number of hon. Members—in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), in whose name the amendments were tabled, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). We are persuaded that it is not necessarily appropriate for the penalty to include the endorsement of penalty points on a licence where the offence is committed by a company and its officers. The connection with the driving of the particular company vehicles involved in the offence is remote, and too much would turn on whether the relevant director held a driving licence. In such circumstances, I am sure it is right to rely on a financial penalty. Hence, the amendment removes endorsement and discretionary disqualification from the penalty in these cases—and meets the point that was made in Committee.
      For the sake of consistency, it also removes endorsement and discretionary disqualification in cases which may arise in Scotland where a partner in a partnership or an officer of an unincorporated association is prosecuted for an offence committed by the partnership of association.
      I commend these three amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 14, line 16 after first 'above', insert 'or subsection (11) below'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 26

      DISQUALIFICATION FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 23, line 40 at end add
      'or section 223A or 436A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 31

      CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 30, line 13 after 'Where', insert 'in England and Wales'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 76 to 87 and 97 to 101.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendment empowers the police to issue conditional offers of fixed penalty to a majority of those that they would otherwise have reported to the fiscal for committing a fixed penalty offence. The power can be used either at the roadside or, if detected by unmanned equipment, by later sending the offer by post. At present, the police have no power to issue fixed penalty notices at the roadside for traffic offences committed in moving vehicles or in those that attract the endorsement. The police have pressed to have such a power for some time, as they see it as conducive to improved road traffic enforcement.
      We have had extensive consultations with interested bodies and have concluded that the enforcement of road traffic offences, such as speeding, could effectively be carried out by the police using broadly the system of conditional offer fixed penalties proposed in clause 31. If the amendment is made, the police will no longer have to make routine reports on such offences as speeding to the fiscal except in cases where a conditional offer was not taken up. There will therefore be a considerable saving of time for the police and fiscals.
      I commend the amendment as a useful streamlining of present procedures with a potential contribution to policing enforcement and hence road safety in Scotland.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 76, in page 30, line 14, leave out
      ', or in Scotland a procurator fiscal,'.
      No. 77, in page 30, line 21, leave out from 'police' to end of line 39 and insert—
      '(2) Where in Scotland a procurator fiscal receives a report that—

      (a) an offence specified in Schedule 3 to this Act has been committed,

      (b) an offence specified in Schedule 5 to this Act has been committed,

      (c) an offence referrred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above has been committed, being an offence of causing or permitting a vehicle to be used by another person in contravention of any provision made or any restriction or prohibition imposed by or under any enactment, or

      (d) an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of an offence referred to in this subsection has been committed.'.

      No. 78, in page 30, line 41, at end insert—
      '(3) Where in Scotland, a constable—

      (a) on any occasion has reason to believe that a person he finds is committing or has on that occasion committed a fixed penalty offence, he may hand to that person,

      (b) in any case has reason to believe that a fixed penalty offence has been committed, he or another person authorised in that respect by the chief constable may send to the alleged offender,
      a notice under this section.

      (4) Subsections (2) and (3) above shall not apply where a fixed penalty notice has been fixed to a vehicle under section 62 of this Act.'.
      No. 79, in page 31, line 48, leave out '(a)' and insert '(b)'.
      No. 80, in page 32, line 14, after 'until' insert—
      '(a) in England and Wales,'.
      No. 81, in page 32, line 14, after 'or', insert '(b)'.
      No. 82, in page 32, line 15, after 'fiscal' insert
      'or (where the conditional offer was issued under section 75(3) of this Act) the chief constable'.
      No. 83, in page 32, line 34, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert
      'person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) above'.
      No. 84, in page 32, line 42, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 43 and insert
      'person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) above'.
      No. 85, in page 33, line 8, at end insert-—
      '(9) In Scotland, the Secretary of State may by regulations vary the provisions of subsection (2)(b) above.'.
      No. 86, in page 33, line 18, leave out from 'the' to 'under' in line 20 and insert
      'person referred to in section 76(2)(a) or (b) of this Act'.
      No. 87, in page 33, line 40, leave out from 'the' to 'that' in line 42 and insert
      'person referred to in section 76(2)(a) or (b) of this Act'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 34

      DISQUALIFICATION WHERE VEHICLE USED FOR ASSAULT
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 36, line 5, after "convicted', insert
      'by or before any court".—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 35

      DISQUALIFICATION IN SCOTLAND WHERE VEHICLE USED TO COMMIT OFFENCE
      Amendments made: No. 88, in page 36, line 30, at end insert 'and its counterpart'.
      No. 89, in page 36, line 35, at end insert—
      '(4) In relation to licences which came into force before 1st June 1990, the reference in subsection (2) above to the counterpart of a licence shall be disregarded.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 36

      POWER TO INSTALL EQUIPMENT FOR DETECTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES
      Mr. Robert Adley: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 36, line 40, at end insert—
      '(2) A highway authority may, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport for time to time require specified types of public service vehicles operating in its area to be fitted with equipment detectable by said highway authority.'.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment. As one of my hon. Friends said a moment ago, events have moved rather fast and the television monitor where I was sitting packed up—it was probably totally confused by the speed at which we are proceeding.
      My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned unmanned equipment, and that is what the amendment refers to. It is clear to everyone that the police are severely overstretched in trying to cope with London's traffic problems. It is equally clear that certain vehicles, particularly coaches—the amendment refers to public service vehicles—have so multiplied the amount of work placed on the shoulders of
      884
      the Metropolitan police that my hon. Friends who have been dealing with the Bill are right to refer to the need to utilise more unmanned equipment.
      I should like the amendment to be inserted in the Bill in an attempt to use such equipment to deal with the illegal parking of, and use of unsuitable roads by, public service vehicles, particularly coaches. Since coach deregulation, the problem has become almost out of hand. The deregulation legislation, possibly inadvertently, removed from London local authorities both the right and the duty to designate coach routes. I included public service vehicles in the amendment because I wanted to differentiate between coaches and buses. London buses serve Londoners, but coaches serve commuters and tourists. It is not London's buses that cause the problem, but incoming commuter and tourist coaches.
      In support of the amendment, I shall give two brief quotations. The first is a letter from the deputy assistant commissioner of the central district, Mr. Innes, who wrote to me as long ago as 15 January 1987. That is a sign of how long some of us have been trying to raise such problems. He said:
      "You will be aware that in the Central Area problems with coaches are quite horrendous. We have to balance the proper desires of the tourist boards to attract visitors to London alongside the vastly increased use of coaches for commuting purposes, all in streets designed for horses and carts."
      It is wrong for the House to pass legislation that puts huge burdens, with which they are virtually unable to cope, on the Metropolitan police.
      More recently, on 14 February 1989, Mr. Brand, the chief inspector of operations for the Metropolitan police at Kensington police station, wrote about the problem of coaches parking on roads where they had no right to be. The anomaly has arisen that, under the Transport Act 1985, coaches that travel more than 15 miles appear to be exempt from many of the existing parking and stopping regulations. Mr. Brand said:
      "Many of the tours do not require licensing under the 1985 Transport Act as these travel further than 15 miles. However, the regulations permit coaches to wait in any restricted street for as long as necessary to pick up and set down passengers or load and unload baggage."
      We know perfectly well what goes on with the commuter coaches: they clog up the main arterial roads in the rush hour and often drive around for hours on end trying to kill time in order to find themselves at the right place at the right time. That often means that they park illegally while waiting to pick up people to take them home in the rush hour on over-congested roads.
      In the absence of an unlimited number of policemen to watch virtually every coach operator in London, we shall have to turn to unmanned equipment. That equipment could also be used to deal with the increasingly serious problem of pollution caused by coaches, particularly in parts of the capital such as the area around Victoria coach station. I presume that it is possible to devise equipment that can register given levels of pollution from diesel fumes and, if necessary, set off an alarm.
      The purpose of my amendment is to force coach firms to fit such equipment in their vehicles so that, when they park in and use roads that are not designed for them, and cause unnecessary pollution, as they do at present, the equipment will be activated. That would make the job of the police a great deal simpler.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to give a fair wind to my proposal.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). I was caught unawares by the rapid progress of this piece of transport legislation. This is an opportunity to address the problem that coaches pose to those of us who live and work in London, and to many people who come to London on public transport arid end up touring London on foot.
      Many of the major roads, and some of the smaller ones, are substantially blocked for long periods by coaches attempting to park, having off-loaded their passengers or, as the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested, driving around for no particular purpose—hardly an environmentally friendly activity. We must find ways to control that form of activity.
      It has always struck me that the real red routes in London should be either the bus routes or the tube routes. They should be kept free for people to move quickly along them. The underground system should be designated a priority route and allowed to move speedily. The recent adverts on the backs of buses have been effective in getting the message across to those driving behind them. They call for people not to block the arteries of London by parking in bus lanes. If bus lanes and the underground system were red routes, we should have a public transport system and mobility around the capital that we do not currently have.
      9.15 pm
      I do not know whether the technicalities of the amendment are easily achievable, but I am sure that where there's a will, there's a way. There must be a mechanical way of identifying where vehicles are. In the days of the Greater London council, heavy goods vehicles were required to have a permit to come into central London. That was one way of designating the limited number of vehicles which pass a particular test and of monitoring it. It would be a good idea—and probably an inevitable one—to control the number of vehicles coming into London. If we do not do that sooner, we shall do it later. One category of vehicle which needs to be controlled is that of coaches, but there are others not covered by the amendment. They are not public service vehicles, but goods vehicles. They too will need to be controlled, and various ideas about how to do that are now gaining support.
      I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea that we need to tackle the growing congestion caused by coaches in London. The most modern technology could be deployed to do that. I am aware that the Government increasingly propose the use of modern technology for monitoring which types of vehicles take which routes and for enabling people to identify congestion on the roads ahead so that they can make alternative arrangements. If people are increasingly able to monitor which routes are free flowing and which are blocked, it must be possible to do something similar to what is proposed in the amendment. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the general idea, if not to the specific proposal.
      Mr. Chope: I shall address my remarks specifically to the amendment. I invite the House to reject it, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will withdraw it, because it is unnecessary.
      886
      The highway authorities already have sufficient powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to restrict or prohibit the movement of vehicles on their roads, including restricting the use of public service vehicles.
      Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and I met the last Secretary of State for Transport but two, more than three years ago to discuss these problems? He tended to say the same thing as the Minister. Westminster council has so far taken three years—it is not the councils fault—to draft the necessary orders and to obtain the Department's approval. The Minister was quick to give Westminster council the approval, but it has involved the local authority in a monumental amount of work and will involve it and its community charge payers in considerable expense. Theoretically, the Minister may be right in theoretical terms, but so far as I am aware, none of the London boroughs regards the matter as remotely as easy as he is trying to make out.
      Mr. Chope: I am not underestimating the difficulties that local authorities may have. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the expense to Westminster city council. Despite that expense, it has been able to set a reduced community charge for the coming year, and it must be congratulated on that. I understand that considerable effort is being made to try to achieve a voluntary agreement between coach operators and the local authorities. I am sure that my earlier announcement about extending the permitted parking powers and the parking regime so that local authorities have a greater say in the use of the roads for which they have responsibility—this will be relevant to the parking of coaches as well as to the use of coaches on the roads—will help to deal with the problem. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would probably prefer that there were no coaches in London, but they form about 2 per cent. of the traffic in London and provide a valuable service.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a point about bus lanes. The red routes will facilitate the freer movement of traffic. We hope that one of the main responsibilities of the traffic director will be to facilitate the speedier movement of buses. That has been the early experience in the Archway pilot scheme.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will accept that powers already exist. I have heard what he has said about the difficulties and technicalities of making the necessary regulations, but it has always been the policy of the Government and of the more enlightened local authorities that where there's a will, there's a way.
      Mr. Adley: It would be unfair to detain the House longer on the amendment. It took me three years to persuade one of my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessors to invite the Chancellor to raise the road fund licence fee for coaches. I am sure that it will take a long time to overcome the damage done by coach deregulation. As Mr. David Weekes, chairman of the Westminster planning committee, said:
      "Deregulation had left the Traffic Commissioners with greatly reduced powers."
      The problem is greater than my hon. Friend the Minister is willing to admit, and sooner or later we shall have to deal

      887
      with it. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not see fit to accept what I thought was a fairly straightforward enabling amendment which I shall, of course, withdraw, although sooner or later we shall have to return to this matter.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 41

      DESIGNATION OF PRIORITY ROUTES
      Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 38, line 9, leave out 'traffic' and insert 'people and goods'.
      Clause 41 sets out the overriding objective for priority routes, or red routes as they are unpopularly called. The overriding objective is
      "improving the movement of traffic."
      Although the objective for the priority route network are set out later in the Bill—primarily in clause 42—any conflict or weighting needed between objectives will have to be set in the context of the overriding aim.
      Several amendments were tabled in Committee to attempt to broaden the overriding aim. Many of the roads proposed as red routes can reasonably be said to be concerned solely with traffic movement and they include the motorways and roads such as the A3 Kingston bypass. However, far more of the roads must serve a wide variety of purposes. The A23 in Brixton, for example, runs through what is primarily a shopping centre. The A203 South Lambeth road is mainly a residential road. The A304 Fulham road is a mixture of housing and local shops and in Putney, it becomes the local high street. Those roads are not primarily main arteries for traffic, and it is wrong to have that as an overriding aim.
      The amendment seeks to replace the word "traffic" with the words "people and goods". That is not a meaningless difference. To the lay person, "traffic" is synonymous with vehicles. We should not be concerned with aiding the movement of vehicles per se, because vehicles are only a means to an end. The objective of the movement of traffic is more important and it is to get people and goods to their destination.
      The distinction is becoming clear to users of the red route pilot scheme and can be seen clearly by organisations such as the Freight Transport Association. The FTA originally had some reservations about red routes, but it quickly became a firm supporter as the allure of less congestion was waved in front of it. That was obviously quite important for its members who drive their lorries around the capital. However, after experience of the pilot scheme, the FTA has now called on the Minister for a radical review.
      Great difficulties have been encountered in delivering and picking up goods from premises on red routes. For example, a bread lorry was towed away while the driver was telling the baker that he would not be able to make any deliveries. The FTA now opposes the red routes because it realises that a few seconds off driving time is vastly outweighed by the extra costs to businesses that front on to red routes.
      Businesses are reporting big problems up and down the pilot red route. The Islington chamber of commerce has
      888
      reported that, on average, turnover in shops on the red route pilot scheme is down by 30 per cent. in comparison with the same period last year. In some cases there was a decline of more than 50 per cent.
      Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Ruddock: No, I do not have time.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is no time limit.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am aware of that, but some of the hon. Lady's colleagues took up a vast amount of time discussing earlier amendments, and we are anxious to proceed.
      The businesses to which I have referred are mainly small businesses which Conservative Members support, but they cannot continue to survive in the climate that I have described. The Minister's response to the concern has been to say that the businesses should not have been there in the first place and that they should not have started up in areas that already have parking restrictions. That comment is, in part, misleading. Most of the parking restrictions have not changed. We believe that parking restrictions should be enforced. In earlier amendments we tried to have parking restrictions enforced. We criticised the lack of enforcement of parking restrictions.
      Mr. Allason: The hon. Lady has just contradicted herself.
      Ms. Ruddock: Not at all. We have said that parking restrictions should be enforced and we moved amendments to that effect.
      Mr. Allason: Except for bakers' lorries.
      Ms. Ruddock: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, he will understand my point.
      The decline of 15 per cent. over the past five years in the number of traffic wardens has meant that parking restrictions are not enforced effectively. If businesses have continued to accept that parking restrictions are not enforced, they cannot be blamed for that. They have traded according to the local climate. However, I am not even defending that—
      Mr. Allason: The hon. Lady must give way now. I will be very brief.
      Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may be brief, but he must wait until I have finished my argument.
      I was simply saying that businesses operate in that climate. The important point is that the problem stems not just from parking restrictions that are being enforced now for the first time on the pilot red route, but from the new waiting restrictions. The problem arises not so much for customer parking as for delivery lorries making deliveries. Businesses are complaining about the loading restrictions that have been introduced with the pilot red route. Those restrictions are proving to be damaging to local businesses.
      Even if that were not the case, the Minister's approach would cause large areas of blight in London. If shops and businesses are now deemed to be in the wrong places and must therefore go, it will be difficult to find other uses for those premises along roads like the pilot red route. The Secretary of State will become responsible for blight, but he will not be prepared to take action to remedy it.
      Mr. Bowis: Does not the hon. Lady accept that, before a red route is designated—at the moment, we are dealing only with a trial scheme—there is an enormous amount of consultation, including consultation with the local authority? Nothing in the Bill requires red routes to ban parking at any specific time. That can be geared to the needs of a particular road. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man in local government or of the director of traffic to work out for each route a sensible scheme that meets the needs of deliveries and of the people living, working and shopping in the area.
      Ms. Ruddock: There is much logic in what the hon. Gentleman says. It should be possible to work out a regime that is sensible and meets the obvious needs of people and goods, which is exactly what we are suggesting should be the priority and main consideration. That is the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will support it. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the Bill does not contain a mechanism that provides for public consultation. Our next amendment, amendment No. 13, which I shall also move, introduces consultation, because that is signally lacking in the Bill as drafted.
      If there had been consultation that was as rigorous and considerate as the hon. Gentleman would wish, the problems that I am now outlining would not be occurring. Adequate consultation would surely have ensured that businesses would not now be encountering the immense difficulties that they are currently reporting to the chambers of commerce and to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and. for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
      9.30 pm
      The amendment emphasises the needs of people and goods. It will mean that the overriding objective of the red routes is not simply the movement of vehicles, but the movement of people and goods to their destinations, which is what we suggest should be the primary aim of transport.
      Another function of the amendment is that it will allow priority to be given to the efficient users of road space—the buses. Various hon. Members set out their view in Committee, which was that it is not possible to speed buses without similarly speeding cars, and vice versa, and that any move to speed cars will automatically help buses. However, that analysis is not accurate. Large-scale bus priority measures will speed buses, but will not affect car journey speeds significantly. It is a fallacy to suggest, as some Conservative Members have suggested, that bus lanes slow down other traffic. That is not the case, as long as they are properly designed.
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned—perhaps she is about to do so—that the movement of people, whether by bus or by car, might be enhanced by bus lanes, which would increase the time spent by people travelling in private cars, but there will be a net gain for everyone, with a better flow of people. That shows the inept and incorrect criteria that the Government are adopting in this part of the Bill.
      Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend's points are well made. Large-scale bus priority measures would significantly increase the average speed at which people can move
      890
      without significantly changing the average speeds of all vehicles. That is because buses are far more efficient users of road space than cars.
      Furthermore, no-car lanes and other measures that aid lorries could speed the movement of freight without significantly increasing the volume of traffic or the number of cars, thus avoiding the environmental problems that that could create.
      The distinction between traffic on the one hand and people and goods on the other is significant. The use of the latter definition would remove the overwhelming priority that has been given to passing vehicles and would allow a proper balance to be struck between access to red-route frontages and movement along those routes.
      In the light of the experience of the pilot red routes, I hope that the Minister will concede that all is not well and that it is important to have much more regard than the Government have given in the pilot project to the movement of people and goods rather than stressing the simple speed at which vehicles can move past the homes in which people live and the shops in which they wish to conduct their business.
      Mr. Adley: I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has said. I am sorry if that upsets some of my hon. Friends but I am bound to say——
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has already been reselected.
      Mr. Adley: If I managed to vote against the poll tax without it causing me any problems, it will not be a problem if I agree with the hon. Lady. Having just returned from Ribble Valley, I am pleased to put that on the record.
      The Government's phase of believing that the market is the only necessary discipline to deal with the problem of London's traffic should be consigned to the dustbin at the earliest opportunity. Unrestricted competition, certainly between coach companies, is one of the most serious problems that we face in London, although not the only one. Small numbers of people are brought into London by coach but the amount of congestion and pollution which the coaches create is out of all proportion. Therefore, the hon. Lady's amendment to replace the word "traffic" with the words "people and goods" is perfectly fair.
      Westminster city council suggested in a recent document:

      "The Government should recognise that coach terminal provision in London is a strategic planning matter.

      The Government should support a dispersed terminal strategy.

      The Government should recognise also that coach parking in Central London is a strategic national matter and consider making it eligible for grant support."

      My hon. Friend the Minister properly praises Westminster city council for its efficiency, but I assure him that the people responsible for dealing with the day-to-day problems of London traffic in that local authority will tell him that they are unhappy with the present situation.
      The number of coaches towed away by the Metropolitan police rises inexorably. Indeed, when my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) was Minister for Public Transport, he produced some figures with which I shall not weary the House, which showed that the number of coaches towed away by the Metropolitan police was rising month by month. Unless

      891
      we deal with the problems of priority routes properly, we shall continue to place an intolerable burden on the Metropolitan police. I am sure that none of us in the House would wish to do that.
      You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Sessional Order was moved at the beginning of this Session, I raised the problem of access to this building caused by the illegal parking of coaches in and around Parliament square. Mr. Cockram, the clerk to the traffic commissioners, has been in correspondence with an officer of the House, Mr. Brown, from the Select Committee on House of Commons Services. On 7 June last year, he said:
      "On the evidence of recent checks, they"—
      that is a company called London Cityrama—
      "appear to have broken one of those conditions and have now been warned about this. The breaches are not however such as to justify the Commissioner taking action to revoke the licence and nor does the legislation give him power to require them to use a different bus stop from that presently authorised."
      So clearly there is inadequate legislation on the statute book to deal with the problem.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will not mind if I quote correspondence from National Express, which is one of the worst offenders on trunk routes and other roads in London. I have a series of letters from various members of its staff who admit that some of the company's drivers have erred and strayed from their way like lost sheep, or not, as the case may be.
      One letter of 2 November 1988 says:
      "I am concerned to note that the vehicle's engine was running unnecessarily and I will ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the owning company".
      More recently, Mr. J. C. Myers, the managing director, wrote on 29 October last year:
      "I have arranged for further notification to be sent to all of our operating companies reminding them of the restrictions defined by Westminster City Council."
      A letter of 5 December 1990 said:
      "I regret this further intrusion and your identification of vehicle registration numbers is helpful in sorting out offenders … I would seek to reassure you that we are taking action to stamp out this practice."
      Two months later—indeed, only this morning—I received
      a letter which said:
      "As you are aware, we have issued notices to all companies operating on the National Express network and your action in pinpointing specific times and registration numbers does at least enable us to trace individuals and arrange for the staff concerned to be disciplined".
      They write letters, but nothing ever happens. We need to stiffen the legislation in the way in which the amendment proposes.
      We need much greater use by my hon. Friend's Department of exhortation with the local authorities to install road humps—not on red routes—which will be yet another opportunity to slow down traffic and prevent unsuitable traffic from using some of the routes. The changes in the law which we have produced in the last few years have aggravated and in some cases created the problems of which we speak. The Bill deals with the overall problem of traffic; it seems to me that one class of offender—coaches—is still allowed to escape the rigours of the rules.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The red route proposals which the
      892
      Government make in the Bill and which they are already implementing in my constituency are a classic example of putting the needs of the movement of traffic of and for itself before the needs of people and services. It is a case of the interests of commuters being put above the interests of local people, local traders and the local community.
      The red route pilot scheme runs along Holloway road and Upper street, through my constituency. The Minister will know from my correspondence with him, and from the meeting that I had with his predecessor, together with the Upper street business association, of my fierce opposition to the idea and the content of the red route scheme. Its effect on local businesses has been severe. Its effect on side street parking for local residents has been adverse. Effectively, it has divided the community in two. It has the overall effect of drawing traffic into the area, whereas we should be attempting to reduce the volume of traffic passing through inner-city areas.
      It is already having a discernible effect on local businesses and shops. Only this morning, I received a copy of a letter which the proprietor of a local shop, Aria, has sent to the borough council. I shall quote from the letter, because it puts the case succinctly:
      "The red routes have been in operation now for some weeks and from the point of view of our business, the red route has proved a disaster. Whilst traffic speeds may have increased along Upper street this has been at a cost to the environment and in the long term the shops and businesses along it.… My area of greatest concern however is the effect on Saturdays when a greater number of people wish to visit the shop by car and yet restrictions apply as if it were a normal weekday. Levels of commuters and goods traffic are considerably less than during the week and there appears to be no sound basis for continuing with the red route restrictions in Upper street."
      That is a clear statement of the problems for just one of many businesses which are adversely affected along the line of the red route.
      I have a number of specific questions which I hope the Minister can answer. First, when will the review that he has promised of the operation of the pilot red route scheme be carried out? Secondly, will that review look not so much at the flow of traffic and the impact of the red route on the flow of traffic as at the impact on the local people and the local businesses? Thirdly, will there be any amendment to the operation of the red routes so that they operate purely at rush hours and not throughout the day until a late hour? Fourthly, will the red route be removed entirely, as it should be, on Saturdays? Fifthly, will there be provision for tidal operation of the red route rather than operation on both sides of the road throughout the day?
      Sixthly, what has been the diversion of police resources to police the operation of the red route? Are they there to protect the interests of passing traffic or to patrol the streets and protect the interests, property and lives of my constituents? It seems that at present they are devoting undue attention to the needs of the red route.
      Seventhly, will the Minister think again about the whole crazy idea of red routes? It is about time he did, and for once put the needs, views and concerns of people first. We in Islington do not want this red route imposed on us.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Allason: I am in favour of red routes, and I urge the House to reject the amendment. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is trying to have it both ways, because this is clearly a matter of priority. It is concerned with the movement of vehicles, and it would be

      893
      sheer ideological nit-picking to substitute the words of the amendment, for this is a matter of getting buses moving. If the hon. Lady also wants to prevent lorries from stopping and unloading, she is advocating two contradictory plans.
      The red route at Archway has been a great success. I understand that the traffic flow has increased by 30 per cent. I know that I speak for many other residents of the Fulham road, the A304, which is scheduled to become a red route, when I say that delivery lorries parking inconsiderately clog the flow of traffic. Such vehicles could easily move into side streets if they wish to convey a message that will take perhaps only 30 seconds to convey—for example, to say that there will be no further deliveries.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has a proper point to make about the implications for delivery and goods vehicles of changing the traffic flow, and it is right that we should consider that aspect.
      The first principle of any traffic planning is that, if one creates a fast throughway for traffic, one draws more traffic to it, and the last thing London needs is more traffic. Traffic speeds in central London have slowed simply because there is far too much traffic for the capacity of London's roads. The more we investigate the possibilities of red routes, try pilot schemes and implement red route schemes more widely, the more we shall attract traffic down those arterial roads into central London and thereby congest the capital city.
      I view with some apprehension any judgement by the Department of Transport that the Islington/Archway road red route is a success, because I have no doubt that the New Kent road and the Old Kent road, which run through the middle of my constituency, will be chosen because they are major trunk roads from London to Dover. They will obviously be considered as candidates for red routing.
      If it were only a matter of containing the current amount of traffic and allowing that to pass in a less impeded way, that would be fine, but that is not the implication. Shoppers and pedestrians wishing to cross red routes find that they are more dangerous roads to cross and walk along. For those who live alongside those roads, there is more disruption and environmental disadvantage, with traffic pounding ever faster and in greater volumes along their frontages. That in all probability reduces the value of their properties even more, remembering that many people would not have chosen properties in the Archway road as homes even in the old days.
      Mr. Bowis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about not attracting more traffic into London. Does he accept that some of the traffic that comes on the faster flowing red routes has hitherto been rat running down residential streets, and that the interests of people living in those rat runs should also be taken into account?
      Mr. Hughes: That is true, but the way to deal with that is to use traffic calming and other measures in side streets to stop the rat running and to make sure that we reduce the number of goods and private vehicles using the roads, thereby solving two problems. The problem of rat runs is solved, and that simultaneously reduces traffic coming into London. Such traffic ends up in the middle of the city and has to find somewhere to park or an escape route.
      894
      The GLC promulgated the good idea of encouraging vehicles to go round London rather than through it. The red routes will encourage drivers to come into the middle of London. As I said before, the red routes in London should be for underground trains and for buses.
      Mr. Corbyn: The red route that we are discussing starts in Haringey and runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is universally unpopular. In an answer today, the Minister told me that he had had 100 letters on the red route. Pressure of work or time, or an inability to count up to 100, prevented him from telling me how many of the letters were in favour and how many were against the red route.
      I and my constituents object to red routes, because of the philosophy and principle behind them. Two years ago, the Government produced proposals for the east London assessment study, which was designed to create motorway-style roads into central London. The proposals were strongly opposed by people in my borough and neighbouring boroughs, and were subsequently withdrawn by the Government. It is interesting to note that the proposed red route follows roughly the line proposed for the major route.
      We suspect that the red route's purpose is not to improve the safety or flow of traffic or the safety of pedestrians, but to bring more traffic on a fast route into central London, in this case to the City and docklands. Consultation on the system has been minimal. There was no consultation with the people of Islington about the principle of having a red route through their borough. We were consulted on the details of it being brought in. It is strongly opposed by people who see difficulty in crossing roads because of speeding cars, by people who are disturbed by increasing noise on the road and by those who suffer from disabilities and who are told that they can stop only in designated parking spaces, even though those spaces may not be outside the shops which people want to use.
      At the start of the red route, there were farcical attempts by the police to move a post office van out of the way while the postman was emptying a letter box. He was told to remove his van and in future not to empty a letter box on the red route. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, there was an attempt to move a milk float. There have been other such incidents.
      Many of the shops and businesses on the red route have no rear access. They are old buildings, and some of them have a mews access. Deliveries and collections have to be to the front door of the shops. That is a fact of life, whether or not it is convenient to the red route. A furniture shop on the route has had a 30 per cent. drop in takings simply because it cannot take deliveries during working hours when the furniture is brought into London from the manufacturer. In one case, a lorry came from north Wales and had to be sent back because it could not deliver.
      People buying furniture from a shop on the route cannot take it away, because they cannot park close enough. The only alternative is to walk across the Holloway road carrying a double bed or a settee, and that presents more danger than a lorry parking outside a shop. The route has had a detrimental effect on the lives of people in the borough.

      895
      Hon. Members who do not represent inner-London constituencies should be told, if they do not already know, that, about halfway through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, a map produced by the Department of Transport showed a plethora of red routes to be introduced all over London. That was to be done by an unelected, unaccountable, appointed traffic commissioner with powers over local authorities to do as he or she wished. In future, traffic management will be a form of dictatorship.
      Our objection to the red route is not just the increase in traffic but the philosophy of increasing the volume and speed of traffic while in ignorance of the needs of pedestrians, people with disabilities, people who wish to shop in the area and those who wish to deliver to or collect from shops.
      There are already signs of a significant drop in the takings of all the small businesses along the red route. That will lead to their closure. Around the Nag's Head, at the junction of the Seven Sisters road and Holloway road, Jones Brothers, once a major department store in the area, has closed, as have other shops. Dead shopping areas are appearing all along the route.
      The Minister must understand that people who live in inner-city areas usually have a lower level of car ownership than those elsewhere. Less than half the households in my borough have access to a car, never mind the individual use of a car. The needs of pedestrians and public transport are more important to them than increasing the number of commuter motorists, often in taxpayer-subsidised cars, tearing in and out of London.
      The solution to London's traffic problems does not lie with traffic management schemes such as the red routes and all that goes with them; it lies with the philosophy that increases accessibility to public transport and reduces its cost. That is the way forward for the city, not by bringing more traffic into an already overcrowded and polluted central area of our city.
      Mr. Chope: This debate is largely about semantics. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members look at the terms of the amendment to which they have been speaking, they will see that it seeks to substitute a new word for the word "traffic". People who are travelling and freight that is being moved are important considerations, but people and goods are moved by vehicles, and vehicles constitute one part of the dictionary definition of traffic. The other part of the dictionary definition is people.
      The Bill and the red routes are all about freeing the movement of traffic to cut down waste and pollution and to improve safety. Those are desirable objectives. The essence of the scheme is primarily to improve the movement of traffic, and that is what needs to appear on the face of the Bill.
      Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the movement of goods and people can be achieved by various modes, including shoe leather and crossing the road? In the Minister's book, movement by traffic seems to mean movement by motor vehicle. It is not a semantic difference—it is a big and fundamental difference.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will probably accept that the movement of people by bus and the movement of goods by lorry are important considerations. The
      896
      movement of people who service the community in London by van is also important. All those are difficult considerations to balance, but we think that, by concentrating the through traffic in London on the main routes, we shall be able to relieve the pressure on the other routes. The red route scheme is gaining increasing popular acceptance.
      When London Weekend Television wished to do a hatchet job on the Government's red route proposal, it sent a crew up the red route in the morning and back again in the afternoon, speaking to many people on the route, including motorists and others. But at the end of the day, when the crew came to interview me, it had to accept—contrary to what the producer had hoped—that the red route was a pronounced success. But then—surprise, surprise—LWT did not feel it necessary to show that programme.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept the proposition that there will be more traffic on that red route?
      Mr. Chope: I accept that the creation of a red route will make it easier for traffic to move away from the other routes and on to the main route. That is the essence of the scheme. We hope that the amount of traffic in London will not increase significantly, but it is important that we should make the best use of London's main roads, because it is clear that the people of London do not wish to have a lot of new purpose-built roads imposed upon them.
      Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the creation of a red route will increase the amount of traffic passing along that route, wherever it comes from?
      Mr. Chope: Yes, if it is successful, it probably will. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) looks dissatisfied with that, but surely it would show that the red route was a success.
      Many comments have been made about the effects on businesses. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, North will have noted that it is not merely businesses in Islington which did not have an especially good January.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Road Traffic Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Chope: A firm in Knightsbridge has not been doing especially well on the retail side recently, but it has not blamed its lack of business on a red route.
      We shall have to await the results of the monitoring being carried out by the transport and road research laboratory. As I have already said, I am willing to meet people from the business community.
      Mr. Corbyn: I understand that the report is being prepared. To what extent will it look into the business and social effects of the route on shops and so forth alongside it? If the report deals solely with traffic movement, it will not answer many of our objections to the route.
      Mr. Chope: As I understand it, the transport and road research laboratory is making a comparison with what is happening in Streatham, where there is no red route, so it

      897
      will be able to compare effects on businesses and shops there in the same period with the effects of the red route in Islington.
      There has been a great deal of disinformation and exaggeration about the impact of the red route. Many of the businesses complaining about it were already in unsatisfactory positions. Three of the businesses which have complained are located next to bus stops, on zigzags next to traffic signals—as they were before the red route was introduced. Ten other businesses which have complained about the new red route are complaining about enforcement of regulations which applied before. There is certainly more provision for proper loading and unloading facilities on the pilot red route than existed before. That will be helpful to the community in Islington, especially when work on side roads has been completed.
      I do not think that I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Islington, North that red routes are the right answer, as he argued against them articulately and emotionally in Committee, but I am sure that people in London will come to appreciate the initiatives that the Government have taken by introducing red routes.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 219.

      Division No. 82]

      [10.03 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Flynn, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Alton, David

      Foster, Derek

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fraser, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fyfe, Maria

      Ashton, Joe

      George, Bruce

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Battle, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bell, Stuart

      Graham, Thomas

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Benton, Joseph

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Boyes, Roland

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cartwright, John

      Lamond, James

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leighton, Ron

      Clay, Bob

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lewis, Terry

      Cohen, Harry

      Livsey, Richard

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cryer, Bob

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cummings, John

      McAllion, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dalyell, Tam

      McCartney, Ian

      Darling, Alistair

      Macdonald, Calum A.

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

      McFall, John

      Dixon, Don

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dobson, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Doran, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McWilliam, John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Madden, Max

      Eastham, Ken

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Maxton, John

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

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michael, Alun

      898

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Short, Clare

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morley, Elliot

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

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mullin, Chris

      Spearing, Nigel

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      O'Brien, William

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Patchett, Terry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pendry, Tom

      Turner, Dennis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prescott, John

      Wallace, James

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Reid, Dr John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Richardson, Jo

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Robertson, George

      Winnick, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rooney, Terence

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Jack Thompson.

      Salmond, Alex

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Allason, Rupert

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Ashby, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Atkins, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Evennett, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fallon, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Favell, Tony

      Beggs, Roy

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bellingham, Henry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Benyon, W.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Franks, Cecil

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Freeman, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      French, Douglas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Boswell, Tim

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowis, John

      Gorst, John

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gregory, Conal

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

      Grist, Ian

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hague, William

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burns, Simon

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

      Butler, Chris

      Harris, David

      Butterfill, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Hind, Kenneth

      Churchill, Mr

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irvine, Michael

      899

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jack, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Janman, Tim

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Redwood, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Kilfedder, James

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knox, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Latham, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Squire, Robin

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lord, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maples, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thorne, Neil

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moate, Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Walden, George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Waller, Gary

      Needham, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wood, Timothy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Patnick, Irvine

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Mr. David Davis.

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Question accordingly negatived.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 38, line 15, after 'Commissioners', insert
      '(bb) such organisations of road users as he thinks appropriate;'.
      I shall be very brief. This amendment was tabled by Front-Bench Labour Members, and I have supported them. It may be that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and one or two of his colleagues will add a word or two in support of my remarks.
      The amendment concerns the process by which red routes are established. The Bill, as drafted, includes a provision for consultation with three different agencies
      900
      —the relevant local authority, the relevant commissioner or commissioners, and London regional transport. The amendment would result in the inclusion of such organisations of road users as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. This is geared intentionally to ensure that all those other people who would be affected by the creation of red routes were consulted. The obvious categories include pedestrians, who are likely to be among the most severely affected categories, and users of public transport.
      It seems to me that this is an appropriate and uncontroversial amendment. Ministers always have reasons for opposing amendments that are not of their own making. Those reasons can be either technical or substantive. I believe that there is no fundamental, profound or justifiable reason for resisting this amendment, and I hope that the Minister, having won the last skirmish, will be generous enough to admit that this is a good idea.
      Ms. Ruddock: Throughout the Committee stage, Members on both sides expressed concern about the very limited consultation requirements that the Bill lays down. At no point in the procedure for the definition of priority routes or for the preparation of objectives, the network plan or local plans, is there any requirement for the public to be consulted in any way. At best, this principle is accepted only in the case of local plans drawn up by the local authorities, which would expect to consult local businesses and residents in any case. So far as the other cases are concerned, the Minister made it clear in Committee that he expects local authorities to consult local residents and businesses. That is hardly adequate. These are Government schemes, not borough schemes, and boroughs are hardly in a position to explain the details of such proposals, or the thinking behind them, when questions arise—as they surely will.
      In the case of the London assessment studies, the Secretary of State accepted this point and agreed that civil servants should present the consultants' proposals to public meetings, as only then could the civil servants be in a position to explain them properly. Even though the civil servants objected initially, this procedure was followed, and most would agree that, although consultation was in many ways inadequate, it was a considerable advance on any form of consultation previously offered by the Department of Transport.
      Not only has the Minister refused to accept that point in this case, but he refused in Committee to accept that boroughs should accept the costs of this consultation. He also said that, generally, there would be a period of two months for consultation. After taking into account the time taken to dispatch information, collate responses, write reports and send those reports to Committee members, two months, in terms of local authority practice, would allow the public a maximum of about one week to respond, and in, many cases, no time at all.
      Given the fact that these proposals will dramatically affect many people's lives and activities, this is hardly adequate. The Minister may expect the boroughs to consult their residents. As I have said, we believe that such consultation would be totally inadequate, but there are also a number of road users' organisations that cannot be consulted in that way.
      Mr. Bowis: Up to now, the hon. Lady has been talking about consulting the public. This amendment refers not to

      901
      the public but to organisations of road users. One is aware of organisations such as associations of road hauliers and chambers of commerce, but what about the organisations that represent our constituents who drive on these roads?
      Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We discussed at length, in the previous amendment, the fact that it is not just the movement of vehicles or the people who are moving through London that worries us, but all the people in the neighbourhoods, many of whom my hon. Friends represent in the case of the pilot scheme.
      I was about to say that the boroughs are not responsible for the views of the RAC, the Freight Transport Association, the Pedestrians Association or the London Cycling Campaign. Many of those organisations, particularly the latter two, have many members in our constituencies. Indeed, they consist of no one other than ordinary members of our constituencies, who choose a variety of modes of transport and whose views must be properly represented.
      Mr. Bowis: That will take place in the consultation. But we also need to hear from Londoners who have to drive.
      Ms. Ruddock: If Government policies were different, with proper support for public transport, many of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers would not need to travel on the roads but would have alternative modes of transport. It would then be possible for organisations of passengers who travel by public transport to be represented.
      Mr. Bowis: That is different.
      Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, it is different. But if the hon. Gentleman refers simply to those many individual car owners who travel through areas of London but have no reason for being in a neighbourhood, for example for shopping, the only organisations that represent them are those such as the RAC, to which I have already referred.
      Mr. Bowis: I am not referring to people who do not live in the area. If one is to have consultations with organisations, one must consult fairly, across the board, with organisations covering all road users. One specific group of users comprises people who live in London but who use their vehicles—because they have to, because they choose to or because public transport is not available. How would the amendment relate to them?
      Ms. Ruddock: The amendment can deal only with organisations that exist. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, as I suggested earlier, that the RAC could be deemed to represent individual car users. Nowadays, organisations such as the RAC and the AA are not simply rescue services but have developed a broad tranche he of transport policies, and they represent car users. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind any other representative organisations, we shall be happy to hear from him. If he says that there are no organisations in existence, his suggestion is impossible. We seek to make available consultation to legitimate organisations that obviously represent a variety of forms of road users.
      I repeat that there are organisations that should be consulted. The Bill gives the members of those organisations no right to be consulted whatsoever. That is the purpose of this minimal though important amendment. It would not be responsible of the Minister to put the responsibility for such consultation on to the
      902
      boroughs, especially with the short time scales that he is proposing and without any extra finance. It is hardly sensible to expect the boroughs to consult more widely on proposals which are not theirs. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this modest proposal seriously and accept it.
      Mr. Spearing: As I said on Second Reading, I have a particular reason for speaking on this amendment about consultation. I wish to show that, with better consultation, some of the misconceptions and difficulties of the scheme will be revealed. It is possible that I am the only person—certainly the only person on the Floor, although perhaps not in parts of the Chamber that we cannot name—who has been involved in implementing such a scheme.
      It is now 25 years since the former Greater London council introduced clearways in London. Those clearways were designed to do almost exactly what the Minister is attempting to do with the red routes. A clear and comprehensive plan was developed across the river—where it should be—by a strategic, policy-making organisation for London. It relieved the House of matters with which it should not concern itself at this time of night, or any other time.
      The plan involved a considerable amount of consultation. I remember going to many boroughs. Four sub-committees were dealing with the issue, and we spent hours round the tables in town halls trying to balance the need of the increasing movement of traffic against the needs of frontages along unique pieces of highway.
      The Minister will know some of the high roads in the London borough of Wandsworth. Many of the potential red routes are along roads that existed as country lanes before London became a built-up area—for example, Streatham high road, East hill, Wandsworth, and Wandsworth high street. There are many roads in the Clapham and Battersea district with which he will be familiar from his local government days, which were built up in Edwardian times. Some of those roads were tram routes, and were thoroughfares long before the motor car or lorry became common.
      A thoroughfare is not the same thing as a road; it is a multi-purpose phenomenon. It is true that it always has a road carriageway in the middle. Originally, horses and carts, trams and cycles went down the carriageway, but a thoroughfare is much more than that. It includes the pavements, the businesses, the houses, as well as the cross-routes that join the main carriageway, typical of Edwardian and Victorian London.
      Further out of London there are roads that were built, specifically with traffic in mind, in the 1930s. Some of those roads were modified—for example, the Kingston bypass and parts of the A13. Some new arterial roads have been built specifically for traffic.
      I suspect that the roads that the Minister has in mind and those on which he will be making designation orders are urban thoroughfares of the sort that I have described, which, for reasons we all understand, are the inner thoroughfares leading to outer arterial roads. The Minister wants the traffic-carrying capacity of those thoroughfares to impinge on the local community.
      The Bill states that the Minister should take note of the unique circumstances of each scheme and consult on them, as the Greater London council did on clearways. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the clearways scheme cannot be extended as a concept, beefed up or modified, because

      903
      it was the original scheme. It was not perfect, but it improved the flow of traffic without impinging too much on the interests of local people.
      The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—there are many such roads in Battersea—asked which organisation should be consulted. I have no doubt that both he and the Minister are often approached by old-age pensioners' associations, which are sensitive to issues such as traffic lights and zebra crossings, which present desirable opportunities for people to cross roads. If the Minister takes a census—I do not know whether the transport and road research laboratory is conducting one—he may find that the number of people walking up and down the road or wanting to cross it on foot is larger than the number of vehicles using it.
      Thoroughfares provide just as important a function for pedestrians as vehicles, sometimes more. There are often many more pedestrians walking up the sides of London roads than travelling on them. Victoria street might be a good example. One must take account of the fact that the flow of traffic is often lower than one might think. What about pensioners' organisations? All of us who use roads know that traffic lights must be phased. A judgment must be made at every intersection about the balance of traffic, including cross-traffic and local traffic which does not run on the trunk routes. It has to be decided how much time to allow for each phase.
      When the Minister designates red routes and it comes to designing or redesigning the phasing of lights, the organisation that runs the lights—I bet that most people, even hon. Members who represent London constituencies do not know what it is——
      Mr. Corbyn: Yes, I do.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Spearing: Perhaps some do, through consultation.
      That organisation says that, in his order, the Minister said that priority must be given to such routes, to the disadvantage of local traffic which has to make cross-journeys. It does not involve only pedestrians but other movements in the same area. That problem may be covered by local authorities, but why should not the chambers of commerce that cover the appropriate red routes also be consulted?
      I mentioned zebra crossings, but what about pelican crossings? Sometimes, they are more effective and efficient. If there are too many zebras, the traffic is held up, perhaps unduly. It is thought that it does not matter too much if pedestrians wait for 15 seconds to let the traffic pass. They can press the button and cross in a group, which is why pelican crossings are sometimes more effective and efficient. The Minister must bear in mind when he makes an order for a red route the fact that pelican crossings will disappear, or a pedestrian will have a much longer wait.
      I have a vivid recollection of a route in a former constituency of mine—Western avenue in Acton. That was built for traffic, and the poor pedestrian could not cross it. I was assailed by residents' organisations which asked me to induce the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), when he was a Minister at the Department of Transport, to do something about it. The residents did not have even a pedestrian signal, so they had to watch the main traffic lights and cross four lanes of traffic, if they
      904
      could. An official came and got his feet wet, marching up and down to identify improvements to the route which are now enjoyed by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
      If the ill-begotten scheme and the vast complex statutory jungle of 28 clauses following clause 41 are accepted, they will be a barrister's paradise, a bureaucrat's nightmare and a citizen's jungle. There should be proper consultation with bodies that are relevant to each local scheme, because there will be users of the thoroughfares as well as of the carriageways.
      Mr. Corbyn: I support the amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for moving it.
      The clause states that, before making a priority route order, the Secretary of State shall consult the London authority—the borough council—
      "the relevant Commissioner or … Commissioners"
      and London Regional Transport. We had a lengthy debate about that in Committee and the Minister told us that it was the local authority's duty to consult local organisations. He said that it should be the local representative body that dealt with local opinion and views.
      I have no problem with that, because my local authority went to enormous lengths to consult people about the red routes and to convey the opinions of local people to the Minister. It faithfully conveyed local opinion through its transport committee and the council itself, to the effect that there was massive opposition to the red route. Unfortunately, the Minister, in his high-handed and didactic fashion, ignored and overrode the wishes of local people.
      Other local authorities in London may not be as cautious in consulting local opinion as the borough of Islington attempted to be. In Committee, even the Minister accepted that Islington had gone to considerable lengths to consult local groups. Other borough councils may not do the same or may not have the resources to undertake a consultation exercise.
      One feature of the introduction of the red or priority route system in London has been that expensive schemes and consultation documents are put together by the Department of Transport, which local organisations then rebut. The local organisations want to propose their own ideas, but they do not have the resources to do so. The Minister should, in fairness, tell us what assistance may be given to local organisations so that they can propose their own traffic scheme.
      When dealing with road planning, there is a David and Goliath approach. The Goliath of the Department of Transport descends on the poor unsuspecting folk of one community and then expects them to produce, in a short time, an alternative view if they disagree with the Department's ideas.
      We suggest that there should be a guarantee of consultation with those who use particular roads. Some organisations do not operate within one borough boundary; they may go far wider. An example is the Dial-A-Ride Users Association, which operates across London and which has local derivatives, such as the Islington Disablement Association. Groups representing the disabled should be represented. Those who represent pedestrians who live in a particular area should be represented, as should those who represent cyclists, those

      905
      who represent delivery and collection, and local shopkeepers and business people. All those groups should be consulted and represented. The local authority's ability to put forward its view on the question before it is also important.
      I find it rather depressing that, in 1991, when we should be talking far more about the development of activities and control in matters such as traffic, we face strong Government centralisation of local decision-making. It is depressing, as my own borough council of Islington has devolved its activities into 24 neighbourhood offices, which are popular within the borough. They give greater contact between the council and the people, and they provide far more effective consultation on issues such as traffic. Yet the borough council is unable to control what goes on with traffic across the borough.
      A conglomeration of London boroughs banding together cannot decide what goes on London wide. Instead, the Secretary of State for Transport makes local and detailed decisions on where traffic flows go and on what powers the traffic commissioner has over neighbouring streets and sideworks. It is depressing that we should be moving into a period of centralisation.
      If the system is brought into operation in London on the back of the abolition of our strategic authority, hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London should beware. If the Government abolish the county councils, these proposals will grow like triffids all over the country.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: Like what?
      Mr. Corbyn: Like triffids—John Wyndham's book, for the uninitiated. Triffids grew up everywhere.
      Hon. Members will find that the process of red routes and of centralisation of traffic management comes directly under the Department of Transport. We already live in an over-centralised country. These proposals will make it far more centralised.
      We propose a slight mitigation. There would have to be consultation with all groups of road users who have a legitimate point of view to put. The consultation proposed in the Bill is limited and rests solely on the need of wheeled traffic to get more quickly through the area. That wheeled traffic is largely cars and, to some extent, buses. I want the needs of pedestrians and those with disabilities to be taken into account—indeed, the needs of the community as a whole should be taken into account. It cannot be lost on Conservative Members that, if one speeds up the traffic on a particular road, one increases the dangers to pedestrians. That will also increase the sense of isolation between communities on each side of the road. If the small shops are killed off, the bigger shops will be killed off, and if that happens, the shopping community will be killed off.
      As the Minister drives along the Archway road in his publicly owned and chauffeur-driven care, if he looks out of the window, he will spot a large graffito which reads "Red route=Dead route."
      The red route is damaging the community. There should at least be wider consultation so that all the effects of increasing traffic speeds and flows can be considered before a priority route is imposed on a community that does not want such a route.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I support amendment No. 13 because it seeks to widen, to a certain extent, the process of consultation that must be undertaken before a red route can be designated. I would like the amendment to go further. The Secretary of State should have a statutory duty to consult local residents and businesses about a proposed red route instead of relying entirely on the channel of communication available to local people through their local authority.
      In the limited consultation on the pilot red route scheme, the local authority quite correctly relayed to the Minister the near-unanimous view of local people and businesses that they opposed the red route proposal. However, the Minister completely ignored those views. Instead, he placed enormous emphasis on the anecdotal evidence of a London Weekend Television crew which stopped a few drivers on Upper street and asked them what they thought about the red route in operation. If a Transport Minister can make crucial decisions about transport in that part of London in that way and place more reliance on the hearsay ad hoc evidence of a television crew than on the carefully consulted evidence from the local authority, the provisions in the Bill cannot be sufficient.
      The Department of Transport's consultations about the pilot scheme for the red route were completely inadequate. The idea for it germinated during consultation on the east London assessment study. At no stage in those discussions, or in proposals from Department of Transport officials, was the prospect of a red route mentioned for Archway, along Holloway road, Upper street and into City road. The only consultation—[Interruption.] It would help if the Minister would listen to the debate. These matters are of crucial importance to my constituents. If the Minister treats my views and those of my constituents with the disdain that he is showing now, I cannot be surprised by decisions taken by the Department of Transport.
      Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when he and I consulted people in Islington about the way in which the east London assessment study would affect the borough, we also asked our respective constituents about the red route and we received similar replies? Those responses were conveyed to the Secretary of State in the response to ELAS, but those responses were ignored and we discovered that the first priority route scheme was to be in our borough.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point, which is that the only real consultation that was offered to my constituents on the institution of a red route along Holloway road and Upper street was when concrete proposals were set up in an exhibition in the town hall, with the Department of Transport telling us, "This is what is going to happen. We invite your views on it." A fait accompli was presented to local residents, with no real opportunity for local people to make it known to the Department of Transport that they did not want the red route in any shape or form.
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State for Transport is listening to the debate. Will my hon. Friend conjecture on the possible views of an hon. Member representing an Edinburgh constituency if a route in Edinburgh were in the hands of a Secretary of State for Transport in Whitehall whose
      908
      constituency was on the south coast? Would not such an hon. Member's constituents take objection to that fact, and does not much the same apply to us, in principle?
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Smith: I hesitate to be drawn into a constitutional debate about the proprieties of the legislation as between Scotland and England. Nonetheless, my hon. Friend has a valid point and I am grateful to notice that the Secretary of State is in his place on the Treasury Bench and that he is listening to our debate with considerably more care and attention than his Under-Secretary, the Minister for Roads and Traffic.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the A1 is known as the London to Edinburgh main road?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has a point. Indeed, the route that was chosen for the pilot red route lies along the route of the A1.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Smith: For the last time, because I wish to make some progress.
      Mr. Bottomley: Is not the A1—the road to Edinburgh—slightly to the east? Is not the hon. Gentleman discussing a road that goes up to, say Chester? We seem to have gone slightly off course.
      Mr. Corbyn: The Edinburgh road is the A1. The hon. Gentleman is thinking of the A5.
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) must know that the A1 passes precisely along Upper street, Holloway road and Archway and finally heads north towards Edinburgh.
      It is obvious from what happened with the institution of the pilot red route and from the Minister's response to that consultation that the consultation has been inadequate. The amendment seeks to improve that by, at the very least, including some provision for consultation with road users.
      The Minister made great play on amendment No. 12 of the fact that there had been misinformation about the impact of the red route. I must advise him that the only disinformation is in the Department of Transport. It is not among local people, who know full well what the implementation of the pilot red route has proved and is proving to be.
      The Minister conspicuously failed to answer the series of questions that I asked when I spoke to amendment No. 12, although I am sure that he has every intention of writing to me with his responses to those questions. Perhaps he will write to me with his response to this question also. Under what legal authority at present is a car that is parked on a Saturday afternoon on a single yellow line within, one must admit, a dotted red line along the red route in Upper street in my constituency—[Interruption] The amendment relates to red routes and consultation. We are talking about the interests of road users. If a road user parks a car on a red route on a single yellow line within a dotted red line on a Saturday afternoon, when parking on that single yellow line— —
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I find it difficult to see how that matter can possibly arise under the amendment.
      Mr. Smith: I do not wish to contest your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as you will appreciate, the amendment is about the consultation which the Secretary of State has to undertake before designating a red route. It is about consultation with
      "such organisations of road users as he thinks appropriate".
      Under what legal authority can a road user with a cat who wishes to park on a single yellow line inside a dotted red box on the red route which has been implemented on a pilot basis in my constituency on a Saturday afternoon—when parking on a single yellow line is usually perfectly in order—be taken to task by police and charged with committing an offence? Once the Bill is passed, the position may be different, but what legal authority exists at present for the police to issue a ticket on that vehicle? I should be grateful if, perhaps after consulting his officials, the Minister could provide me with an answer to that question.
      The Minister said earlier that the people of London would
      "appreciate the initiatives that the Government have taken in implementing red routes."
      The Minister is mistaken, and if he consulted properly, with not only local residents but road users, he would find out that he was mistaken. We need more consultation, more consideration and more circumspection about red routes and rather less of the complacency that we have had from the Minister during out discussions this evening.
      Mr. Chope: I am in no way complacent about the red routes, but I have to admit to being satisfied with the early effects of the pilot red routes. Indeed, I recall some Opposition Members suggesting that the red routes would never achieve their purpose and that the traffic would not flow more freely. Now that the traffic is flowing more freely, they have diverted their criticism and say that the routes will be at the expense of the local community.
      The basis for the provisions for consultation on the priority route network is precedented in the Local Government Act 1985, which provides for consultation with the local authorities, but not with a whole host of other organisations. We think it reasonable that there should be statutory consultation with the authorities mentioned in the Bill, but that does not mean that there will not be provision for informal consultation by the Secretary of State with other organisations.
      Mr. Corbyn: What would be the position of a local community organisation which felt that its local authority was unwilling, incapable or simply had not represented its views to the Secretary of State? Would it have redress against the local authority, or would it have direct access to the Secretary of State? It is a real problem which I can envisage occurring in some places.
      Mr. Chope: That is a continual problem with any consultation in a rich democracy. Some organisations feel that to be consulted effectively means that they should have a veto on the outcome, when in fact their views simply have to be taken into account. I am sure that a democratically accountable local authority in London would not wish to ignore representations from such an organisation but would allow organisations to inform its
      910
      view, to be passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as part of the formal statutory consultation process.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I have not checked tonight, so I am not 100 per cent. certain, but my recollection is that, when we debated the London Regional Transport Bill in Committee, at a fairly late stage the Government conceded that there should be included in the Bill formal provision for consultation with users and with the community. It may not have been in the Local Government Act 1985, but I think that it was in the London Regional Transport Act 1984. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether that precedent is more valuable than the precedent that he is citing.
      Mr. Chope: The reason why I cited my precedent was that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, under the Local Government Act 1985, we established designated roads very similar to the roads that we are talking about under the Bill. In deciding what roads were to be designated, there was provision in that Act for statutory consultation with the council of the London borough in which the designated road was, and the council of any other London borough or county where it was likely to have an effect. It was assumed that, as part of the consultation process, those boroughs would represent the feelings of their citizens to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that. Obviously the boroughs can do that, being a conduit of the views of local people and organisations. None the less, may I press the Minister to be brave, break from his brief and say that he will at least consider the precedent in the London Regional Transport Act and consider, obviously for potential amendment later rather than today, whether it would not be a good PR exercise for consultation with the public at large to be written on the face of the Bill?
      Mr. Chope: I have already reflected, following the debate in Committee on the matter. That is why I referred to the precedent of the 1985 Act. That precedent relates to roads in London. The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, and I shall certainly have inquiries made about the precedent which he thinks goes the other way. I cannot recall which way that precedent goes.
      We do not intend to introduce the red route network without consultation, but I think that the way in which the Bill sets it out is right and that it would be for informal consultation by my right hon. Friend with some of the other organisations.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am interested in what the Minister says about not introducing a wider red route network without consultation. Can he explain the origin of the curious map which appeared in Committee and seemed to show a positive plethora of red routes all over London? Who has been consulted on that? As I understand it, the commissioner has not been appointed, so he has not been consulted yet—if it is a he.
      Mr. Chope: Indeed, the traffic director has not been appointed yet, and we do not know whether the person will be male or female. The map, which I am glad the hon. Gentleman found helpful, set out the designated routes to London. It set out a number of the other main highway networks in London. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the original consultation paper on the red routes for traffic

      911
      in London set out on one page, in quite vivid colour, the routes which we had in mind. That is not the final word on the matter, and there will be consultation following the appointment of the traffic director before my right hon. Friend decides which roads in London will be involved.
      Mr. Corbyn: What is the status of the map?
      Mr. Chope: It was an attempt to be of assistance to the Committee. This is the first time today that there has been a direct reference to the map. I assumed that, because hon. Members had the map before them in Committee, that facilitated the speedy dispatch of the business.
      I do not think that I can add further to what I have said. We take the whole issue of consultation seriously, but we do not think that there is any purpose in writing into the statute provisions which are not strictly necessary.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government may have a slightly more positive view towards integrated planning, and the traffic director's post may be a jobshare. Will the Minister consider that possibility?
      Although the Minister shows some reticence about going further than his brief—clearly, his reflection has not persuaded him to go all the way with us—he seemed to suggest that there was a slight chink of hope that the amendment might be accepted. On the basis of being ever hopeful that there is redemption for Ministers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 43

      THE TRAFFIC DIRECTOR FOR LONDON
      11 pm
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 39, line 6, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Director shall keep under review the manner in which the London authorities exercise their functions under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in relation to priority routes or roads which, in his opinion, are likely to affect traffic using any priority route.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 52.
      Mr. Chope: I need not detain the House for long. The amendment incorporates in the Bill the connection with the other legislation that hon. Members will shortly have a chance to consider—the New Roads and Street Works Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As I was not a member of the Committee, I apologise if the point that I now raise was canvassed there. Amendment No. 52 proposes to add the provision:
      "Where a London authority are asked by the Traffic Director for London to designate a street as a traffic-sensitive street"
      and so on. What will constitute a traffic-sensitive street? I presume it is a term of art.
      Mr. Chope: Traffic-sensitive streets are roads in which works would cause significant disruption to traffic under the terms of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. They will have applied to them special requirements for the
      912
      planning and co-ordination of those works. In other words, local highways authorities will have power to give directions to undertakers of works governing the timing of the works. So the highway authority will be very much in the driving seat in ensuring that the minimum amount of disruption is caused by street works on those roads.
      Ms. Ruddock: I understand that the details of the way in which the traffic-sensitive route provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will operate have been worked out by a joint local authority/local utility working party and that that working party is not aware of the proposals in amendment No. 52. It seems to that working party that those proposals would greatly undermine the spirit of co-operation that now exists in the working party. It appears, according to the amendment, that the traffic director and the Secretary of State could reach an agreement over the heads of local authorities and local utilities and ignore any agreement that might have been reached by the joint working party.
      Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps the Minister will explain amendment No. 45 in more detail. I understood that, under the New Roads and Street Works Bill, local authorities would be responsible for co-ordinating pavement and street repairs after various statutory undertakers and others had completed works. Why is it necessary for the functions of local authorities to be removed in respect of the priority route network?
      I am not clear to what extent the authority of the traffic director will extend beyond the priority route. Will it be the immediate junctions, feeder roads to them or any roads that could be affected by the priority route scheme? If the definition were drawn at its widest, large areas of a borough might be handed over to the control of the traffic director rather than remain with the elected local authority.
      Mr. Chope: The answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is that amendment No. 52 provides for the traffic director to request the London local authorities—the highway authorities for priority routes or roads—which are likely to affect traffic on any priority route and to designate those as traffic-sensitive. If a local authority were to fail to comply with the traffic director's request, the amendment gives the director a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may direct that the local authority complies. That seems eminently reasonable. Indeed, some people might think that power to issue such directions should be given to the traffic director himself. We do not seek that power, and I hope that that will be taken as showing the spirit of co-operation to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred. The hon. Lady says that that is not what they think. Perhaps my explanation will allay their fears.
      Mr. Corbyn: Do I understand the Minister to say that the power of an order would rest solely with the Secretary of State, who would have to hear a report from the traffic director about the director's dispute with the local authority and then decide whether to make an order? Would such an order be subject to parliamentary approval?
      Mr. Chope: I do not think that it would be subject to parliamentary approval, but the procedure about which the hon. Gentleman speaks would take place. The traffic

      913
      director would have to put his case to the Secretary of State. If the local authority wished to put an alternative view, the Secretary of State would have to adjudicate.
      Amendment No. 45 would require the traffic director to keep under review the manner in which the local highway authorities discharge their duties under the New Roads and Street Works Bill. The most important of those is the duty to co-ordinate works of all kinds in relation to priority routes and other roads likely to affect traffic on a priority route. It is envisaged that in that way the director will have access to the register which will be established by the Bill. That will enable him to maintain an oversight of the conduct of roadworks affecting the performance of priority routes.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the distance from the priority routes of roads that could affect those routes. Obviously, that depends on circumstances. I cannot give a more precise answer, but that is the common-sense answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 45

      DUTY OF LONDON AUTHORITIES TO PREPARE LOCAL PLANS
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move, amendment No. 41, in page 40, line 41, at end add—
      '(c) the needs of frontagers for road access and short term parking:
      It is in order to remind the House of the context of the amendment. An extraordinarily complex set of orders, regulations and so on were the subject of an exchange during debate on the last amendment, and I was completely lost. I understand that the Minister can make an order for a section of road, and that he does so in accordance with management guidance under a statutory code that he intends to issue. He will also issue objectives to the so-called director of traffic, who is really a director of red routes. Therefore, there will be statutory objectives.
      There will also be a London network plan, which may emerge in due course to be contained on the map to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred. We then descend to council level. Having received all these pieces of paper, each London authority must draw up a local network plan. Clause 45(6) states:
      "a London authority shall have regard to—

      (a) the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance: and

      (b) the network plan."

      I assume that management guidance subsumes the statutory objectives, which means that the authorities have many criteria to look at.
      The amendment deals with "the needs of frontages …" If the local authority does not take note of the needs of local frontages, who will? The Minister rejected an amendment moved on behalf of organisations and said that local authorities would look after them. The needs of frontages are very important. I do not understand why that is not there. I hope that the Minister will have another look at this.
      As I pointed out earlier, if the use of the thoroughfare is to be oriented to the needs and speed of traffic, which is the object of the Bill, the needs of the frontagers will be squeezed out. If the needs of traffic are to be emphasised
      914
      in the "traffic management guidance", and if they are to be further emphasised in the objectives, which are large and can be made by the Secretary of State whether he comes from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or London, the local authority does not have to have regard to anything else, because the Bill says that the local authority "shall have regard".
      In other words, the poor old local authority, which is the last statutory bastion of local interest, is or could he—I ascertain that that would be the Minister's objective—prohibited from having regard to the needs of the local frontagers. If the Minister's guidance, management guidance and objectives cut that out, local authorities cannot do it. Moreover, they cannot do it by a combination of statute which I have tried to unravel and the predilections of the Secretary of State and his Minister, which have been made all too clear in earlier debates.
      One might imagine, as the Minister said grandly, that the Secretary of State will consider an appeal from the director, answer an Adjournment debate, and so on, but that will not be the case. It will not even be Ministers who looks at such matters. They are great political figures with national and international matters, constituency matters and party matters to attend to, regardless of the political party to which they belong.
      One Secretary of State—this is a true story—was outside his property one day when a man turned up with a brown envelope. He asked whether the Secretary of State was the householder. When he said he was, the man gave him the brown envelope. The Secretary of State opened it, to find that it informed him that the Secretary of State was minded to designate his land as being of special scientific interest. The Secretary of State said, "This is wrong," to which the man said "Oh no, Sir—I assure you it is correct." The Secretary of State said "You're lying." When the man, affronted, asked why, the Secretary of State replied, "Because I am the Secretary of State for the Environment." That was the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
      Such decisions will not be made by any of the Ministers here today—or their successors, who might be some of my hon. Friends here. They will be decided by others. It was difficult enough for members of the Greater London council to decide on such things. They will not be decided by Members who can be tackled in the Lobby by an affronted Member. Unless the Minister accepts my amendment, the needs of frontagers will be statutorily cut out. I am surprised about that, because some of the frontagers will be people whom Conservative Members might wish to encourage. I might also wish to encourage them, as I encourage small-scale private or public enterprise which helps the common weal.
      If roads are to be converted into semi-racetracks and all the criteria of traffic management applied thereto, frontagers' interests will be ignored. My amendment does not tell local authorities that they should give those interests priority; only that they should "have regard to" them. But as written and as spoken to, as the Bill goes and as the Executive have made clear, they shall not have regard to the needs of the frontagers, whether it be in Upper street, Islington, Streatham high road, East Hill, Wandsworth or wherever the roads will run. As I said, many of them will be in the sort of high streets which were common in Edwardian and Victorian London.

      915
      I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts and that he will accept the logic that I have attempted to erect in moving this amendment.
      Frontagers need road access, not necessarily parking. Consider the needs, not of shops or premises, but of a disabled or elderly person who wishes to unload some furniture, and is not parking in the strict sense of the word for 10 minutes but merely for three or four minutes. That is what is meant by frontager's access to the road. Occasionally they need access.
      Short-term parking could mean for the purposes of delivering to shops, waiting while someone goes into a premises to collect children, going to the doctor's, or picking up someone who is a little late because they are delayed inside the house. All those things are very important for frontagers on such thoroughfares. As the Bill stands, and according to the Minister, however, they will not be regarded by the local authority, which is the last bastion of defence for the liberty of the subject in this matter.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My Docklands colleague, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I have a self-interested constituency fear about prospects. I guess that a road which passes from west to east along what is roughly the northernmost boundary of my hon. Friend's constituency might be a fairly obvious candidate for designation before too long.
      Mr. Spearing: Barking road.
      Mr. Hughes: The A2 is also likely to be a sure candidate for a red route, given that the A1 has already undergone a trial.
      My best response to my hon. Friend's story about the former Secretary of State being served a notice is that this morning, before I left home, I heard a knock upon my window, which is only a couple of feet from the road. Today is the second day since the local authority opened a neighbourhood housing office on the site next to my home. I think that the site must have been chosen deliberately for fairly obvious reasons—to add to the mischief that the local authority can impose upon me. The person who knocked on the window had been going up and down the road for some time and had been unable to find anywhere to pay her rent, so she offered it to me. I was minded to take it, but integrity got the better of me and I directed her to the building next door, which is the neighbourhood housing office but has nothing on it to say so.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South spoke to the amendment tabled in our names. I must mischievously remind him about the second part, which is printed over the page, which I wish to tackle as well. We want consultation by the local authority, which will take into account two main worries—frontagers' needs for road access and parking, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and
      "the safety, convenience, and amenity of residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route."
      I can be brief because it is even more self-evident that this amendment poses no difficulty for the Minister, and I anticipate that if he is feeling generous he may be able to accept it readily. The amendment specifically gives a duty to the local authority, not to the Government.
      916
      Governments are always more willing to impose duties on local authorities than to accept duties imposed on themselves or on any officer or official appointed by them.
      The amendment will make the 33 London boroughs have regard to management, guidance, the network plan and these extra requirements. As regards
      "the safety, convenience, and amenity of residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route",
      will the Minister give an undertaking that the interests of people living on or adjacent to, for example, the A2, which is the Old Kent road and the New Kent road, will automatically be taken into account by the local authority? If there is any doubt about that because the Bill is not explicit, just as we encourage good planning practice by consulting people in the immediate neighbourhood of a planning application, we should surely encourage good traffic planning practice by requiring consultation with, and an obligation to have regard to the interests of, those living nearby.
      The planning legislation does not always work well—not least because consultation is not obligatory, but an optional extra for local authorities. It is good practice, but they do not always follow that practice—sometimes intentionally, but more often accidentally. The amendment would impose that duty on them. It would be encouraging if my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and I could leave the debate knowing that an obligation would be placed on our local authorities to consult the relevant people.
      I entirely understand that, if we are to have a red route—the Minister already knows my views about that—we cannot have a red route which suddenly has vehicles parked along it affording delivery to the frontages, or short-term parking for other reasons. It is a perpetual problem to reconcile the needs of those who have, over the years, lived next to or run a business on a main road. I am always receiving complaints. One example is a shop called Jay's on Lower road, Rotherhithe—an old family business which has been there for years. When there was very short-term parking outside—when something was being delivered, or someone with a disabled person's badge was leaving a vehicle—a second later, a traffic warden would appear out of the blue and either issue a ticket or, on occasion, do something worse, the vehicle would be taken further down the road and someone would be inconveniencing the traffic for a long time.
      I have complained when goods vehicles have parked on roads which are needed for the through passage of traffic, reducing a two-lane road to a one-lane road. Neither my hon. Friend nor I would argue that the nature of a road is not changed by allowing indiscriminate parking at any time, by any vehicle, for any purpose. We are saying that consideration must be given to reconciling the needs of established users of the road with the needs of those who are using the road. I hope that the amendment will prove appealing.
      Mr. Corbyn: I support the amendment, especially paragraph (d). The initial effect of the priority-route scheme thrust on the people of Islington is the difficulty experienced by people using local shops, especially the disabled. Pedestrians have had problems trying to cross the road, because of the increased traffic speeds in the central part of the Holloway road; I am not sure whether that applies to either the Archway or the Upper street end.
      Mr. Chris Smith: That is true of most of Upper street: traffic has, on the whole, speeded up. My hon. Friend must also bear in mind the fact that the two bottlenecks at Holloway road and the Angel still exist at either end of Upper street, so there has not been massive benefit for the traffic using it. Between those two points, however, the speed of the traffic, and therefore the potential danger to pedestrians, is much greater.
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend. The concern that we have been expressing all along is that the next thing that will happen is that the Secretary of State will come along and take one look at Archway island, Highbury corner and the Angel and decide that we need a massive road widening scheme, which will increase the volume of traffic that can use the road and so create further problems.
      The amendment refers to
      "residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route."
      They should surely be borne in mind, but our experience so far is that they are not, and that traffic—including parking and delivery vehicles forced off the red route—tends to park on side streets as near as it can to the priority route. The traffic wardens and police have been told to direct their efforts towards the red route, and apparently the policing effect on the immediate side roads has been reduced to the extent that disabled persons' parking bays the council has had a considerable number installed—are now often occupied by vehicles delivering to shops and other nearby establishments. It is a serious problem.
      I hope that the Minister will understand that much more thought needs to be given to the problem. It is no good merely rushing in with a red route, without the necessary local junction works that should go with it and without proper consideration of the needs of the local community. The message that is conveyed by that lack of consideration is that the one purpose of the red routes is to get a greater volume of traffic moving more rapidly through a highly built-up area which in fact needs less traffic, less noise, less pollution and greater mobility. The red route offers none of those things.
      Mr. Chope: I have much sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the importance of the needs of frontagers and residents in relation to priority routes. Certainly their needs will be taken into account in the development of priority routes and in the implementation of the measures in accordance with approved local plans, but there is no need for them to be referred to specifically in the clause, as suggested in the amendment.
      Those considerations, and other issues—such as safety and environmental questions, special help for buses and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists—will be fully discussed in the traffic management guidance produced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State under clause 42. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is sceptical about whether my right hon. and learned Friend will ever look at the guidance that he issues, but the hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the traffic management guidance issued in April 1987 under paragraph 6 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, following the demise of the GLC. I have not consulted the then Secretary of State, but I would be most surprised if that detailed document had not been examined by Transport Ministers.
      The traffic management guidance, which my right hon. and learned Friend has established is up for consultation,
      918
      will set out the Secretary of State's objectives in designating the priority routes and will provide the overall framework within which the traffic director and the local authorities must work. The traffic director will be required to pay regard to the guidance in preparing his network plan under clause 44 and the local authorities will be required to pay regard to both the guidance and the network plan in preparing their local plans under clause 45.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister makes a reasonable point. Is he saying that the guidance that will be given by the Secretary of State will explicitly require a local authority, in preparing its plan, to have to regard to the two categories of user dealt with in the amendment? If so, what will be the sanction or remedy for those concerned if the local authority does not fulfil that requirement properly?
      Mr. Chope: The same remedy will apply as applies under statutory law at the moment for any local authority that unreasonably ignores the representations made to it. The hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as any other hon. Member with the provisions for judicial review. Those are the remedies that will be available.
      Mr. Hughes: What I want to know is whether the traffic management guidance will set out effectively the duties of the local authority. That is what we are trying to insert in the Bill. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in saying that, if we were to receive from the Government an undertaking that this requirement will be set out in a secondary document, we should at least know that the local authority would have to have regard to these categories. That would certainly help us, and I am sure that it would be of interest to the people who will ultimately be affected by the proposals.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Chope: After the local plans have been drawn up, the interests about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned will be taken into account when the orders giving effect to those plans are drafted. There will be consultation and, under existing legislation, there is provision for a public inquiry. Anyone who feels that his interests is ignored could have his say at that stage.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It would be helpful if, in due course, the Minister were to set out for the benefit of those who are interested—I am thinking especially of hon. Members representing London constituencies—what specific duties, by way of consultation with residents and businesses, it is envisaged a local authority will have.
      Mr. Chope: I shall be happy to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      I hope that I have been able to allay some concern. The traffic management guidance will not be identical to, but will in a sense be based on, the guidance that was issued in 1987. Hon. Members who examine it will see that it goes into quite a lot of detail. I hope that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Spearing: It seems that there are one or two misunderstandings. I do not think that I suggested—certainly I did not mean to suggest—that the Secretary of State for the Environment, or any other Minister, would

      919
      not examine the guidelines for the red routes. My suggestion was that the Secretary of State would not be able to give particular orders the attention that those affected think they should have. I have told the story about the Secretary of State being informed that the Secretary of State was going to serve a notice in respect of his own property. Surely that amounts to a warning. I did not suggest that the guidelines would not be looked at. It is a question of detail. Because of the facts of time and politics, cases are unlikely to receive the attention that they deserve.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right to emphasise the question of residents. I have mentioned the cases of disabled people and children, but the hon. Gentleman brought to mind something that is even more important. The amendment that I drew up about a week ago referred to residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route. The knock-on effect of a priority route will be significant for those whose properties are adjacent to it.
      Let us consider the case of an existing priority route where certain parking is allowed, or where traffic wardens' discretion is exercised reasonably. Here, people will seek parking places, possibly for some distance, along the side roads—a matter that has been mentioned already. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned Barking road, which is not very far from the ground of West Ham United. Parking problems have arisen there already, although the situation generally is well organised by the police. But in such circumstances all sorts of things could happen. These red routes will cause a great deal of knock-on trouble. What about the question of property values, for instance?
      Amenities include values, and I should imagine that the value of any residential or other property adjacent to or especially facing a red route, would take a dive in value almost immediately after the maps are published. Our exchanges may cause estate agents throughout London to seek copies of the map that was available to the Committee. I can imagine Tory Members receiving letters from their constituents, saying "The value of my property is going down. We did not know that these would be red routes, and they have reduced the value of our property by x per cent."
      The Minister may consider that that is inevitable. However, to instruct local authorities to take the map into account but deprive them of it is quite extraordinary. The Minister's responses so far have been that the Government could include it in the guidelines for red routes, but he did not undertake that the same considerations—virtually the words in the amendment—would be included in the Bill. In response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, the Minister carefully and skilfully avoided making that commitment. I am surprised, because he is only taking it into account. If he does not include it in the new guidelines, he is implying that the Government cannot or should not take it into account, which centralises the matter even more.
      The Minister has taken some matters on board, and I hope that, before the Bill is considered in another place, he will publish the draft guidelines for red routes. He referred to guidance that was published earlier for traffic management after the abolition of the Greater London Council. Why, therefore, can he not publish the Government's objectives? After all, they are referred to in
      920
      the Bill and will be very important, I hope that those who consider the Bill in another place will take note of those objectives, guidance notes or statutory guidance. Can they really consider the issue before the objectives are published? Had I been on the Committee, I should have wanted the draft objectives and guidance to be available because, without them, the merits of earlier clauses could not have been properly assessed.
      The Minister has taken account of some of those matters. He may wish to negative the amendment, but I feel strongly enough not to withdraw it, in the hope that the matter will be taken up in another place.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 45

      DUTY OF LONDON AUTHORITIES TO PREPARE LOCAL PLANS
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 41, line 18, leave out
      'on the priority routes to which their plan relates'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 18 to 22.
      Mr. Chope: The amendment reflects the Government's willingness to listen to the Opposition's representations. I said that I would consider one particular issue that they raised in Committee, and the amendment reflects our acceptance of their arguments on that occasion.
      Ms. Ruddock: In a few small ways, we have had some victories in Committee. We are grateful to the Minister for bringing the amendments forward now.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 41, line 19, after 'exercise', insert
      'on or in relation to the priority routes to which their plan relates'.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Clause 46

      THE DIRECTOR'S TRUNK ROAD LOCAL PLANS
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 43, line 4, leave out '
      on the priority routes to which their plan relates'.
      No. 20, in line 5, after 'exercise', insert
      'on or in relation to the priority routes to which their plan relates'.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Clause 47

      THE MINISTER'S TRUNK ROAD LOCAL PLANS
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 44, line 14, leave out
      'on the priority routes to which their plan relates'.
      No. 22, in page 44, line 15, after 'exercise', insert
      'on or in relation to the priority routes to which their plan relates'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Mr. Corbyn: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 45, line 1, leave out from 'any' to 'debt' in line 38 and insert
      'The Secretary of State may, by order subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament, require any reasonable expenses incurred by him in the exercise of his powers under subsection (7) above to be paid to him by the London authority.'.
      The amendment is important. One of the more disquieting features of the Bill is that it gives the traffic commissioner powers over local authorities. In addition, it gives him powers to override the wishes of the local

      921
      authorities to do works in their districts and then charges them for it. The amendment seeks to allow some parliamentary scrutiny of what is taking place.
      As I said earlier, the Bill provides for significant centralisation of power away from local authorities towards central Government. We seek to provide that the Secretary of State may,
      "by order subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament, require any reasonable expenses incurred by him in the exercise of his powers under subsection (7) above to be paid to him by the London authority."
      That would allow parliamentary consent for what is an invasion of the prerogative of local authorities in local traffic management schemes. We tabled the amendment for that purpose.
      The Minister did not make it clear in Committee why such centralisation was necessary. He is unable to point to an example of any London local authority which is unwilling to discuss the problems of traffic passing through its district. Local authorities have a different philosophy from the Secretary of State, in that the majority of Labour-controlled authorities believe that London would be better off if there were less traffic rather than more. We believe that there should be a traffic authority—subject to democratic election—for London as a whole. The Bill does not propose that, and we are not likely to get it from any legislation stemming from the Bill.
      We can expect the Secretary of State to be answerable to Parliament for what charges he places on local authorities; otherwise, an unelected official might disagree with a local authority. The Secretary of State would hear the dispute between the local authority and that official and might decide in favour of the traffic director for London. A substantial bill would come to the local authority, which might be charge-capped and not able to divert resources to traffic works. It might have decided that its priorities lay elsewhere. There should at least be parliamentary scrutiny of such action.
      Mr. Chope: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The intervention by the Secretary of State, under the provisions of the clause, would be part of a last resort, when all attempts at persuasion had failed The hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to quote a precedent for that—obviously it is at present, because we have not started to implement the scheme. But if what is happening in Islington is indicative of what might happen in future, who can say whether such powers will be necessary? I hope that they will not be, but if they are needed, it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to recover his administrative expenses from local authorities. It is not appropriate for him to have to present an account in the form of a statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament.
      Mr. Corbyn: It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but we live in a country where the expenditure of local authorities, particularly in London, is under the tight control of central Government policies and directives. In reality, we have a process of fining local authorities for alleged non-co-operation in the implementation of the priority route schemes by the Secretary of State, who cannot be brought to Parliament to account for his actions. That is totally unsatisfactory.
      I should have thought that the Minister would recognise that local authorities have a legitimate role in traffic planning and management in London. If they do
      922
      not, perhaps he should be honest and say that he wishes to take over all traffic management and planning in London, rather than using the stealthy approach and taking over only priority route schemes. That appears to be the logic of his answer.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 54

      THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S PARKING GUIDANCE
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 49, line 30, after second 'to' insert 'those authorities'.
      No. 47, in page 49, line 38, after 'issuing' insert 'or varying'.
      No. 48, in page 49, line 41, after 'Transport' insert—
      '(bb) such associations of London authorities (if any) as he thinks appropriate'.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Clause 62

      REPRESENTATIONS IN RELATION TO IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES UNDER SECTION 6o
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 54, line 41, leave out 'made' and insert 'received by them'.
      No. 50, in page 54, line 45, leave out '42' and insert '56'.
      No. 51, in page 55, line 13, leave out '42' and insert '56'.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Clause 63

      APPOINTMENT OF PARKING ADJUDICATORS BY JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE LONDON AUTHORITIES
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 55, line 46, leave out 'this part' and insert 'sections 54–65'.
      We now move from the controversial subject of red routes to the equally—if not more—controversial subject of parking. Clauses 54 to 65 are labelled "Parking in London" and contain yet another series of guidelines on parking for local authorities, which are to be issued by the Secretary of State. The authorities will have to draw up a series of proposals, and the guidelines cover almost seven pages of the Bill. I am sure that they were discussed at great length in Committee. Following your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not venture into that, although I am sure that a fascinating description of the guidelines would be in order, as they are about to descend on unsuspecting Londoners.
      The guidelines on parking tell local authorities what to do. I doubt that they relate only to red routes, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. As I understand them, they apply to parking in general and therefore subsume parking in or around red routes or areas affected by red routes.
      It is curious that the guidelines involve appeals, new bodies and a vast amount of bureaucracy, which is extraordinary coming from a party that does not believe in that sort of thing.
      Clause 63 states that a joint committee of London authorities shall, be set up to appoint parking adjudicators. Paragraph 3(a) relates to the amendment. It states that the London authorities shall,
      "with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, appoint persons to act as parking adjudicators for the purposes of this Part of this Act".

      923
      Having carried out a great deal of traffic management through the red routes, the Secretary of State seeks to take complete control of parking guidance. That puts in the shade something that he said earlier today about the local authority authorities taking control of parking. If they have to deal with parking under his guidance, it may differ from what some of us were led to believe earlier.
      Not content with that, the Bill states that the local authorities will name the persons who, with the Lord Chancellor's consent, will be the adjudicators. Their duties will include responsibility for parking matters, including the costs. The rules that they will have to follow will be rather complicated.
      I can imagine what will happen. When there is a hassle, someone will ask who appointed the adjudicators. The Minister will be able to say that the local authorities appointed them. As has happened in so many other spheres, the Government's responsibilities will be loaded on to local authorities.
      I suggest that it would be more appropriate if the proposals were not in the clauses that deal with red routes, but in clauses 54 to 65, because they deal with matters refer to parking in general. It seems that the proposals refer back to the earlier clauses which relate to red routes. That suggests that the adjudicators may also have a great deal of power over the red routes.
      I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. Have the adjudicators any functions in respect of the red routes in clauses before clause 54, or are they concerned only in duties and obligations in clause 54 onwards? If the answer is the latter, I suggest that the Bill should say so. If the former, can the Minister tell us what role the adjudicators will have in respect of red routes? They are yet another group of persons amid a plethora of local authorities, directors, Ministers and guidance with which we shall have to grapple.
      Mr. Chope: The adjudicators will be concerned with the latter of the two categories referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, it is fair to say that, if there is a permitted parking area on a red route, it will come under the local authority parking regime to which the Bill refers. The adjudicators will be able to adjudicate on grievances in relation to the penalty for overstaying on that parking area.
      I understand that the hon. Member for Newham, South is trying to be helpful and is suggesting a drafting improvement. I am advised that the intention is set out clearly in the Bill as drafted. However, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will look to see whether any benefit could be gained from further clarification.
      Mr. Spearing: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the clarification, but it makes my worries even greater. The Minister has confirmed that, where parking is allowed on red routes—perhaps where the roads widen or where there is a facility for parking that does not interfere with the traffic flow—and there are disputes, grievances or matters coming within their jurisdiction, the adjudicators will have statutory powers. That is the present position.
      Yet again, therefore, we confirm the all-to-frequent position—dare I mention the poll tax—in which authoritarian legislation from the centre has to be
      924
      administered. In this case, it will be administered by semi-judicial fiat adjudicators who are appointed by the hapless local authorities. In an earlier debate, it was said that the local authorities cannot even take into account the proper—in my interpretation—interests of frontages, both residential and otherwise.
      Although I understand why the Minister has clarified the matter, it shows only that the scheme will cause a great deal of trouble in London and to the Government. I cannot push the amendment, so I thank the Minister for his clarification and tell him that it will cause him and everyone else an awful lot of trouble.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 64
      FIXING OF CERTAIN PARKING AND OTHER CHARGES FOR LONDON
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 58, line 15, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Chope.]
    Clause 69

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Amendment made: In page 60, line 31, at end insert—
      '(3A) In determining, for the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act, whether a penalty charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it shall be taken to be paid when it is received by the London authority concerned.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Schedule 2

      AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULE 2 TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988
      Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 66, line 10, column 4, leave out '3' and insert '4'.
      The effect of the amendment is to increase the penalty for driving after making a false declaration about physical fitness, from a level 3 fine to a level 4 fine. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with the physical fitness of drivers. An applicant for a driving licence must disclose in his or her application whether he or she is suffering or has ever suffered from certain disabilities. The Secretary of State must refuse a licence to an applicant who is suffering from a relevant disability. The disabilities, which are prescribed by regulation, include epilepsy, severe mental handicap, liability to sudden attacks of giddiness or fainting and acute short sight.
      Clause 16(1) amends that section of the 1988 Act by inserting a new subsection, making it an offence to drive a vehicle if the person involved knows that the declaration about physical fitness in his or her application for a driving licence is false. Paragraph 21 of schedule 2 introduces a consequential amendment to schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, setting the penalty for the new offence at a level 3 fine.
      This is an important area of road traffic law because the condition of the driver of a vehicle is as important as the condition of the vehicle. It is not simply selfish or stupid to drive when medically unfit to do so, it is also potentially dangerous to other road users.
      The amendment would increase the penalty for that offence from a level 3 to a level 4 fine. It is important primarily as a way of highlighting the importance of the

      925
      offence. The amendment would also bring the penalty more into line with the penalty for driving after a licence has been refused or revoked under section 92 of the 1988 Act, which is six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine.
      It is, however, important to add that the amendment deals with only one aspect of the problem: to ensure that people who are not medically fit to drive do not do so and therefore do not create a road safety risk for other road users. Equally important—and in the current financial climate more difficult—is the need to ensure that alternative forms of transport are available through concessionary fare schemes and the availability of services designed specifically to help people with disabilities so that they are not tempted to continue to drive and to break the law. I hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment, which will increase safety on our roads.
      Mr. Chope: I am happy to accept the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 34. in page 66 line 48 after second 'accident)', insert '(a)'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 66, line 48 leave out from 'in' to end off line 49 and insert
      'columns 3 and 4 there shall be substituted—

      (a) Summarily

      (a) six months or level 5 on the standard scale or both.

      (b) On indictment

      (b) "two years or a fine or both".'.

      Government amendment No. 35.
      Ms. Ruddock: I want to refer to amendment No. 16.
      The act of failing to report an accident can have serious consequences. It may mean that a casualty is not dealt with as speedily as would otherwise be the case. It may mean that valuable evidence, in terms of either the state of the driver or the condition of the vehicle is lost, and it creates additional work for the police as a result of having to trace the driver and establish the circumstances surroundingg the incident. In short, it is an extremely serious offence which can have costly implications, both for the individuals concerned and the police.
      In certain circumstances—for example, where a driver is over the legal alcohol limit—there may be a temptation to run. It is essential that in such cases the driver is in a position where the consequences of running are likely to be worse than not running.
      Amendment No. 16 would increase the maximum penalty for failure to stop and report an accident to two years imprisonment or a fine, or both. The amendment would further provide different maximum penalties for the two different modes of prosecution.
      Mr. Waller: Eight or so hours ago, I paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to what had been said in Committee and for tabling an appropriate new clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend once more because, following what I said in Committee, he has moved an amendment that goes a long way towards implementing what I suggested.
      The recommendations of Dr. North were not invariably correct. He failed to take account of varying degrees of culpability attached to the offence of failing to stop to report an accident. The Magistrates Association was unhappy with the more restrictive discretion accorded to courts. I welcome the fact that that has been recognised and that the discretion that will now be available to courts in terms of the number of penalty points that they decide
      926
      to award in individual cases will be much greater. That is a great improvement, and it should be welcomed. That is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his comments. I cannot accept amendment No. 16, suggested by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), because it goes too far in increasing the maximum penalty to as much as two years' imprisonment. I hope that the House will reject that amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 66, line 49 at end insert
      'and
      (b) in column 7 for "8–10" there shall be substituted "5–10".'.
      No. 36, in page 67, leave out line 4 and insert—

      Discretionary, if committed otherwise than by virtue of subsection (5) or (11).

      Obligatory, if committed otherwise than by virtue of subsection (5) or (11).

      3'

      —[Mr. Chope]

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 92, in page 70, line 39, at end insert—
      '. In section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (experimental traffic orders) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "and 84" there shall be substituted the words "and 84(1)(a) or (b)".'
      No. 93, in page 70, line 40, leave out
      'the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'
      and insert 'that Act'.
      No. 95, in page 71, line 19, at end insert—
      '. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 9 to that Act (consent of Secretary of State before local authority make certain orders), after sub-paragraph (1)(d)(ii) there shall be inserted—
      "(iii) a provision imposing a prohibition by virtue of paragraph (c) of that subsection, or".'.
      No. 37, in page 74, line 9 leave out from beginning to end of line 18.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Amendments made: No. 96, in page 77, line 32, at end insert—
      '(2) In section 2(5) of that Act (disapplication of section 1(1) in Scotland relating to an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) for the word "(2)" there shall be substituted the words "24(1)".'.
      No. 97, in page 81, line 43, leave out 'In'.
      No. 98, in page 81, line 45, after '35)' insert
      'shall be amended as follows.
      "(2) In subsection (1), after the word "where", there shall be inserted the words "in England and Wales".
      (3)'.
      No. 99, in page 82, line 21 leave out 'In'.
      No. 100, in page 82, line 21 after '(interpretation)', insert
      'shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted—
      "chief constable' means, in Scotland in relation to any conditional offer, the chief constable for the area in which the conditional offer has been issued".
      (3)'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 5
      PARKING PENALTIES
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 87, line 1 leave out 'made' and insert 'received by them'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Schedule 6

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS IN RELATION TO LONDON
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 90, line 18 at end insert
      'in consequence of extraordinary circumstances'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      No. 52, in page 91, line 30 at end insert—
      'The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
      . In section 60 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (traffic-sensitive streets), after subsection (3) there shall be added—
      "(4) Where a London authority are asked by the Traffic Director for London to designate a street as a traffic-sensitive street and the authority decline to do so, the Director may appeal to the Secretary of State who may direct that the street be designated.
      In this subsection 'London authority' and 'priority route' have the same meanings as in Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991.".'.—[Lords James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 7

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 93, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 75(a)(iii). In section 75(6), paragraph (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.

      Section 75(8).'.

      No. 101, in page 94, line 18, at end insert—

      'Section 54(8).

      Section 59(6)

      Section 60.'

      —[ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Chope.]
      12.1 am
      Mr. Corbyn: The Committee and Report stages of the Bill have been fascinating. I wish to put three brief points on the record. First, like everyone else, I welcome any methods that improve road safety and the safety of road users, be they in a car, pedestrians, cyclists or anything else. However, the Bill is, in many ways, a missed opportunity. We in this country are in danger of presiding over an enormous increase in the amount of road traffic when we should be considering alternative means of transport and the environmental effects of the continually increasing use of private motor cars. We should be especially concerned about the effects of that on our cities.
      Secondly, part II contains a major extension of central Government powers over those of local authorities, with
      928
      the introduction of the priority route scheme. That will not enhance safety; it will increase the levels of noise, dust and gas pollution in our inner city areas. The Government will take powers away from the local authorities which badly need them and will introduce a traffic director for London, with whom traffic commissioners will work.
      Thirdly, if the Bill is enacted—I suspect that it will be—the Government will achieve the principle of taking many traffic planning measures away from local authorities in London, and exactly the same could be done in other parts of the country. We are moving to a ridiculously centralised state where very localised traffic matters can be decided by the Secretary of State for Transport and charged to the local authority. The principle of reducing the number of cars and the amount of traffic that enters the central area of London, or any other major city if the provisions are extended to other cities, has been ignored.
      The people of London have made their views clear when opposing motorway building schemes and the introduction of the priority route scheme. They do not wish to see more traffic in the inner urban area. They want less. They want a cleaner city, with fewer cars and better public transport. I wish that the Bill met the needs of Londoners in that respect. Tragically, I fear that it does not.
      12.3 am
      Sir Philip Goodhart: By legalising speed cameras and red light cameras, part I should make a major contribution to the improvement of road safety. Part II, and the red route scheme, should make a major contribution to easing traffic congestion in the capital. I am sorry that the Opposition have been so churlish in their approach to the Bill's efforts to ease congestion and that they seem anxious to let traffic jams continue.
      12.4 am
      Mr. Spearing: This should not have been a matter for party controversy. Traffic in London has been a continuing concern of all its citizens, of whatever party, throughout the past century. The Bill will not ease the major causes of congestion because they are not even logged or known by the Department of Transport, which can be proved by the fact that it could not answer certain questions that I have asked over the past two or three years. The Bill might increase traffic flow marginally on certain routes, but it will do so at great cost. It is largely impractical. It will take considerable resources in person power. It is bureaucratic to an almost unbelievable degree. The statute is complex and will cause a great deal of difficulty, even to lawyers.
      The tone of part II of the Bill is authoritarian. It imposes central will on local government and even prevents local authorities from properly protecting the interests of people within their areas. It gives power to central Government to an unprecedented and almost unimaginable degree over matters which are certainly local government matters in London. No Government, of whatever quality, power or party, would seek to impose the measures in the Bill which affect London or Birmingham, Cardiff or Edinburgh.
      Part II of the Bill is thoroughly bad and will have to be revised. I hope that it rebounds on its perpetrators.
      12.6 am
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has paid his tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen. Part I of the Bill is a culmination of the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, with the interdepartmental committee of officials and the establishment of the North committee. We should also remember Judge Frank Blennerhasset, who more than 20 years ago got us moving on some of the issues which are important for cutting casualties.
      I hope that part I gets through the House of Lords without serious amendment but possibly with improvements. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety amendment, which was not selected, was important. It dealt with retesting after disqualification for drink-driving. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the measure. When this legislation is out of the way, I hope that the House and the Government, together with the voluntary bodies among whom PACTS and the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, will consider other ways in which we can cut casualties.
      It may not be possible to cut minor casualties by a third by the year 2000, but it ought still to be regarded as a heavy responsibility to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries by a third. That will require a combination of vehicle measures, such as pedestrian-friendly car fronts, and a method of dealing with our appalling record of casualties among children, which is caused by a mixture of problems with our road layout, education and parental control and chaperonage of young children. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall see the same effort put into those measures as has put into polishing up the Bill presented to the House last year.
      12.7 am
      Mr. Fearn: I have sat quiet for the past two hours, although for the first six hours I was not quiet. My party gives almost wholehearted support to the intentions behind the majority of the measures contained in the first part of the Bill. Some of the clauses could have been in line with the recommendations of the North report. As I said earlier, I am disappointed that Conservative Members were not allowed a free vote on random breath testing. I would also have liked hon. Members to be given the opportunity to debate the measures on re-testing through an extended driving test of drivers disqualified as a result of alcohol-related offences.
      On the whole, the measures in part I of the Bill should make our roads much safer. I cannot give the same support to part II. The concept of red routes is misguided and the appointment of a traffic director for London, with such powers as the Bill confers on him, is undemocratic. Local authorities have lost many of their powers under the Government, and the appointment of a traffic director, or one-man quango, weakens their role even further. However, my party will support the Bill in the interests of road safety.
      The Committee was a good one and I congratulate the chairman, who was excellent and very expeditious. I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept any of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Mobility of the Disabled and even more disappointed that the two amendments dealing with the disabled which I tabled were not selected today. The needs
      930
      of disabled people should not be forgotten. Unfortunately time and time again they are. Disabled people are not catered for adequately on the public transport system. Often the private motor vehicle is their only means of travel. I hope that amendments to ensure that their needs are taken into account will be tabled in the other place.
      Red routes are not the answer to London's traffic problems. What is needed is a full Government commitment to resource the whole London transport system, so that it is operated in an integrated way. That is what the Government should be considering, not red routes.
      12.9 am
      Ms. Ruddock: When we began the debates on the Bill, we said that there was much good in it, and that we would co-operate in Committee and hope to improve some parts of it. We were pleased to support new driving offences and construction and use provisions, all of which were designed to improve safety on our roads. Indeed, we had a pleasant Committee in which there was much consultation and co-operation.
      Tonight's debate has been exceedingly disappointing in that a major opportunity to add to road safety and to reduce death and injury due to drink driving has been lost. We regret very much that there was not a free vote on the Government side, because we understand that a recent survey of hon. Members gave clear testimony to the fact that a majority of hon. Members, voting according to conscience, would have supported the new clause on random breath testing.
      Some hon. Members seemed to say that it was not worth allocating extra resources to police forces to deal with the problem. I said in the debate, and I repeat, that if these were considered to be 800 murders, they would he a priority for the police. There are relatives who feel that such grave offences have been committed——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not seek to reopen a debate on which the House has reached a conclusion.
      Ms. Ruddock: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I conclude that part of my speech by reiterating our regret that an opportunity has been lost.
      I said at the outset that part II of the Bill would be very contentious. It has proved to be nothing less. It is significant that hon. Members representing constituencies in London boroughs affected by the pilot scheme are receiving from their constituents grave reservations and protests about the schemes that are to be brought forward under the Bill as so-called priority routes. The traffic director will be nothing less than a traffic dictator. There is no Opposition support for the continuation of traffic jams, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) suggested. We seek a variety of measures to deal with traffic jams. No one wants more than we do a capital city working and moving in a way which it does not do at present.
      To introduce piecemeal measures, as in the Bill, and to call them plans for priority routes is no solution to London's problems. It puts at the forefront the priority of those who seek to rush through certain areas rather than the proper priority—the need for goods and for those who live in those areas to have access and movement on the terms which they desire.

      931
      There is no substitute for strategic planning. That is not available to us in part II. These debates will not go away. We will return to them again and again until the Government bring forward a Bill that can truly deal with the major problems that the capital city faces and which includes a strategic plan giving priority to the movement of people and goods. That means putting public transport before the private vehicle.
      I regret the lost opportunities of tonight. We shall not be pressing the Third Reading to a vote, but we shall, as I said, undoubtedly return to these matters in the interests of democracy and the people of the capital city.
      Mr. Chope: I regret that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) introduced a jaundiced note in her remarks because the measure was a good Bill when it arrived for Second Reading and it is even better now, having had detailed consideration in Committee and on Report. It will command the support of the people of London, who are crying out for action to reduce congestion on the roads of the city. The Government have the courage and commitment to do something about that.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). Indeed, we could call them the Goodhart routes. Perhaps an amendment to that effect will be introduced in another place. This is a good Bill and I thank hon. Members who participated in debating it. I hope that it will be dealt with speedily in the other place so that it may soon reach the statute book.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Lomé Convention
  [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 8127/90 on conclusion of the Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention, 4590/90 on transitional measures between the Third and Fourth Lomé Conventions, 5197/90 on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Fourth Lomé Convention, 6205/90 on the balance sheets and accounts of the European Development Funds for 1989 and 6704/90 on the operation of the STABEX system in 1989.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mrs. Lynda Chalker.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Order Paper states that this instrument is subject to the qualification:
  "The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the Instrument."
  That consideration was completed this afternoon. We have made a report to the House. Both the report and the two memoranda from the Department are available in the Vote Office to help the House to complete its consideration of the matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that information and advice.
  12.16 am
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
  The fourth ACP-EEC convention, or Lomé IV as it is commonly known, was signed on 15 December 1989. The convention governs development and trade relations between the Community and 69 developing countries described as the African Caribbean and Pacific, or ACP, group of developing countries, which includes 33 of the 43 least developed nations as defined by the United Nations.
  The draft Order in Council to which the motion refers allows the convention's provisions to be effected in United Kingdom law. This in turn opens the way for ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom. The convention takes force when ratified by all EC member states and two thirds of the ACP countries, and concluded by the Community.
  This debate provides an opportunity to consider other Community documents, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for his point of order. These are the internal financing agreement, 5197/90, to which I shall return, the accounts of the European development fund, 6205/90, a report on the question of STABEX, 6704/90, the transitional measures, 4590/90, bridging the gap between the third and fourth conventions and conclusion by the Community of the fourth convention, 8127/90.
  Because of the wide scope of Lomé and the limited time available, I shall not address the Community's other aid instruments outside Lomé, such as programmes for Asia and Latin America and the Mediterranean, or food or emergency aid. That would be outside the debate. But I wish to comment further on one of the other Community documents to which I referred. The draft Order in Council

  933
  specifying the Lomé convention followed established practice by also specifying the internal financing agreement, document 5197.
  As the hon. Member for Bradford, South has said, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments met today and reported that it considers that no useful purpose is served by specification of the agreement. The Joint Committee's report draws this to the special attention of both Houses. It is important to comment on that.
  I agree with the Joint Committee that this specification is not legally essential. However, politically, this specification is an appropriate method of bringing the agreement before the House in the context of a debate on the whole series of instruments relating to the Lomé convention. This financial commitment, arising from our obligations under the convention, will this year consume 9 per cent. of my total aid budget. I needed to comment on that, and the easiest way to do so was to tag it with the other documents to be discussed.
  Having been closely involved in the negotiations, I am especially pleased to present the order to the House. There is much to commend in the treaty, which builds on its predecessors. The convention is the cornerstone of the European Community's relationship with the developing world. The provisions cover a wide range of development instruments and the convention's scope is unique. The high degree of commitment is demonstrated by the improvements contained in Lomé IV.
  Lomé represents a partnership between the EC and the developing world, and brings the expertise and resources of the Community and member states to bear on agreed development goals. Under Lomé IV, there are some changes in the structure and, to an extent, to the scope of the convention. Those changes will make it even more effective. The structural changes are in the duration and membership of the convention. Where previous treaties covered five-year periods, Lomé IV runs for 10 years. Increasing the duration to 10 years reflects the Community's commitment to the aims of Lomé and our will to provide a stable framework for all parties involved. Cutting the frequency of full-scale negotiations will better enable us all to focus effort on the tasks involved in implementing Lomé IV.
  Within this time period, the money for the financial instruments contained in the convention will be provided under two separate five-year European development funds or EDFs. EDF VII covers the first five years. EDF VIII will be negotiated in 1994. This will also provide an opportunity to review the aid provisions of the Convention at the halfway stage.
  I welcome the addition of Haiti and the Dominican Republic to the membership of the convention, but in agreeing to this, the United Kingdom insisted, initially with little support but later with the full agreement of our partners, that traditional sugar and banana interests of the Commonwealth Caribbean should not be put at risk by this enlargement.
  Mr. John P. Smith: Is the Minister concerned at the apparent attempts by the Dominican Republic to export large quantities of bananas to the United Kingdom? That is contrary to the existing Lomé convention.
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall deal with that in winding up. We are carefully watching what is going on, and I know that
  934
  the hon. Gentleman takes a special interest in the matter. As he knows from our discussions on the matter, I have fought hard to renew the protection provided for our traditional banana suppliers by earlier Lomé conventions, and I do not intend to give up now.
  As the House may know, Namibia signed the treaty on 20 December last year. I know that the House shares my pleasure at that accession. I hope that the Community will help Namibia through the testing early stages of independence and democracy.
  There are also important extensions to the scope of the convention. These include a new emphasis on the environment, on health and population planning, on participatory democracy and, above all, on human rights. We pressed hard on all these issues during the negotiations. I shall discuss these further after I have described the technical and financial aspects of the treaty.
  The financial package for the next five years is covered by EDF VII, which was, as usual, settled outside the Community's budget procedures. There will be 10·8 billion ecu, or £7·5 billion, available for development assistance. Up to 1·2 billion ecu, or £0·84 billion may be added from the European investment bank's own resources. Those figures represent together a 46 per cent. increase compared with EDF VI. The British share of contributions to the 10·8 billion ecu EDF VII is fixed at 16·37 per cent. of the total. That amounts to 1·8 billion ecu. In sterling, our commitment is about £1·3 billion but the precise figure will depend on the exchange rate prevailing at the time that the funds are drawn down.
  This is our largest ever single aid commitment and will represent an important part of the United Kingdom's total aid effort, which for 1991–92 will amount to some £1·9 billion. The funds will be spent and drawn down from the United Kingdom aid programme over a period of years as projects and programmes are implemented.
  A particular feature of this convention is that 1·15 billion ecu has been earmarked from EDF VII to provide direct financial support for structural adjustment measures. This is to be used to support countries undertaking agreed economic reform programmes. In this way, the Community aid channel can lend its considerable weight to the work of the international financial institutions and the bilateral donors, including the member states, in this field. This will include in particular the special programme of assistance to debt-distressed low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa; an effort co-ordinated by the World bank, to which we are giving very active bilateral support.
  The Government believe that, if developing countries are to make sustainable economic and social progress, they need to participate as fully as possible in the world economy. That means encouraging trade, investment and private sector development. We therefore pressed hard during the internal EC negotiations for provisions which enable support to be given to the promotion of private sector activity. We believe that a healthy private sector is essential for the economic progress of all the ACP states. There, the role of the EIB is important, as its tasks include indentifying and channelling funds to efficient private sector activities.
  It is, of course, of paramount importance that the very substantial resources involved are used effectively. The Commission and the EIB manage the funds in close collaboration with representatives of the member states in the EDF committee which approves all significant

  935
  spending proposals. EDF VIII in the Commission applies policies and criteria shaped by the discussions of the EDF committee and developed by the Commission. The Development Council of EC Ministers meets twice a year to decide on overall policy issues. The joint ACP-EC Council of Ministers provides a forum for policy dialogue between Ministers of the EC and the developing world.
  Lomé IV looks to bolster the trade concessions enjoyed by the ACP states. The new convention retains all the generous provisions of its predecessor for ACP access to the EC market. Some further improvements have proved possible, and the United Kingdom, with other like-minded member states, pressed very hard indeed for those advances.
  All ACP industrial products other than rum are already admitted duty-free. The changes to the rules of origin, which define what counts as an ACP product, will provide greater access for ACP goods. Such technical changes hardly make thrilling headlines, but they serve to stimulate processing and manufacturing industries, and help diversify the economies of ACP states. Some agricultural products are still covered by tariff or quota restrictions. Many of these are dismantled or reduced by the new convention. Examples are molasses and rice, on which the access restrictions are reduced, and the inclusion of a number of horticultural products previously outside the benefits of the convention.
  Two agricultural projects of major importance are sugar and bananas, which has already been mentioned. The sugar protocol of Lomé IV maintains the position of the separate agreement, which was not renegotiated in 1989. As I said, the United Kingdom fought hard to ensure that the new banana protocol maintained preferential access. We are awaiting proposals from the Commission for the arrangements to apply to bananas in the single market, after 1992. We shall stand by our commitments, as well as taking account of consumer interests, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market.
  In extending the scope of the convention, I attach special importance to the human rights provisions. For the first time in Lomé, and among the objectives and principles of the convention, is an explicit statement of the link between development and respect for human rights. I warmly commend this linkage to the House. It will be backed up by the provision of funds to activities aimed at fostering and nurturing good human rights practices. This is not a question of aid donors imposing their will on recipients. It is a partnership, in which both sides recognise what is needed for sustainable development. The convention allows us to promote human rights and participatory development, through the funding of specific projects—for example, by strengthening public administration.
  I am pleased that the EDF funds will now be allocated to many more non-governmental and decentralised groups in the ACP countries. Assistance channelled in this way can encourage the growth of greater participation in society, and of more pluralism. These actions will also exemplify our desire to see ACP-EC partnerships established at all levels, and not merely between Government representatives and Commission staff.
  936
  I should also like to mention the associated Community provisions for aid to member states' dependent territories. The overseas countries and territories, as they are known, will enjoy the same general trade regime as the ACP countries. Where provisions differ, it is right that they are more generous towards our dependencies. In parallel with EDF VII, over the next five years they will be allocated 140 million ecu of aid, a 40 per cent. increase over Lomé III, supplemented by 25 million ecu from the EIB's own resources.
  The Lomé convention is the cornerstone of Community relations with the developing world. It is the product of a major effort of discussion and negotiation between the ACP and the Community. To establish an effective aid and trade relationship between the Twelve and such a diverse group of 69 ACP states, is, as I know from many hours of detailed work, no easy task.
  The prospects of the ACP states can only be enhanced by the kind of arrangement contained in Lomé IV—liberal trading provisions offering real opportunities for ACP states, and the largest single Community aid programme. For their part, the Government will continue to work hard and constructively to make Lomé work well.
  I believe that Lomé IV represents an important advance in the Community's relationship with the developing world, and I am confident that the House will share my view.
  12.32 am
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The fourth Lomé convention was negotiated at a critical time. It was concluded at the end of a lost decade for development within the African, Caribbean and Pacific and other developing countries, and at the beginning of a decade which will see great change. The completion of the single market, the implementation of any Uruguay round agreement and the development of central and eastern Europe will have profound effects on the European Community and on our relations with ACP countries.
  In assessing the Lomé IV convention, we must not only compare it with its predecessor, Lomé III, but measure it against the needs of ACP countries in a new international environment. It must also be assessed according to the original spirit of Lomé—the spirit of innovation of 1973, when the first contractual partnership was entered into between north and south, explicitly recognising the interlinking of air and trade.
  As the Minister made clear, compared with Lomé III, Lomé IV contains some significant improvements. The emphasis on the environment and human rights and the commitment to pay earlier and greater attention to the needs of women are much welcomed.
  The convention talks of "decentralised co-operation", which should bring non-governmental groups into the process of development in ACP countries. The decision that most Lomé funds will now be given as aid, not grants, is eminently sensible, given the ACP debt burden. At least this Lomé convention mentions the debt crisis. Both STABEX and SYSMIN have been considerably improved; strict rules of origin have been slightly relaxed, new products have been added, falling exports to non-EC countries will be taken into account and their funds have been increased. Of course, those changes must still be implemented effectively, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what work has been done in that respect.

  937
  Lomé funds are disbursed very slowly. Little more than 20 per cent. of the Lomé III budget had been spent at the end of its five-year duration in 1989. Lomé IV includes new areas of co-operation, but DG VIII has no new staff to implement them. Can the Minister tell us how local communities who were never really consulted in the drawing up of the convention will be encouraged to participate in its implementation, and whether respect for human rights will be used only to hold up aid in cases of gross abuse, or will it be brought to the fore in programming for all countries?
  Doubling the life of the convention with the renewal of the financial protocol in five years ensures continuity and guarantees Europe's long-term commitment to the ACP countries. At least the amount of money available for those five years has increased in real terms in comparison with Lomé III. The real increase of 20 per cent. to 12 million ecu is considerably more than the United Kingdom Government's negotiating proposal of 10 million ecu. Fortunately, other member states prevented the Lomé budget from going the way of the UK suggestion; but, when we look at the desperate economic straits in which many ACP countries find themselves, we must ask again, "Is this enough?".
  The 1980s saw economic decline and profound human suffering across much of the developing world. In sub-Saharan Africa, average incomes fell last year for the 12th year in a row. With ACP countries relying on non-oil commodities for 60 per cent. of their exports, and prices of those commodities at all-time lows, the main cause of the economic setback is clear: added to the trade crisis is the debt crisis, and the result is that citizens of ACP countries are now threatened with another lost decade.
  We need an imaginative response from both north and south in the Lomé partnership, based on a generous commitment by the EC. In the words of the ACP negotiators:
  "The fourth convention should be seen as a major instrument in arresting and reversing the economic crisis. in ACP states."
  But, in financial terms, the new agreement gives no more per person than the previous one.
  The ACP states themselves requested 15·5 million ecu for Lomé IV, but the Commission imposed its own last-minute offer, with no room for negotiation. That "take it or leave it" approach to the financial package sadly indicates a lack of genuine dialogue throughout the Lomé IV negotiations. The first Lomé convention was unique in its emphasis on partnership between north and south, but in these nogotiations the EC Commission clearly dictated the pace.
  Last week, we heard that the Lomé ideal of partnership had been extended to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. Under the new structural adjustment fund of Lomé IV, World bank conditionality is replacing dialogue between the EC and the ACP. When quick disbursing aid for import support was first introduced in 1987, the Commission promised that it would develop a distinctive European policy on structural adjustment.
  According to article 244 of Lomé IV, social conditions culture and regional differences would all be taken into account. Food security, environmental protection and other developmental objectives would be supported and
  "the right of ACP states to determine the direction of their development strategies and priorities shall be recognised and respected".
  938
  Yet only last week, the Commission announced that almost all the 1 million ecu structural adjustment fund would be handed over to the World bank's special assistance programme for sub-Saharan Africa. Countries without IMF or World bank programmes will not even be eligible for assistance. The ACP countries were not even consulted. That calls into question the whole basis of the Lomé partnership. How can article 244 possibly he implemented now?
  The preamble to the first Lomé convention talked of changing the north-south relations that were hampering development, and of promoting a
  "new, more just, and more balanced world order."
  The ideal—that huge gaps in wealth and power could be transcended by a new north-south partnership based on mutual respect—was trail-blazing at the time. That ideal was conspicuously absent, however from the Lomé IV negotiations. There have been improvements, but no major innovations, since Lomé began. As the EC-NGO liaison committee put it,
  "The spirit of Lomé is lost."
  Lomé IV bans the export of hazardous and nuclear waste from EC countries, and we welcome that, but a real model of north-south co-operation would surely include an agreement on the activities of all multinationals in developing countries. It would tackle the debt crisis and the international trade regime. Lomé IV unfortunately does not match that task.
  I will try to demonstrate that by considering the trade provisions of Lomé IV—in financial terms, 20 times more important to the ACP countries than aid. The increased concessions that the Minister described sound impressive, but let us put them into perspective. Some 75 per cent. of ACP exports are to the EC, so we are a vital trading partner. Only 10 per cent. of the exports receive preferential treatment under Lomé, and even those goods are still subject to many restrictions.
  Most of the restrictions—particularly on sugar, beef and other essential export—survived the Lomé IV negotiations intact. It is true that the beef quota was increased from 30,000 to 39,000 tonnes per year, but to put that, too, into perspective, that would do no more than supply Sunday lunches in a couple of major cities. The tomato quota, fixed at 2,000 tonnes, is equivalent to about three hours' worth of EC consumption. Increased quotas for milk, cheese and curd sound fine, but in fact less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of EC imports of those products come from ACP countries. They are simply not significant ACP exports.
  The changes will not provide the secure market access needed to encourage investment in the ACP. The EC rejected ACP requests for a special programme to improve the processing, marketing, distribution and transport of commodities. The simple industrial products that the ACP countries can most easily produce continue to be blocked by strict rules on value added, rules of origin and the exclusion of "simple assembly" manufactured goods.
  Lomé trade preferences have not been able to prevent the increasing marginalisation of ACP goods in EC imports over the past decade. Lomé certainly does not address the changes that can be expected in world trade over the next decade. For example, 1992 and the single market are fast approaching. There is no doubt that exports from some of the poorest ACP countries will be squeezed by the single market even if exports in developing countries benefit. Fifty thousand banana workers in the

  939
  Windward Islands, and many more workers in the south Wales docks, will risk losing their livelihood if the preferential access given to their bananas disappears.
  Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern that Geest, this country's largest importer of bananas—currently importing two thirds of all the bananas consumed here—is contemplating moving from Barry, which is on the west of the United Kingdom, to the south of England? Does that not amount to a vote of no confidence in the maintenance of supplies from the Windward Islands?
  Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Recently, he and I visited Geest's headquarters at Barry docks in my hon. Friend's constituency, when the concern of management and unions was made very clear to us. That source of employment at Barry docks is vital to the employment prospects of south Wales as a whole, which in the past 10 years has suffered very severely as a result of Government policies. Clearly, this is a matter of great concern to the whole of south Wales and, in particular, to my hon. Friend.
  The arrival of 1992, the Gulf crisis, changing relations between the EC and eastern Europe, and the Uruguay round, may all have severe effects on ACP trade. The EC should be ready with structural measures to mitigate those effects. Such measures are not covered in Lomé IV, but I hope that action can still be taken to secure them before Lomé V.
  Proposals tabled in the Uruguay round will erode trade preferences offered under Lomé in respect of ACP exports. For example, according to an UNCTAD study published last July, the EC-Uruguay offer on liberalisation of trade in tropical products would cut imports from sub-Saharan Africa by about $120 million, with trade being diverted to Latin America and the industrialised countries. Worse, the Uruguay round proposals present a threat which goes to the heart of ACP development, and directly contradicts Lomé principles.
  The United States and the Economic Community are moving towards a deal on agriculture that would require the Governments of all developing countries to reduce their support for food producers. Protecting farmers leads to surplus and food mountains in the Economic Community, but in developing countries it can make the crucial difference between having enough to eat and going hungry.
  Governments need to protect their farmers from food dumping and to encourage agricultural investment. With 29 million people in 25 sub-Saharan countries starving right now, surely no one can fail to see the importance of encouraging food security. How can the Economic Community talk in Lomé conventions of improving food security in ACP countries, and then support GATT proposals which would outlaw the very Government measures needed to achieve that security?
  Instead of making a mockery of its own proclamations of concern, the Economic Community should observe the Uruguay round mandate, which recognises the right of developing countries to special and differential treatment. It should commit itself to GATT rules that outlaw dumping and, as the Common Agricultural Policy reform debate intensifies yet again, should seek to improve the
  940
  very ACP interests of which it talks so earnestly in the Lomé convention. Unless the Economic Community takes on board those wider economic issues, Lomé cannot possibly pretend to be the catalyst for re-ordering north-south relations.
  At last, proposals to write off debt owed by ACP to the Economic Community under Lomé are being discussed, but still the Community opts out of taking a stronger role on international debt initiatives. It has not even established a joint framework for bilateral debt reduction. Commissioner Marin's proposal to cancel Lomé debts—about 1 per cent. of total ACP debt—is modest but important. It is a logical extension of the decision to switch to grants in Lomé IV and of the bilateral action of member Governments. Lomé IV commits the Economic Community. to
  "support ACP efforts to reverse the outflow of capital"
  and
  "contribute to the attenuation of debt burden."
  This is a good place to start.
  What position do the Government take? The Minister will probably say that the matter was discussed, has been referred and will be discussed again, just as she said that in reply to several parliamentary questions last year. It is shameful that hon. Members have to rely on the grapevine which operates between Brussels and London, often via other cities and organisations, to discover that the Government have been opposing Commissioner Marin's proposals to write off debts owed by the ACP.
  Will the Minister provide details today of every vote—every nod and shake of the head—by United Kingdom Ministers and officials, on 5 November at the Development Council, on 3 to 6 December and 18 December at the General Affairs Council, and on 28 January at ECOFIN? If the Government's policy is defensible, there should be nothing to hide.
  That is just one example of the lack of information and accountability from which all EC development policies suffer. We should not only debate the Lomé convention in Parliament once every five years—we should also debate the other half of EC aid to non-ACP countries. We should consider the reforms of food aid that are so desperately needed, the absurdly small amounts of aid which go to Asia, where the majority of the world's poor live, the need to improve monitoring and evaluation and to focus EC aid on the poor—a need made all too clear by the Court of Auditors report of 12 December 1990 on EC aid to Bangladesh. The report concluded:
  "The allocation of more than half a billion ECU between 1976 and 1988 to Bangladesh has largely failed to achieve the general Community aid objective of improving the conditions of the least favoured inhabitants of developing countries."
  The House will want to know as much as I do what action has been taken on that.
  Clearly, the spirit of all EC aid—not only Lomé—needs to be revived. There is growing incompatibility between EC objectives relating to aid, trade, agriculture, central and eastern Europe, and the single market. Within Lomé IV, articles which give priority to long-term, self-reliant development compete with sections on short-term structural adjustment. The Lomé partnership is collapsing back into dominance and dependence.
  The spirit of Lomé demands imagination and political will. The ACP states have seen the Community display those qualities in taking the lead in the reconstruction of central and eastern Europe. As a Senegalese delegate said during the Lomé negotiations, the Community has already

  941
  promised $60 per head in aid to Poland and Hungary over the next two years, but will provide only $9 for each ACP citizen over the five yers of Lomé IV. The exact levels and terms of that aid may be disputed, but the political point is clear: Europe must reinvigorate and restate its commitment to development in the south.
  Lomé IV has been described as the best that can be achieved in the present tight circumstances. That analysis may well be right, but it is no reason to be complacent. The challenge for both the EC and the ACP is to rebuild the spirit of co-operation between north and south to transform the very circumstances which constrained our co-operation and their long-term sustainable development.
  12.55 am
  Mr. Bowen Wells: There is much to be welcomed in the Lomé IV agreement. I particularly want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the very constructive role that she played in negotiating and enhancing it. All the parties to the agreement, including the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), have always had many misgivings about some parts of it. We all want the agreement to succeed, to be more dynamic, imaginative and helpful to the poorest countries with which the EC has traditionally been associated for many centuries. It is for those reasons that we want to improve the agreement.
  I believe that many of the suggestions given to the House by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley are worthy of much greater and deeper study and implementation. The EC's 40 per cent. increase on the last Lomé III agreement is not enough but it is nonetheless an improvement, but before the EC pats itself on the back for that, I remind the House that the Community, through subsidisation of agriculture, does the third world much harm. It reduces world prices for commodities such as sugar, which could be produced in the third world.
  When 3 million tonnes of sugar are put on to the world market, that reduces the world price of sugar, and thus the incomes for many people in the third world. The same is true of palm oil. When we look around in the spring and see the yellow fields of rape seed oil throughout Europe, we know that that is due to subsidies and that the people who will suffer for it are those in the poor countries that produce palm oil. There are many other such examples where the CAP severely undermines the trading ability of third world countries.
  We could improve the European development fund and its administration in two sectors: first, the co-ordination of the EC's efforts with its 12 member countries and their own bilateral programme; secondly, co-ordination with other international aid organisations. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, I welcome the adherence to the structural adjustment policies of the international monetary fund and the World bank, but they need to be modified and rethought. I am cynical about adjustment policies because, very often, they simply allow payment for imports for which they cannnot otherwise obtain foreign exchange. That does not promote wealth-creating development in those countries—it is simply a form of emergency aid. That does not help the changes necessary to help those countries overcome their economic difficulties.
  942
  There are problems with structural adjustment policies, but they present a means by which to co-ordinate the efforts of the EC, the World bank, the IMF and bilateral programmes. Therefore, I welcome the allocation of a significant sum of money for that purpose. But there is also major concern about the way in which EC delegates in the various ACP countries fail even to make inquiries about the way in which other countries, which have had bilateral programmes for many years, construct their aid. There is little assessment within the EC of the economic needs and how economies can be helped to grow. Therefore, the combination of efforts and talents that we in the EC, through bilateral and European economic aid, can co-ordinate with the private sector to enhance the development of those countries.
  Time and again, I have visited countries and asked the European delegate what he knows about the programmes of the other 12 member states—the answer is often, very little indeed. I am sure that that could be easily rectified and I hope that, through its new organisation, the Community will pay it more attention. That would provide benefits at no additional cost and would aid those countries in a more constructive and imaginative way.
  Another concern about Lomé IV is that there continues to be a major gap in ACP-EEC trade, despite all the apparently generous trade concessions that were given in that agreement, as in Lomé I, II and III. They are not taken advantage of by our ACP partners, and we must ask why. The principal reason is the rules of origin, although we welcome the fact that we have reduced the input necessary to qualify for tariff-free import into the European Community from 60 per cent. to 45 per cent. of the product produced by the exporting country.
  However, I doubt whether even that will enable those countries to take advantage of the concessions. I refer to the smaller states—especially the island states—where much of the product is imported and only the labour is added. That means that few of the products will qualify for the tariff-free import into the Community. We must improve that, to enable those countries to make use of their most valuable and largest resource—their people's energy and ability to add value to a product which does not qualify for inclusion under the rules—even if the countries could understand the rules of origin which apply to many products.
  One way to overcome the problem is to encourage wealth-creating investment from our private sector into those countries. A controversial proposition—although it is an idea in which I have always believed—is that, if those countries are exporting products to sophisticated western markets, they need to be able to benefit from the marketing profits made in Britain. In that way, they will benefit more than they do merely as producers and exporters.
  External investment by the developed world will give the developed world a greater interest in ensuring that those economies work well. Equally, investment by the developing countries in the marketing sector of the developed world will give them an insight into what is required and into the standards needed successfully to market their products and give them a greater share in the profits from their efforts. In that way, we can begin to create a world that will enable them to benefit from the Lomé IV agreement. It is a good agreement, but it could be a good deal better.
  1.5 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I will concentrate my remarks on the technicalities of the order because, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I brought to the attention of the House the fact that the Joint Committee had reported the order. In the ordinary course of events, precautions are taken so that the Joint Committee has the opportunity to complete its examination of an order, under the terms of the Standing Orders of the House, which involves asking the relevant Department for a memorandum or memoranda, depending on the scale of our investigations. On this occasion, the arrangements appear to have fallen down.
  I understand that the Government Whips, through the usual channels, offered not to move the order tonight, so that we could make a more leisurely report. However, I did not feel that that was right, because the Committee was able to finish its consideration and we were able to put our report in the Vote Office to enable hon. Members to take copies if they wanted. The Minister was able to make a comment on our observations.
  I want to put on record our concern within our range of duties of reporting to the House about the unusual use of powers and the vires of orders. An important issue is involved. The Joint Committee is the only scrutiny Committee for the huge outpouring of statutory instruments by which the majority of legislative powers are applied to the United Kingdom and related organisations, such as those in the order.
  We have no quarrel with the first item in the schedule to the order—the fourth ACP-EEC convention of Lomé. We are concerned with the second item in the schedule—the
  "Internal Agreement on the Financing and Administration of Community Aid".
  Both agreements are designated as treaties. When we asked the Overseas Development Administration for the reason why the internal financing agreement was designated as a treaty, it gave only one reason, which was not the reason that the Minister gave—it was politically a method of bringing the matter before the House.
  The Overseas Development Administration said that it was a means of bringing the treaty under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, and no other reason was given. It enables
  "expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Treaties or this Act by any Minister of the Crown or government department"
  to be paid. That is an unusual way in which to describe payments to the 7th European development fund. As that is an unusual use of ministerial powers—I will come to the qualification that the Committee made—we sought to report the matter to the House. It is an important precedent.
  There is much talk of a European central bank. It would be wrong if the Minister used the powers under the European Communities Act 1972 to designate a treaty as a means of transferring funds to a European central bank. I hope that that bank never comes into existence, and I believe that it would have little merit. However, the Committee is not considering that. It is considering the way in which Ministers operate. We felt that the procedure set a principle that should not be followed.
  In its memorandum, which we attached to our report, the Overseas Development Administration points out that it did not need the powers to bring the internal financing
  944
  agreement under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 to authorise payments, because it already has power under section 1 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. With that power to make payments to the development fund, it simply was not necessary to use the other powers. As our memorandum states, that seems to destroy the ODA's case for designating the treaty as a Community treaty. We therefore felt that the matter was of sufficient general importance to warrant being brought to the attention of the House.
  We have the right to report something to the House on the basis of an unusual use of powers. I believe that the matter falls under that heading. However, our adviser suggested that, as the power had been used on three previous occasions, this could not be regarded as an unusual use of powers. However, that is a matter of debate. On the three previous occasions when the powers were used in that way—in 1975, 1979 and 1985—I was not the Committee Chairman. They must have crept by during one of the Committee's weak moments.
  I place the Committee's concern on record, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that she will find some other way of bringing these important treaty arrangements to the attention of the House. I do not deny their importance or the valid criticisms made of them by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). This is not a satisfactory way of using unnecessary powers to incorporate something into the schedule of a statutory instrument. It would be at least as good to use the record of the proceedings of this place to explain the internal workings, instead of using what appears to be an abuse of the Minister's powers against which our Committee was established to safeguard.
  1.11 am
  Mr. John Battle: On every occasion that the Lomé convention has been up for renewal since it was first signed in 1976, the situation facing the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries has proved to be bleaker in terms of development. My main job between 1979 and 1983 was to monitor the implementation of the Lomé convention. The task now facing the convention and the burden that is must bear is much greater than it has ever been. The debt burdens have increased, prices for key exports have been falling and there has been an increasingly unfavourable imbalance in trade with the European Community.
  The fourth Lomé convention was signed in December 1989 and at last included a chapter on the environment. However, it took a year to negotiate between the member states and the 68 ACP countries. Although it will last for 10 years, as the Minister explained its financial package will be split and renegotiated after five years. We must put pressure on the convention now to ensure that it fulfils some of its original intentions. Within the context of the fourth Lomé convention, I want to refer, as a case study, to Namibia—the newest ACP member.
  At the time of negotiating membership of the ACP, the focus was on Namibian beef. Although Namibia must still sort out who benefits internally from the beef quota, I want to draw the attention of the House to the current key issue—that of fishing.

  945
  On 11 March, Namibia will begin negotiating with the Community for an agreement on EC access to fishing. In the debate on Second Reading of the Namibia Bill, the Minister for Overseas Development acknowledged:
  "Namibia's fisheries programme is of great importance because it will provide a major source of income, as long as the fish are not stolen away … the area will then need the policing that it has not enjoyed until now. The income that Namibia will derive from that sector will be enhanced once a fisheries agreement is reached with the European Community."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; vol. 186 c. 256.]
  While I welcome that statement, the problem is that Namibia's fishery resources have been plundered by illegal overfishing in both the in-shore waters and off-shore. An estimated minimum of 300,000 tonnes of the offshore hake resources are taken by overseas fleets, which amounts to a not insubstantial amount in monetary terms. There have recently been local accounts of Spanish boats plundering those resources. When approached by the coastguard patrols, they have fled into Angolan territorial waters, taking with them 500 tonnes of hake fillets.
  However, there is not only a problem with illegal plundering activities; there is also a problem of rebuilding the fish stocks that have been depleted under South African occupation. Furthermore, there is the question of the development of an integrated industry, which involves both the offshore and inshore fishing industries through the development of an indigenous fleet. If Namibian fish stocks were allowed to recover, there would be sufficient to enable the indigenous fleet to work in harmony and co-operation with the European Community fleet.
  However, that objective might not fit so neatly with the current European Community objective, because the point of the European Community's fisheries agreement: has been to secure access for EC fisheries fleets to fishing grounds in ACP countries. In other words, the developmental objectives have tended to play a secondary role and to take a back seat.
  Despite the reluctant concessions that have been built in with financial compensation in return for EC access, the pattern has been one of dominance rather than of genuine mutual integration for the purpose of development. In other words, the key aim of the EC has been to secure long-term access to internal fishing grounds for EC fleets. However, if that objective is to be faithful to the spirit and purpose of the original Lomé convention, it should be blended with the need for Namibia to develop its own fishing industry in a spirit of genuine partnership and co-operation.
  I hope that the Government will support Namibia's need for immediate effective conservation measures that will allow full stock recovery. That may mean minimal or no legal access to Namibian waters for the rest of this year. It will certainly mean backing Namibia's method of stock conservation through the establishment of low total allowable catches.
  There will be a need to assist Namibia's ability to monitor and control fishing activities in its own economic exclusion zone, as the Minister acknowledged in the debate on the Namibia Bill. There is also a need to maximise local processing and the development of an indigenous fleet, which would mean the transfer of technological resources and the provision of capital goods, going beyond mere financial assistance.
  However, it is also politically important to put pressure on South Africa to withdraw from its continued illegal
  946
  occupation of Walvis bay, which is Namibia's only deep-water port. Namibia needs its main port. I hope that the Government will recognise the need for an early integration of Walvis bay into Namibia, and that the Minister will confirm that that will take place before the end of this year, and that it will include the 12 islands.
  In conclusion, to ensure that positive support to the newest member of the ACP—and in the spirit of the Minister's backing for Namibia's entry into membership of the Commonwealth, which was welcomed on 5 February—we need to ensure that there will be an increase in the allocation of overall resources that will take account of Namibia's membership. Or will Namibia be effectively locked out from that five-year budget and depend upon waiting for EDF VIII to arrive later, when it is renegotiated?
  Some have spoken in the past of the lost spirit of Lomé. It is true that the convention could be described as a story of missed opportunities to change the unjust balance of relationships between the north and south worlds, which has undermined development in the past. Attempts have been made to establish rules that would have helped to establish what was referred to in the preamble to the Lomé convention as
  "a new more just and more balanced world order."
  But in practice, the EC has tended to sign and then later undermine the realities of the agreement. For example, in the past, the European Community countries have used the loopholes in the international law of the sea to protect their fishing markets, rather than give the ACP fisheries fair treatment.
  Lomé set out a model for new relations between rich and poor countries. Tonight, the Minister referred to it as the cornerstone. The European Community needs radically to improve the performance of the Lomé convention in Africa. It could start by treating the Namibians as real partners in the fisheries negotiations. The Minister spoke of the testing early stages of independence and democracy for Namibia and of the liberal trading opportunities for the ACP. I hope that the British Government's and her voice will be heard when those negotiations open in March as it is a vital, practical test of the future effectiveness of the Lomé convention.
  1.21 am
  Mr. Mike Watson: I cannot share the Minister's enthusiasm for the fourth Lomé convention. I recognise that parts of it are welcome, but when it was finally agreed in December 1989 after more than a year of negotiations, there was a feeling, particularly in the European Parliament, that the negotiations had been rather half-hearted. The way in which they progressed leads one to agree with that view.
  The manner in which the EC countries approached the negotiations illustrated a thinly veiled scepticism about the problems and needs articulated by the African, Caribbean and Pacific states. It seems that the EC countries effectively put negotiating the new agreement on the backburner. They were more concerned with their own economic restructuring and intent on overcoming the many difficulties in completing the internal market for 1992. There were the further distractions of the GATT Uruguay round talks and the needs—which, I acknowledge, were legitimate—of the emergent democracies of eastern and central Europe.

  947
  It seems that many EC member states give higher priority to bilateral aid than to increased co-operation at EC level. In part at least, it is possible that that is due to the unconvincing nature of the first three Lomé conventions and their failure significantly to alter the north-south balance in terms of development.
  As I said, I welcome some aspects of the new agreement. In particular, the link between development and human rights and the commitment to the environment and the needs of women are welcome. However, it has to be said that they are offset by shortcomings, especially on trade, where the concessions made by the EC countries fell far below what the ACP group sought. One instance of that is that the ACP countries' request for an increase of 30,000 tonnes of husk rice. They received an increase of only some 3,000 tonnes.
  The agreement also fails to provide the ACP with a preferential trading regime for agricultural products that would allow many ACP exporters to invest in substantial production and distribution units or replace expensive subsidised EC products with competitive ACP products. Equally important, no provisions were made to stop EC dumping on ACP markets where it is a disincentive to local production.
  On the crucial matter of debt, the agreement contains only a miserable few measures. They aim to avoid a worsening of ACP debt under the new convention and to give technical assistance for debt management and capital flows. But the EC refused initially to include the debt issue in the negotiations on the new convention. That ignored the fact that most ACP debt is owed to EC Governments and to private banks in the Community. However, Lomé IV contains no European commitment to take concerted action in international establishments or to establish an overall framework for bilateral arrangements that could assist the ACP in restoring their capacity to service their debt. Even the small debt to the Community was not written off.
  Negotiations on Lomé IV failed to get to grips with the fundamental problem of previous conventions—the disappointing level of implementation and the poor results which emanated from it. It seems inconceivable that only 20 per cent. of the funds of Lomé III were spent during its five-year duration. That shows an endemic problem in the relationship between north and south. The EC countries still do not seem to have grasped the scale of the structural problems facing ACP countries, particularly in Africa, where there are desperate problems.
  The serious deterioration of circumstances in ACP countries since the Lomé conventions began in the mid-1970s is also revealed. There was a fall of 64 per cent. in purchasing power of the convention's signatories in the five years of Lomé III alone. Lomé IV failed to address that problem also. The distribution of the resources and wealth produced in the developed world must be complemented by maximising the contribution which can be made by the underdeveloped world, if given the chance. Until debt cancellation and the real encouragement of preferential trade agreements are pursued by the EC with conviction, something which has not been shown in the negotiations or in the final document of Lomé IV, the
  948
  status of Lomé will be further downgraded so that it becomes perhaps just one donor among others. Surely the ACP countries deserve better.
  1.26 am
  Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate.
  I had hoped that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who chairs the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, might have been able to join us again, but perhaps I had better put these remarks on the record. What he said was important, following the consideration of the documents by the Committee.
  I want to assure the hon. Member, as I think he recognises, that in tagging the document on the internal financing agreement on to the debate, I do not believe that we have set a precedent in any way. As I said in the early part of my opening speech, I had intended this to be a belt and braces exercise, to make sure that, when the House discussed Lomé IV, hon. Members would have full knowledge of all its aspects.
  The worry of the hon. Gentleman about a transfer of moneys to a putative central bank would be more realistic if I had hidden my intention. My aim was exactly the opposite—to get everything on the record and to discuss everything together. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has rejoined us, will read in Hansard my first remarks in reply to the debate.
  In order to permit Lomé IV to become operational, member states must ratify both the Lomé convention and the internal financing agreement. It is for us to determine how in the United Kingdom we should do that. That is why I recommended to Parliament the procedure for full consideration of all the elements making up the convention.
  Lomé is unique. The member states and the European Community are partners to the convention, whereas only the member states contribute to its funding by virtue of the internal financing agreement. The agreement is a separate treaty and could, of course, have been laid alone before the House to satisfy the Ponsonby rule, but that would have deprived the House of the opportunity to consider the internal financing agreement in its proper context and would have denied the intrinsic link between it and the Lomé convention. We adopted the unusual course of bringing it before the House so as to be as open and consultative as possible.
  Mr. Cryer: While I am grateful to the Minister for her response, I suggest that when in future she wants to make an explanation of that sort, she should include it in the memorandum submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We did not have any idea of the reason she has given.
  Mrs. Chalker: Given the number of explanatory memoranda that I am signing, I did not think that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted more from me. I shall ensure that they are as full as I can make them, keeping him up till even later hours considering such matters. I shall, so far as I am able, provide the fullest possible explanations.
  A number of hon. Members expressed concern today about what they see as the loss of the spirit of Lomé. I hosted a visit during the past week by Dr. Bahane, the secretary-general of the ACP countries. He believes that

  949
  Lomé IV represents a significant step forward and acknowledges the important role that the United Kingdom has played in bringing that about—a subject to which shall return.
  In this short debate, we had a rather one-sided view from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I have always seen the 1990s as an opportunity for Lomé countries. They can participate in 1992 and I have particularly argued with the European Commission that they should be helped to benefit from it. I believe that Lomé IV can help to stimulate growth for their products in the European Community market.
  The 1990s provide an opportunity to conclude and implement GATT properly, and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will recall my saying on 14 December how important a successful end to the GATT negotiations was for the ACP countries. But above all, we can build on the special ACP-EC partnership which has developed in implementing the wide-ranging and increased Lomé IV.
  I said that Opposition Members had been characteristically negative in their remarks. That goes for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). There was nothing half-hearted about the long and detailed de bates which led up to Lomé IV—the largest ever commitment of the EC countries, and rightly so, to the ACP countries. When I visit ACP countries and discuss the detail of i t with them, we talk about how they can better use EC assistance, and they talk about that with enthusiasm.
  None of those ACP countries would recognise the image that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley painted of Lomé IV. I assure her that nothing is collapsing and that we are increasingly working together. That applies to the member states and the Commission, the Community and the international financial institutions, and the Community and the ACP countries.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke about effectiveness, and my hon. Friend spoke of the need for donor co-ordination and the need for links between bilateral donors and EC delegates. Regarding effectiveness, the Commission is looking to the United Kingdom's knowledge and experience of aid planning to help it in the future programming of European development fund funds. It is also looking to us for evaluation methods of project proposals, and the new EDF rules will permit member states to evaluate effectiveness. Hon. Members will know that for a long time I have believed that to be necessary. I am glad to say that the Commission now has a new evaluation unit and that a much fuller use of evaluation work is planned.
  It is also important that the Court of Auditors, which carries out annual reviews of aid implementation and makes recommendations for improving value for money, should be able to refer to such evaluation plans. That is why member states are considering the improvements suggested in the auditors' report for 1989, and that could prove valuable.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke of the slow disbursement rate of EDF VI. The Commission is aware of the problem. We would not have allowed it not to be aware of that. The main sector for aid under Lomé III, as the hon. Lady will recall, is agriculture and rural development. Both are inevitably rather slow in disbursing parts of the programme. It is not justifiable to steer away from these identified priorities simply to speed up disbursement. However, measures must be taken to speed it up, and we
  950
  are encouraging that with the European Commission. The sectoral import programmes under the structural adjustment facility are fast disbursing and they will help to step up the disbursal rate of EDF VII. They will be able to give the balance of payments support that so many of those countries badly need.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about donor co-operation. He will probably be aware that British high commissioners and ambassadors in ACP countries are encouraged to call together ambassadors from Community countries, and frequently from other countries, to discuss with the EC delegates what they are doing and how they can reinforce programmes of economic reform and structural adjustment, health care and education, and the other matters that we most value in the programmes in which we are involved.
  I am glad to say that co-operation is working rather better than it did a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is a long way to go, and one of the frequent topics of conversation when I meet the Commissioner and his senior staff is how to get better co-ordination on future projects between EC partners and other main donors and EC delegates. We shall set about that with great enthusiasm in the years ahead.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley implied that there was some secret about ACP debt and our discussions on the subject. I assure her that that is not so. When Commissioner Marin first presented his proposals to the Development Council on 5 November, I willingly undertook to consider them carefully. It is my view, and the view of other member states, that the proposals need a good deal of further work to ensure that the poorest countries benefit—exactly what the hon. Lady asked for—and that the current arrangement for dealing with debt are not undermined.
  The poorest and most debt-distressed countries which are following economic reform programmes deserve the encouragement that we can give through the structural adjustment measures which are included in Lomé IV for the first time. Every donor country agrees that we must be sure that the proposals do not cut across the current international machinery for dealing with debt. No decisions have been taken. As I reported to the House after the Development Council meeting, consideration continues, and we intend to see that this is made to work.
  Britain has forgiven official aid debt to the poorest in our aid programme, and we aim to view the Commission's proposals in exactly the same policy context of helping those countries to help themselves. The debt under Lorne conventions covered by the new debt proposal is about 3,900 million ecu over 50 years. The United Kingdom's share of that is estimated at about £500 million.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred several times to structural adjustment. She seemed to imply that the Community would be able to work independently of the World bank and the IMF. There is no merit in the European Community, the World bank and the IMF having competing policies. We should work together to reinforce each other's efforts in these countries. As the hon. Lady may know, the Bretton Woods institutions, with their special expertise, play a special role. That means that the Commission, like bilateral donors, should play a supporting role, and we hope that it will do that.

  951
  The EC decisions on debt followed consultation with individual ACP countries, so it has not been a matter of the Community going off on its own and not consulting.
  The hon. Lady also referred to the lack of staff to implement Lomé IV. Expertise is gradually being built up in DG8. I fully accept that there are insufficient specialists in certain areas. That is why Britain has seconded environment specialists to the Commission to work in DG8 and link up with the environment directorate-general. We have also just seconded a United Kingdom economist to DG8, to deal particularly with structural adjustment, and other staff are going to build up exactly the work that has to be done under Lomé IV.
  The United Kingdom is committed to a liberal stance on trade because we believe that to be to the benefit of all ACP countries. We have been leading the call for CAP reform. The solution to unfair Community exports in third countries is not to commit them to aid but to tackle the unfair export competition by the EC, and that is exactly what we are doing in GATT.
  One hon. Member—the House will forgive me, but I do not remember who—was rather confused by the EC tropical products offer. That has been widely recognised as a good contribution to the needs of developing countries, but like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley I would have liked more trade concessions. We fought hard for greater trade concessions, but sadly not all my colleagues in the negotiations were as willing as I to see greater trade concessions to ACP countries. However, I must exonerate the Dutch from that blame, as they were extremely helpful in trying to open up more trading possibilities for the ACP countries.
  This has been a short but good debate. We see the chances of 1992 for the Lomé countries as an opportunity. A single market of more than 320 million consumers, only
  952
  one external barrier and one set of standards, must make it easier for ACP countries to export to us. The benefits of going to the international trading system which are generated by the Community's new economic dynamism will be a major force for a general liberalisation. We shall go on pressing the Commission to take account of 1992, in all its programming of Lomé IV.
  I will repeat something that I said briefly at the beginning about bananas—a very special commodity for our Caribbean friends. Our long-standing commitment to the traditional banana suppliers in the Caribbean will not be changed. We fought hard in the Lomé renegotiations to ensure that effective preferential access arrangements were maintained for the traditional suppliers. The commitments are enshrined in a protocol to the convention, and I assure the House that we shall uphold those commitments when we consider what arrangements should apply to bananas in the single market after 1992.
  As I said earlier, the Commission has still to come forward with its proposals, but the arrangments must take account of our commitments to our Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers, of the trade policy considerations, the interests of consumers and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.
  We are committed to getting on with the job and to ensuring that Lomé IV is even more effective than Lomés I, II and III and the Yaoundé conventions before them. I am convinced that the Commission has the will. It may need a few good ideas from its member countries about how best to act, but together we can deliver a much better deal in the 1990s than we were able to achieve in the 1980s.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

  Optical Fibres
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  1.43 am
  Mr. George Howarth: In this Adjournment debate, I represent only my constituents, the town of Prescot in which I live and the work force of and all those dependent on the BICC works there, which is of vital significance to the town. I do not speak for BICC when I say that, nor for British Telecom, Mercury, or any of the other commercial concerns which obviously have an interest in this matter.
  The BICC company has been vital to the town of Prescot for the past 100 years. In the past few years, the company has shrunk as an employer, from employing about 10,000 people at its peak to under 2,000 now. Several weeks ago, the closure of the copper refinery in Prescot was announced—its timing is still open to discussion—and a further 230 jobs were lost.
  I make those few introductory remarks about BICC because there is a problem. The development of optical fibre cable and the development and implementation of the broad band system offer considerable potential to the company. It is estimated that, if such developments were allowed to go ahead pretty quickly in this country, about 800 jobs could be created within the borough of Knowsley, part of which I have the honour to represent in the House. When one considers that my borough is in the top 10 constituencies for unemployment, which is not a statistic that I am boasting about, but a fact of life, those 800 jobs would certainly be most valuable.
  Similarly, in the north-west of England, where the cold wind of recession is blowing and scarcely a day goes by without the loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs, it is estimated that about 4,000 jobs could be created as a result of such developments.
  Naturally, the estimate which is most commonly used by commerical interests is that, taking into account the multiplier effect provided by any manufacturing industry—jobs rippling through into other parts of the economy—there is potential for about 30,000 jobs. That potential, nationally, in the north-west and within my constituency is all too plain and welcome in the context of an economy which has been shrinking drastically during the past few years.
  However, there are constraints upon that development. The Minister is considering the duopoly review, commissioned by the Government to study all these matters. If they accept the duopoly review's recommendations, it will prevent the development of the broad band system in the United Kingdom, in particular by preventing British Telecom and Mercury—the two operators capable of producing a system of that kind—from carrying entertainment for between seven and 10 years. That is the profitable part of the operation, which would act as a spur to the development of home computers, video phones and so forth, so that would prevent the industry from taking off.
  I do not decry the Japanese Government, Japan's industry or its people—far from it—but by contrast, in Japan, through the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company, decisions have already been taken to invest £12 billion to create a broad band national network, which will put the company in a strong position to take
  954
  advantage of any developments that are then allowed, in seven to 10 years, as a result of the delays caused by the duopoly review.
  I simply wish to urge the Government to consider the prospects involved in allowing British Telecom and Mercury to develop a broad band system, and, in particular, allowing them to carry out entertainment operations. It is possible that an industry in which we already have a technological leading edge, and in which we are now a world leader, will simply slip through our fingers, and the potential jobs in my constituency and in the nation as a whole will be lost.
  In the 1988 Mountbatten memorial lecture, Sir William Barlow, the distinguished chairman of the BICC group of companies, said:
  "In so many scientific and technological enterprises, Britain has frequently led the world as inventors or in research and development—only to lose the final race in terms of commercial application and market exploitation.
  We are on the threshold of a revolution in communications and we should grasp the opportunity to be a world leader."
  That potential already exists—the potential for this country to move heavily and dramatically into the technological revolution. It is a matter of developing a formidable, highly technical communications network, and of Britain's getting back into the driving seat to deal with the technology and manufacturing of the 21st century. The opportunity must not be constrained for the next seven to 10 years: we must grasp it fervently now. Even if questions are posed about competition, let the existing companies get on with the job; and let us hope that, in seven to 10 years' time, the opportunity has not slipped through our fingers. It should be a matter of British national pride that we were there first, and that we are doing it.
  1.51 am
  The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on raising such an important subject. I was sorry to hear of the recent job losses at BICC; I hope that the plans that I hear are being discussed for development on an alternative site can bring some extra jobs and prosperity to his part of the world—assuming that the planning authorities consider them satisfactory.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman: over the next few years, the development of broad band networks and opto-electronic technologies will be important, and I hope that his constituency will benefit from that as the demand comes through: I million km of fibre highway are already in place for trunk calls, and more will be sold as needed. There will also be new opportunities for the suppliers. The use of fibre allows more signals to be sent along a given route. Broad band systems allowing television programmes to be sent by cable require either fibre optic capacity or thicker copper cables in the home.
  The Government are keen to promote the right environment for those developments, so that British companies across all industries can benefit from them and gain an international competitive advantage. I think that Opposition Members and I can agree on that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the duopoly review. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot predict the results of the Secretary of State's deliberations tonight; however, we stated in the document that British Telecom was already allowed to convey entertainment

  955
  services to the home as the agent of a cable company. BT has also been free to apply for cable franchises through a subsidiary, in its own right, on the same basis as any other applicant. BT is, however, now disposing of all its cable interests. Those matters will be covered when we present the findings of the review. We have been delighted by the range and quality of the representations received on those and other issues.
  Although the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on the importance of cable networks, I do not think that I have always found myself in agreement with Opposition Members about the best ways to achieve that. Labour wants the Government to make BT install a national broad band grid.
  The Labour party's document "Meet the Challenge—Make the Change" stated:
  "BT must be empowered and directed to undertake this major investment programme."
  That seemed to be reaffirmed in Labour's latest industry document, published this week. But who should pay the taxpayer or BT's customers? Moreover, why should cable be laid before there is a need for it? What possible advantages are there in returning to a monopoly provider? The Labour party's plans have been costed at an additional £20,000 million—a very considerable sum.
  We say that as people demand cable TV or video conferencing, so more fibre will be used to link trunk routes—eventually into homes or businesses. Informed estimates suggest that, under our policies, the United Kingdom will spend more than £60,000 million on the technology as demand builds up. It will be a huge and important investment. By adopting our approach, the United Kingdom has already become one of the most intensive users of optical fibre for communications in the world. We use more fibre for trunk communication than France or Germany—both considerably larger countries.
  Cable television companies are using fibre increasingly for trunk circuits. It is also being installed in the premises of major users of telecommunications, such as those in the City and other business centres. In the centre of London, more than 1,300 buildings are directly connected by Mercury alone, and BT accounts for more. There are also local fibre networks in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Reading, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  It does not yet pay to install fibre for smaller and residential customers, because the opto-electronic components needed to convert from optical to electronic signals are still expensive. The price of the components will doubtless come down, and as they come down, fibre to the home can become a reality if people want the sort of new services that fibre links can provide.
  British Telecom has undertaken extensive research and development into fibre optics and opto-electronics—much of it in collaboration with leading United Kingdom companies. Last autumn, BT, GPT, and BICC started a two-year "field trial" of new fibre technologies in Bishop's Stortford, in which telephone calls, television pictures, text and data all travel over a single optical fibre cable. The trials are both technological and commercial. Their results will help decide when and if it will be commercial to offer such a service more widely.
  The Government's role in encouraging such developments is threefold. First, we help to fund research, both in
  956
  the United Kingdom and on a European basis. There is the £800 million EC RACE programme, which I expect to be followed up shortly by RACE II.
  Domestically, research is also supported under the LINK programme: in opto-electronics and in advanced semiconductor materials, vital for the components in any fibre network. That involves an additional £27 million of public money over a period of five years.
  Secondly, the United Kingdom played a leading role in the establishment of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, which now undertakes most of the work in establishing standards in Europe, which can stimulate marketplace activity.
  Thirdly, the United Kingdom's approach to new services in the market provides a great incentive. The success of the United Kingdom's liberal regime towards service provision has led many of our European partners to copy it. By allowing anyone with a service to test it in the market, we have enabled the United Kingdom to become the leading provider of value added network services of all types in Europe. As broad band technology develops, we shall be in a strong position to exploit what it can offer.
  British Telecom and Mercury are not the only players. Cable operators already bring broad band network to the home and they do not offer television alone. They represent one of the best chances for effective competition to BT for residential phone links as well.
  Some 135 cable franchises were awarded by the Cable Authority before its functions were incorporated into the ITC at the beginning of the year. It is still early days for most of the operators, but 30 of them are offering service to their customers, and many more have started to install their networks. Successful operations already provide services to more than one in five of the households they can reach. In the United States—a more mature market—penetration reaches one in two.
  The next two or three years will be critical for the broad band cable industry. Cable operators make very heavy investments at the beginning of their lives, and they need to penetrate the market rapidly to get payback. If the operators stick to their plans, they will reach half of Britain's homes by the mid-1990s, and two thirds by the end of the century. They have the opportunity to bring advanced telecommunications to their customers on the back of the cable television market. Data transfer services are already being widely used by businesses, and there are niche markets for services such as video conferencing. There are plenty of other uses yet to be thought of.
  The United Kingdom has the leading position in both the technology and the use of fibre optics and broad band services, and undoubtedly will be amongst the pioneers of those new uses. British Telecom and Mercury have already switched to fibre for almost all their trunk cable network. Many individual large customers now have fibre to their premises. It may well be only a question of time before it will be economic for British Telecom, Mercury and their competitors, such as the cable companies, to supply all customers.
  But it must be an economic decision—not a Government command. Only in that way will customers get in service a broad band system they want, rather than a speculative white elephant at someone else's expense. In

  957
  they way, Britain is likely to be in the lead and is likely to provide a good market for fibre optics and cable technology.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, who has raised this vital issue, that the development of
  958
  these services is necessary. I believe that the Government are pursuing policies that will definitely have that effect, and that we are in the lead in western Europe.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Tribunals (Legal Representation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has had about tribunals where defendants do not have legal representation.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received no representations about tribunals where defendants do not have legal representation. The Lord Chancellor has, however, received representations on this issue from Members, professional and other bodies and from members of the public.

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General who will be legally representing the Government at the final hearing of the Leybucht Bay case, European Commission v. German Federal Republic, at Luxembourg on 28 February 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  The hearing in European Court of Justice case 57/89, Commission v. Germany, took place on 16 October 1990. At its sitting on 28 February 1991 the court will simply deliver judgment and, in accordance with usual practice, the Government will not be represented.

WALES

  Planning Applications, Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of instances where his Department has ruled against the decisions of local councils in Wales on cases involving planning applications during 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Among 514 planning appeals allowed against the refusal or failure of local planning authorities to grant planning permission, the following are representative examples:

  small residential developments of 1–12 houses,

  single-storey extensions to dwellings,

  alterations to dwellings/loft conversions/dormers,

  residential homes for elderly/sheltered housing/nursing homes,

  conversion of agricultural buildings to residential accommodation/holiday accommodation,

  new agricultural accommodation,

  removal of agricultural occupancy conditions,

  farm diversifications schemes,

  removal of conditions applied to planning permissions,

  changes of use to tea shops, cafes, take-aways, offices, shops, flats, bed-sits,

  formation of accesses and parking spaces,

  increase in number of caravans, siting of new caravans and domestic garaging, garden sheds, store sheds, pigeon loft.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what form he proposes to announce his decision on the proposals by South Glamorgan health authority in respect of St. David's children's ear, nose and throat, and Glanely hospitals and the children's ward at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  By letter.

  Road Repairs
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts of funding have been allocated, per highways authority, for repairs and maintenance work to motorways, trunkroads and major road bridges in Wales, excluding the Severn bridge, in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The highway authority responsible for repairs and maintenance of motorways and trunk roads in Wales is the Welsh Office. The 1991 Welsh Office departmental report (CM 1516), published on 15 Feburary, gives the following information:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Plans

  Forecast outturn

  Plans

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Structural renewal:

  Bridges

  4·9

  4·9

  7·0

  Roads

  19·1

  19·1

  27·0

  General maintenance:

  18·0

  18·0

  19·9

  Plans for 1992–93 are broadly the same in real terms as for 1991–92.

  Roads
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why there has been a delay in letting the contract for the bridge as part of the Lonlas-Baglan part of the M4; and how this will affect the date of the completion of the motorway.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s", published in April 1989, gave a start of the M4 Briton Ferry to Earlswood scheme in the period April 1991 to March 1994. The 1991 Welsh Office departmental report published on 15 February confirmed plans to let this scheme before April 1992.

  Sea Defences
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to respond to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report on "The Breach of Sea Defences on 26/27 February along The North Wales Coast," published on 9 July 1990 (HC 426).

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that the response has been published today.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish(a) the number of landfill sites in Wales and (b) a list of those sites that have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, together with the dates of those visits.
  411
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: On the basis of information held by Her Majesty's

  Date

  Site name

  Operator

  Waste disposal authority

  8 April 1987

  Bryn Posteg Site, Montgomery

  Montgomery DC

  Montgomery DC

  9 April 1987

  Bryn Posteg Site, Montgomery

  Montgomery DC

  Montgomery DC

  10 April 1987

  Bryn Posteg Site, Montgomery

  Montgomery DC

  Montgomery DC

  13 April 1987

  Tirpentwys, Pontypool

  Torfaen BC

  Torfaen BC

  1 May 1987

  Tirpentwys, Pontypool

  Torfawn BC

  Torfaen BC

  2 May 1987

  Tirpentwys, Pontypool

  Torfaen BC

  Torfaen BC

  7 May 1987

  Consolidated Beryllium Ltd.

  Consolidated Beryllium Ltd.

  Preseli/Pembroke DC

  7 May 1987

  Underhills Site

  Dyfed Sludge Ltd.

  24 June 1987

  BSC Site

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  24 June 1987

  Cape Insulation

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  25 June 1987

  Sandycroft BSC

  Pilkington

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  25 June 1987

  Pilkington Insulation Products

  Pilkington

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  25 June 1987

  Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  26 June 1987

  Clwyd Waste Disposal, Rossett

  Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  31 July 1987

  Tirpentwys

  Torfaen BC

  Torfaen BC

  13 August 1987

  Dark Lane Site

  Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  14 August 1987

  Old Bridge Inn, Padeswood

  A. Scarfo

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  14 August 1987

  Scarfo

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  27 August 1987

  Municipal Site

  Brecknock BC

  Brecknock BC

  25 September 1987

  Municipal Site

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  6 January 1988

  Municipal Site

  Ynys Mon BC

  Ynys Mon BC

  22 January 1988

  Municipal Site

  Taff Ely BC

  Taff Ely BC

  3 February 1988

  Municipal Site

  Preseli/Pembroke BC

  Preseli/Pembroke BC

  12 February 1988

  Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry

  Cymrhydyceirw

  Swansea CC

  23 February 1988

  Municipal Site

  Radnor DC

  Radnor DC

  8 March 1988

  Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry

  Swansea CC

  Swansea CC

  9 March 1988

  Ruthin W D

  Glyndwr DC

  Glyndwr DC

  9 March 1988

  Municipal Site

  Glyndwr DC

  Glyndwr DC

  11 March 1988

  Municipal Site

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  16 March 1988

  Municipal Site

  Rhymney Valley DC

  Rhymney Valley DC

  20 June 1988

  Tirpentwys

  Torfaen BC

  Torfaen BC

  24 June 1988

  Cambrian Quarry

  Leigh Interests Ltd.

  Delyn BC

  24 June 1988

  Redland Aggregates Graig Quarry

  Redland Aggregates

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  24 June 1988

  Dark Lane Waste Site

  Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  8 July 1988

  Dark Lane Waste Site

  Clwyd Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  15 July 1988

  Phurnacite

  NSF

  Cynon Valley BC

  22 July 1988

  Briton Ferry Port

  Neath BC

  Neath BC

  10 August 1988

  Borth Landfill Site

  Ceredigion DC

  Ceredigion DC

  10 August 1988

  Rhydeino, Llanarth

  Ceredigion DC

  Ceredigion DC

  11 August 1988

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Meirionnydd DC

  Meirionnydd DC

  11 August 1988

  Ruthin Waste Disposal Site

  Meirionnydd DC

  Meirionnydd DC

  11 August 1988

  Municipal Site

  Meirionnydd DC

  Meirionnydd DC

  28 October 1988

  Cwmrhydyceirw Quarry

  Swansea CC

  Swansea CC

  12 December 1988

  Municipal Site

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  13 December 1988

  Municipal Site

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  14 December 1988

  Municipal Site

  Montgomery DC

  Montgomery DC

  15 January 1989

  Municipal Site

  Llanelli BC

  Llanelli BC

  16 January 1989

  Bird Shredded Products, Cardiff

  Birds

  Cardiff CC

  19 January 1989

  Llanstar Wimpey Waste

  Lanstar Wimpey

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  19 January 1989

  Cadishead, Manchester

  Wimpey Waste

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  25 January 1989

  Dark Lane

  Caird Environmental Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  2 February 1989

  Ferry Road

  Cardiff CC

  Cardiff CC

  6 February 1989

  Ferry Road

  Cardiff CC

  Cardiff CC

  10 February 1989

  Rover Way Site

  Cardiff CC

  Cardiff CC

  27 February 1989

  Briton Ferry

  Neath BC

  Neath BC

  1 March 1989

  Municipal Site

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  1 June 1989

  Port Talbot

  Wistech Pic.

  Port Talbot BC

  28 June 1989

  Tirpentwys Site

  Torfaen BC

  Torfaen BC

  29 June 1989

  Caldicot

  Monmouth DC

  Monmouth DC

  29 June 1989

  Abergarney

  Monmouth DC

  Monmouth DC

  29 June 1989

  Severn Tunnel Site

  Monmouth DC

  Monmouth DC

  6 July 1989

  Municipal Site

  Taff Ely BC

  Taff Ely BC

  10 July 1989

  Dark Lane

  Caird Environmental Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  5 October 1989

  Dark Lane

  Caird Environmental Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  5 October 1989

  Dark Lane

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  5 October 1989

  Garden Lodge Landfill Site

  Shanks and McEwan Pic.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  3 November 1989

  Llantrisant, Cardiff

  Cardiff CC

  Cardiff CC

  13 December 1989

  Motorway Remoulds, Knighton

  Motorway Remoulds

  Radnor DC

  13 December 1989

  Castle Works (1), Flint

  Delyn BC

  Delyn BC

  13 December 1989

  Maes-y-Grug Quarry

  A. Mealor & Sons

  Delyn BC

  20 December 1989

  Bryn Gwiog Quarry, Hendre

  Delyn BC

  Delyn BC

  20 December 1989

  Crown Chert Quarry, Trelogan

  Ellis Davies & Son

  Delyn BC

  11 January 1990

  Llanddullas, Colwyn Bay, Clwyd

  Colwyn BC

  Colwyn BC

  16 February 1990

  Crown Chert Quarry, Trelogan

  Ellis Davies & Son

  Clwyd CC

  412
  inspectorate of pollution, there are some 240 licensed landfill sites in Wales. The information relating to visits is as follows:
  413

  Date

  Site name

  Operator

  Waste disposal authority

  2 March 1990

  J. A. Williams Site, Forden

  J. A. Williams

  Montgomery DC

  2 March 1990

  Potters Site, Pool Quay

  G. Potter

  Montgomery DC

  5 March 1990

  Caeya Farm, Overton

  T. Williams

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  5 March 1990

  Dark Lane, Burton, Rossett

  Caird Environmental Ltd.

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  7 November 1990

  Milford Haven

  Consolidated Berlyllium Ltd.

  Preseli/Pembroke BC

  15 November 1990

  Cwmrhydyceirw

  Max Recovery Ltd.

  Swansea CC

  22 January 1991

  Silent Valley

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  29 January 1991

  Griffiths Crossing

  Ferodo Ltd.

  Arfon BC

  29 January 1991

  Bryn Posteg, Llandeilo

  Montgomery DC

  Montgomery DC

TRANSPORT

  Railway Bridge, Osgodby
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions or plans have been taken or made for the demolition of the redundant railway bridge on the A63 trunk road at Osgodby, near Selby, in North Yorkshire; and when further action can be expected.

  Mr. Chope
  This scheme has been added to the Department's regional improvement programme. Preparation will take its turn with other schemes offering accident saving potential.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a full report on the operation of those red routes already in operation in Greater London; and if he will include in such a report(a) changes in traffic flow arising from each scheme and (b) additional resources and expenditure occasioned by their operation.

  Mr. Chope
  The only red route in operation so far is that part of the pilot scheme on the Al trunk road between Highgate and the Angel, Islington. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory will be conducting a monitoring exercise throughout 1991.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received to date on the operation of the red routes from the A1 at Highgate to the Angel, Islington; if all those have had a reply; how many supported the scheme and how many opposed it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  About 100 letters have been received, commenting on the operation of the pilot scheme, most of which have now received a response. Some correspondents have expressed concern about the scheme; others have supported it.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities and injuries in road accidents in Great Britain in 1988, 1989 and 1990, resulted from motor vehicles which had been stolen or driven without the owners' consent; how many resulted from motor vehicles being driven for other criminal purposes; and how many involved vehicles driven by the police in connection with the performance of their duties.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard report form, STATS19, completed by the police for all road accidents involving personal injury, does not include the information requested.
  414
  Details of police vehicles' involvement in accidents are published in chief constables' annual reports. This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1991,Official Report, column 497, if any additional powers are to be made available in his proposed statutory red routes as proposed in the Road Traffic Bill.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The Road Traffic Bill provides for priority routes in London to be implemented through the exercise of existing Highways Act 1980 and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 powers.

  Street Lighting
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether highway authorities are eligible for a transport supplementary grant to bring their street lighting up to standard as a crime prevention measure.

  Mr. Chope
  Crime prevention is not one of the criteria for transport supplementary grant, but local authority capital expenditure on street lighting is eligible for transport supplementary grant on roads which are of more than local importance or where it is associated with local safety schemes. Street lighting can also be improved by the use of the local authority's block allocation of credit approvals.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make the orange badge scheme for disabled drivers nationally acceptable by all local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  The orange badge scheme is in operation throughout Great Britain except for the City of London, the city of Westminster, the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and part of the London borough of Camden. Department of Transport officials met officers from these four authorities and members of the disabled persons transport advisory committee in September last year to explore the scope for applying some aspects of the orange badge scheme to central London. All four authorities agreed to consider the possibility of granting some concessions to badge holders, subject to the implementation of modifications to the scheme now under consideration and to changes in London boroughs' parking enforcement powers as envisaged in part II of the current Road Traffic Bill.

  London Underground
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received from London Regional Transport concerning improvments to the Northern line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The modernisation of the Central and Northern lines was recommended in the central London rail study, as part of the major upgrading programme for the existing underground network. Work on the Central line is well advanced and is scheduled for completion in 1995. Work on the Northern line is not likely to commence until the Central line modernisation has been completed. The Government have not yet received from London Transport a formal request for approval of this investment.

  In the meantime, London Transport is taking what steps it can within available resources to improve the quality and reliability of the existing service.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by seat belt use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No information is available as to the number of deaths and serious injuries that might have been caused by seat belt use, but we estimate that, since the introduction of compulsory front seat belt wearing in 1983, seat belts have prevented more than 1,500 deaths and 55,000 serious injuries.

  Road Repairs
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what amounts of Government funding have been allocated to highway authorities for the repair of motorways, trunk roads and major road bridges in(a) England and (b) Wales in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (2) what percentage of overall costs in repairs to motorways, trunk roads and major road bridges in (a) England and (b) Wales was accounted for by remedial work undertaken to counteract the effects of concrete cancer on those roads and bridges;

  (3) what are the estimated costs (a) in England and (b) Wales of undertaking remedial work to counteract the effects of concrete cancer on structures associated with motorways, trunk roads and major road bridges in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Chope
  Allocations of funds to my Department's agents for the structural maintenance of motorways and trunk roads (including bridges) in England are:

  £ million

  11990–91

  419

  1991–92

  444

  1992–93

  443

  1 Estimated out-turn.

  The Department has a comprehensive 15-year programme for the rehabilitation of structures on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads in England. Within this programme, some £1·5 million has been allocated in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and
  416
  1992–93 to deal with problems caused by alkali-silica reaction, or concrete cancer. This represents 0·36 per cent., 0·34 per cent. and 0·34 per cent. of total capital maintenance allocations respectively.

  Allocations for roads in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Global Warming
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names and designations of his expert advisers on matters relating to global warming and the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer Monday 25 February 1991]: Professor Brian Hoskins of Reading university is our scientific adviser on this matter.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the £2 million of non-food assistance for Ethiopia, and the 25,000 tonnes for Ethiopia later in 1991, will be for the cross-border operation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Of the £2 million non-food assistance,£1·3 million is for the cross-border relief effort. Allocation of the 25,000 tonnes of food has yet to be finalised.

  EC Assistance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his reply of 15 February,Official Report, column 596 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, if he will list the (a) Asian and (b) Latin American countries receiving assistance from the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1989, the last year for which figures are available, new EC commitments were made to the following countries: In Asia—

  Country

  Amount (ECU million)

  Bangladesh

  13·50

  China

  3·80

  India

  73·25

  Pakistan

  10·00

  Philippines

  16·50

  Thailand

  46·16

  In Latin Amercia—

  Country

  Amount (ECU million)

  Bolivia

  18·50

  Costa Rica

  0·64

  Haiti

  5·50

  Peru

  1·20

  In addition, countries in Latin America benefited from new commitments to regional bodies as follows:

  417

  Amount (ECU million)

  Andean Pact

  11·20

  Central America regional payments system for reactivation of trade

  43·50

  BCIE (Central American Bank for Economic Integration)

  6·00

  Debt
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Commissioner Marin's proposal to write off debt owed by ACP countries to the EC was last discussed at an EC Council meeting; what decision was taken; what position the United Kingdom took; and when it will next be discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The proposal on ACP debt was discussed at a meeting of the EC's Economic and Finance Council

  1985–86 £ million

  1986–87 £ million

  1987–88 £ million

  1988–89 £ million

  1989–90 £ million

  Local authority expenditure in the United Kingdom (on a national accounts basis)

  42,320

  45,080

  48,700

  50,480

  56,210

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage

  Local authority expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  11·7

  11·5

  11·3

  10·5

  10·7

  Domestic rates (net of all rebates) as a percentage of local authority expenditure1

  13·6

  14·8

  15·1

  16·9

  16·6

  Non-domestic rates (net of all rebates) as a percentage of local authority expenditure

  19·1

  20·1

  20·1

  21·0

  20·3

  Government grants as a percentage of local authority expenditure

  50·1

  51·1

  50·2

  48·8

  48·3

  1 Community charge income in Scotland in 1989–90.

  The information is not yet available to allow a comparison to be made for 1990–91.

  Assured Tenancies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of assured tenancies let by housing associations during 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is estimated that some 54,000 assured tenancies were let by housing associations in England in 1989, and the provisional figure for 1990 is 61,000. In addition, in 1989 21,000 tenants converted to assured tenancies when ownership of their homes was transferred from local authorities or new towns to housing associations. The provisional estimate for 1990 is 30,000.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many submissions he has received in response to his Department's consultation document on part M of the Building (Access for Disabled People) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The closing date for comments on the proposals for amendments to part M of the Building (Access for Disabled People) Regulations 1985 was 31 January 1991. By 20 February 1991, some 134 responses had been received from a wide variety of different organisations, companies, access groups and individuals. These will be given careful consideration before final decisions are made.418
  on 3 December 1990. The discussion was on procedure rather than the substance of the proposals and the United Kingdom was content with the outcome. It was agreed that further work should be done on the details of the proposals and that the issue would be considered at a future Economic and Finance Council meeting.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Expenditure
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the figures for total expenditure by all local authorities in each of the last five years; what was that expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product; and what proportion of that expenditure was met by(a) domestic rates or community charge, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) Government grant.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information is as follows:

  Loop System
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what positive measures he is taking to promote the installation of the loop system to aid the partially deaf in public buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  A consultation paper on proposals for the revision of the requirements and guidance relating to part M of the Building (Access for Disabled People) Regulations 1985 was issued last October. It included a proposal that, in new public buildings, permanent aids to hearing such as the loop system should be incorporated in auditoriums and conference rooms in excess of 100 sq m in area. Responses to the consultation paper are currently being considered.

  Building Regulations
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the legal status of building regulations; and what legal penalties exist for local authority personnel who do not carry them out properly.

  Sir George Young
  Building regulations impose legally binding requirements relating to the design and construction of buildings. A person who is carrying out building work is under a duty to comply with these requirements, and a person who contravenes them can be prosecuted and fined. While local authorities have the function of enforcing the regulations in their areas, any
  419
  failure to do so does not give rise to legal penalties, although other sanctions against the authority and its personnel may be available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of community charge in England for 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  It is £357.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average level of community charge in England for 1990–91, if the amount of revenue support grant, or its equivalent, paid to local authorities had been maintained at its 1978–79 level in real terms.

  Mr. Key
  The rate support grant payable in 1978–79 is equivalent to £16,612 million in 1990–91 prices. If this amount had been paid as revenue support grant in 1990–91, other things being equal, the average community charge would have been £152. This estimate takes no account of changes in function since 1978–79, such as the transfer of polytechnics out of the local authority sector, and assumes that none of the benefit of the additional grant would go to non-domestic ratepayers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether builders are liable to standard poll tax on properties on which completion certificates have not been issued and which do not meet the requirements of section 604 of the Housing and Local Government Act 1985 and public health regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: The standard community charge may be payable on domestic property which is not any person's sole or main residence. However, we have provided that no standard charge is payable, for example, on property whose erection is not substantially completed or which is undergoing structural alteration or when less than six months have elapsed since its erection or structural alteration was substantially completed. Furthermore, no standard charge is payable where a property is kept unoccupied because a local or public authority has prohibited its occupation.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the gross sum raised by the community charge in England; and what is the amount in England raised locally for schools and further education.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: The latest estimate of the amount which will be raised from the community charge in 1990–91 is £12·377 billion.

  Income from the community charge is raised in support of local authority services generally. It is not possible to say what proportion is raised in support of particular services, but schools and further education account for 46 per cent. of budgeted net current expenditure by local authorities in 1990–91.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to payments by a community charge payer in 1991–92 of payments for those who have defaulted on the 1990–91 charge; and if he will make a statement.
  420
  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Under section 89 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, every charging authority keeps a collection fund into which are paid community charges, non-domestic rates and grant, and from which are met precepts and charging authorities' own demands for revenues. Non-payment of the charge may result in a deficit on the collection fund at the year end.

  In setting an amount for its community charge for a year under section 37 of the Act, the charging authority must take account of such part of any deficit on the collection fund for the previous year as relates to charges that it estimates will be uncollectable. To the extent that it estimates that the charges for the previous year are collectable, the deficit on the collection fund can be made up by means of temporary borrowing under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and is not taken into account in setting the charge for the following year.

  Environmental Assessment
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are proposed for applying the requirements for environmental assessment in directive 85/337/EEC to private Bills as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department, the Welsh Office and the House authorities here and in another place have been co-operating in devising arrangements to implement the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure that environmental assessment requirements should be applied to projects for which approval is sought in private Bills. I believe that this will be a valuable aid to the Committees which consider Bills for projects which may have significant environmental effects.

  I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out the proposed arrangements. It includes a draft amendment to standing orders, which is expected to be tabled shortly, and invites comments on the administrative arrangements proposed for my Department to direct whether assessment is necessary in particular cases. I am placing a copy of the paper in the Library.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue guidance to local authorities on the operation of the new local authority air pollution control system under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am delighted to report that we have today issued guidance notes covering all the processes which are to be prescribed for local authority air pollution control under the Act from 1 April. The notes have been drawn up after consultation with relevant industries, local authorities and other interested bodies. They will provide a sound framework within which local authorities will be able to exercise their new air pollution control functions.

  A set of the notes has been placed in the Library of the House. The notes are also being sent to district and borough councils and to port health authorities.

  Guidance for the remaining prescribed processes is well advanced and will be available in accordance with the staged timetable for introducing the new controls. General guidance on the operation of the new system will be published in the near future.

  Bird Rescue
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with his European counterparts and with the FAO the setting up of an international emergency bird rescue organisation equipped to send aid and rescue personnel and equipment to major oil spillages and other disasters where bird life is threatened.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The Government have given some financial support to an RSPCA team now helping several Gulf states to organise bird rescue.

  The most effective way to minimise the impact of' an oil spill on wildlife, including birds, is to ensure prompt and effective remedial action to clean up the spill. We strongly support early entry into force of the International Maritime Organisation's international convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation and have received backing from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for this as well as for my right hon. Friend's call to strengthen the international response to future environmental disasters. We also look forward to discussing a feasibility study prepared by the United Nations Environmental Programme on improved international co-operation and assistance in the case of environmental threats and emergencies at the United Nations Environmental Programme's governing council in June this year.

  Housing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the population are(a) local authority tenants and (b) owner occupiers according to the 1981 census for each parliamentary constituency in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Parliamentary constituencies

  Persons in owner occupier households as a percentage of all persons

  Persons in households renting from local authority as a percentage of all persons

  Blaby

  81

  13

  Bosworth

  77

  17

  Harborough

  80

  13

  Loughborough

  73

  20

  North West Leicestershire

  69

  22

  Rutland and Melton

  69

  17

  Leicester East

  60

  31

  Leicester South

  58

  30

  Leicester West

  46

  45

THE ARTS

  London Arts Board
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many people have been approached to chair the London Arts Board.
  422
  Mr. Renton
  A number of people were approached to find out whether they would wish to be considered for this appointment. From the resulting shortlist, the Arts Council recommended, and I have endorsed, the appointment of Mr. Clive Priestly. I am delighted that the new board will be led by someone of Mr. Priestly's wide administrative experience, combined with his firm and long-standing commitment to the arts.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the number of civil servants employed by each Department in 1979, and the number employed in the last year for which figures are available.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on staff numbers by Department is to be found in summaries of departmental staff returns for 1 April 1979 and 1 October 1990, copies of which have been placed in the statistical section of the House of Commons Library. Table 2 of the Treasury publication "Civil Service Statistics", 1984 and 1989–90 editions, will assist in tracing machinery of Government changes that have taken place between 1979 and now. Copies of this publication have also been placed in the Library.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the Gulf war.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations, many supporting the Government's policy to secure full, immediate and unconditional compliance with the Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what Governments of the allied coalition in the Gulf were contacted by Her Majesty's Government, and in which sequence, for consultations on the Soviet peace plan for resolving the Gulf conflict before Ministers in the Government issued statements responding to the plan on 19 February.

  The Prime Minister
  We remain in constant touch with our coalition partners on a wide range of matters relating to the Gulf crisis.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Denmark (Refugees)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations are being made to Denmark about ratifying the Dublin convention on the treatment of refugees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the regular meetings of European Community Immigration Ministers, my right hon. Friend and our colleagues in Europe continue to express the hope to the Danish representative that Denmark's signature of the convention will be not long delayed.

  Police, Northumbria
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was consulted by the chief constable of Northumbria before he decided not to fill 116 police posts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chief constable of Northumbria informed us of several measures, including manpower reductions, which he thought might be necessary if his police authority set a budget below the provisional charge capping criteria. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the chairman of the police authority and the chief constable in a letter sent on 18 February that he expected metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at a level which maintained operational police manpower at the level which he and his predecessors had approved.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase has been made to the number of police officers and civilian auxiliaries for Leicestershire over each of the past 10 years; and what has been the increase or decrease in crimes reported detected and cleared up over that period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information regarding police officers and civilian auxiliaries is set out in the table:

  Increase in police resources

  Year

  Police officer establishment

  Civilian staff

  1979–80

  21

  20

  1980–81

  Nil

  45

  1981–82

  Nil

  11

  1982–83

  6

  13

  1983–84

  Nil

  8

  1984–85

  Nil

  -2

  1985–86

  Nil

  -5

  1986–87

  Nil

  5

  1987–88

  Nil

  41

  1988–89

  Nil

  70

  1989–90

  27

  63

  1990–91

  53

  127

  1 Based on latest available strength figures (December 1990).

  The information requested about crime levels for the past 10 years is published in the annual reports of the chief constable of Leicestershire for the years 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Statistics for 1990 are not yet available.

  Gulf War (Arrests)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested in the United Kingdom arising out of the Gulf war; how many have been released; and how many are awaiting appeals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 113 have been detained since 2 August 1990 following service of deportation notices for reasons of national security. Nineteen have been released and 23 others who wished to leave the United Kingdom have done so. Sixteen have not yet appeared before the panel and we await the advice of the panel on 12 cases heard last week.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish his Department's response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on policing football hooliganism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are giving urgent consideration to the Committee's report. We hope to publish a full response before the summer.

  National Security
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently held on grounds of national security within the terms of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 25 February, a total of 37 persons were detained following service of notice of deportation for reasons of national security.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the notes verbales exchanged between the British embassy and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those held on grounds of national security under the Immigration Act 1971 have(a) asked for their cases to be referred to an appeal but have not yet been heard, (b) had a hearing and their detention confirmed by himself and (c) been released following representation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested, as at 25 February, is:

  (a) 16 of those detained have applied to appear before the panel and have not yet done so—postponement has been on their own request in 12 cases);

  (b) 10 remain in detention following consideration of the panel's advice;

  (c) 18, of whom six were made subject to restriction orders, have been released from detention following consideration of representations and, where applicable, advice from the panel.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters of representation concerning those held under the Immigration Act 1971 he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) the public; and how many of those who wrote to him he has met.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The subject matter of all correspondence is not recorded centrally and, as the
  425
  representations received from hon. Members and from the public cover the general aspects of those detained and individual cases, the requested information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  On four specific cases of persons held under the Immigration Act following service of notices of deportation for reasons of national security, there have been two recent meetings with hon. Members.

  Football Spectators Act 1989
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the text of the notes verbales, exchanged in May 1990, setting out the terms of the agreement reached between his Department and the Italian Ministries of the Interior and of Grace and Justice regarding arrangements for corresponding offences under the Football Spectators Act 1989.

  Departmental Picket
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis indicating under what powers the picket of his Department called by "Black People Against War in the Gulf" on 20 February was cleared away by the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that, on 20 February, a demonstration organised by the Newham monitoring project took place between 4 am and 6 pm outside the Home Office, Queen Anne's gate. During the demonstration, a male leading the chanting started using a megaphone and, after refusing a warning to desist, was arrested.

  A group of other demonstrators attempted to prevent the arrest and a scuffle broke out. To prevent further disorder, the sessional order made under section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 was invoked and the crowd dispersed. A total of 11 persons were arrested.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and which, local authorities submitted crime prevention strategies to his Department in response to circular 44/90, by the 31 October 1990 deadline.

  Mr. John Patten
  Responses to circular 44/90 were received from 52 local authorities by 31 October 1990. An additional 32 local authority responses were received after the deadline. All are being considered by an independent working group, which will report in the early summer. Those local authorities which replied in time were:

  Avon county council

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council

  Birmingham city council

  Bolton metropolitan city council

  Bradford metropolitan city council,

  Calderdale metropolitan district council

  Cambridgeshire county council

  Cannock Chase district council

  Cheshire county council

  Cornwall county council

  Coventry city council

  Cumbria county council

  Durham county council

  Powys county council

  426

  Dyfed county council

  Elmbridge borough council

  Epping Forest district council

  Epsom and Ewell borough council

  Essex county council

  Gloucestershire county council

  Hereford and Worcester county council

  Hertfordshire county council

  Humberside county council

  Lancashire county council

  Lincolnshire county council

  Liverpool city council

  London borough of Barnet

  London borough of Bexley

  London borough of Brent

  London borough of Croydon

  London borough of Enfield

  London borough of Newham

  London borough of Redbridge

  London borough of Sutton

  London borough of Wandsworth

  Mid-Glamorgan county council

  Norfolk county council

  Northampton county council

  Northumbria county council—including information from North Tyneside district council, South Tyneside District Council, Sunderland district council, Newcastle-upon-Tyne district council and Gateshead district council

  Nottinghamshire county council

  Poole borough council

  Reigate and Banstead borough council

  Salford metropolitan city council

  Sheffield city council

  Shropshire county council

  Somerset county council

  Suffolk county council—including information from Babergh district council, Forest Heath district council, Suffolk Coastal district council, Mid-Suffolk district council, Ipswich borough council and St. Edmundsbury borough council

  Wakefield metropolitan borough council

  Warwickshire county council

  Wiltshire county council

  Wirral metropolitan borough council and Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council

  Television Licence Fees
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to extend the time limit for a refund of the television licence fee.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Murderers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average period of time served in prison by persons convicted of murder between(a) 1974 and 1977, (b) 1979 and 1982, (c) 1983 and 1986 and (d) 1987 to date.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  Information on the average time served under sentence in prison service establishments by murderers first released on licence in each of the years 1979 to 1989 was published in chapter 8 and table 8.5 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1989" (Cm 1221), a copy of which is in the Library. The corresponding averages for 1976, 1977 and 1978 were 9, 9·7 and 9·1 years respectively. Reliable information for 1974 and 1975 is not available.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to make the possession of anabolic steroids a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.
  427
  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: Ministers of the Departments concerned have decided after careful study not to seek to make the unauthorised possession of steroids a crime. Carefully targeted measures to tackle steroid misuse are being developed, with emphasis on protection of young people. These include a new criminal offence of supplying steroids to minors, even without payment. This is designed to prevent coaches or other adults from giving supplies of steriods to the young people they are training; additional research into the extent of steroid misuse and to improve the testing and detection methods used in sporting circles; enhanced and extended educational efforts aimed at the public and more particularly sport to draw attention to the health problems to which steroid misuse can give rise; more vigorous action under the Medicines Act 1968 against those who advertise these products—for example in bodybuilding magazines.

  Consultations about these measures with interested organisation, at home and in Europe will begin as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chemicals and Sewage Sludge
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that the results of monitoring and instances of breaches of licences by companies or individuals dumping(a) chemicals and (b) sewage sludge at sea are made available for the general public.

  Mr. Curry
  Publication of this information is already our policy. The results of monitoring work carried out by scientists in this Department are published in the aquatic environment monitoring report series.

  I intend that information on revocation of licences and convictions for breach of licence conditions will be added to the public register of licences maintained by this Department. The appropriate powers for this were obtained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Curry
  Between 1987 and 1989, productivity per person increased by nearly 9 per cent. in agriculture and by 2·8 per cent. in the food and drink manufacturing industry. Output of the food and drink manufacturing industry rose by 2·6 per cent. Prices of food to the consumer have risen more slowly than the general price level.

  Exports of food, feed and beverages have grown by more than 7 per cent. since 1987. Food From Britain, the nationally funded food marketing body, has focused its work more sharply on helping the United Kingdom food and drink industry to reduce its sector deficit through improved marketing at home and abroad.

  Reform of the common agricultural policy to tackle the problems of increasing expenditure and surplus production was significantly advanced by the agreement at the European Council in February 1988 on the application of budgetary discipline to the CAP. Key changes decided then were the introduction of a legally binding ceiling on CAP market support expenditure and the introduction or
  428
  extension of stabilisers in CAP commodity regimes. In 1988–89 and in 1989–90, stabilisers were triggered in many sectors, resulting in significant price cuts. The process of CAP reform was continued by the price settlements in 1988, 1989 and 1990, when common prices were generally frozen and intervention made less attractive. In 1989, the beef and sheep regimes were significantly reformed. The case for further reform is being pursued in the current Uruguay round of GATT negotiations, in which the Government are playing an active part, and within the European Community.

  This Department has taken steps to safeguard the position of United Kingdom farmers during the period of adjustment. Significant green pound devaluations, which considerably improve the competitiveness of United Kingdom agriculture and which bring closer the completion of the internal market were agreed at each of the last three price settlements. The suckler cow premium and hill livestock compensatory allowances have been increased.

  The Department has continued the policy of achieving a better balance between agricultural production and the environment by introducing a range of specific schemes and providing advice designed to encourage farmers to protect and enhance the countryside, to conserve fauna and flora and to reduce agricultural pollution and are progressively incorporating environmental considerations into agricultural support policies.

  In the United Kingdom, 19 environmentally sensitive areas have been established where payments are made to farmers to encourage environmentally beneficial agricultural practices.

  In 1989, the Department introduced the farm and conservation grant scheme, which replaced earlier grant schemes aimed at supporting capital investment in the agriculture. The scheme is targeted mainly at bringing about environmental improvements and grants for a wide range of conservation activities. We have also encouraged the planting of trees on agricultural land under the farm woodland scheme.

  In 1990, 10 nitrate-sensitive areas were designated under the Water Act 1989 to control nitrate leaching from agricultural land. Powers were taken in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit the burning of straw and stubble in England and Wales by 1993.

  The set-aside scheme, introduced in 1988, pays farmers to set aside land from arable production, thus helping to restrain production and providing an alternative source of income for farmers. The beef and sheep pilot extensification schemes. introduced in 1990, encourage less intensive use of land and lower production by aiding farmers who reduce their output of beef or sheep by at least 20 per cent. Both schemes include requirements designed to protect the environment.

  This Department has pursued policies intended to lead to improved understanding of the effects of global warming on sea level rises. We are sponsoring a national research programme, contributing to international studies, and have participated in the production of the report by the coastal zone management sub-group of the intergovernmental panel on climate change on the possible effects of climate change on coastal areas. We have also formulated a strategy to ensure that the design of flood defences will allow for adjustment and modification when more accurate information about sea level rises becomes available.
  429
  Government funding for flood and coastal defence work has been increased each year since 1987. Grant for National Rivers Authority schemes for flood and sea defence will have risen from £17·1 million in 1988–89 to £40·4 million, representing a total capital investment of £92 million, by 1993–94. For local authority schemes for flood and sea defence and coast protection, the grant provision will have increased over the same period from £15·2 million to £21·2 million, representing a capital spend of about £38 million. For internal drainage boards—mainly agricultural schemes—grant will have risen from £1·6 million to £1·8 million. A large part of the increased NRA provision is for sea defence work, notably the east coast. That for local authorities is primarily for the restoration of defences damaged in last winter's storms.

  The Department has ensured continuation of effective flood defence arrangements following privatisation of the water industry and the creation of the National Rivers Authority and provided for the financing of flood defence following the changes in local government finance. Updated guidance to drainage authorities on their environmental responsibilities was issued and regulations were made to implement the EC environmental assessment directive regarding flood defence improvement works.

  The Government have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the highest possible standards of food safety and consumer protection. A wide-ranging review of food safety legislation led to the Food Safety Act 1990, which provides a tough new framework for food safety throughout the food chain and gives Ministers flexible powers to cope with developments in future. In addition, the food safety directive was created in late 1989 to strengthen arrangements for dealing with food safety issues. At the same time, a new consumer panel was established to keep under review, from a consumers' viewpoint, the implementation of food safety and consumer protection policies.

  We operate a comprehensive food monitoring and surveillance system. The chemical safety of food is under the auspices of the steering group on food surveillance. We have also established a new, independent advisory committee and a steering group on the microbiological safety of food.

  The United Kingdom has played a full part in negotiating the directives which form part of the Community's single market programme for harmonising food law. These will remove barriers to trade and benefit consumers and industry.

  From 1 January 1989, the United Kingdom has been one of only two Community member states to achieve the higher level of milk hygiene standards laid down in Community regulations.

  Further measures have been taken to protect farm animal welfare, including legislation on battery hens, transport of animals and poultry, slaughter, a ban on veal crates and regulations which will require all stock-keepers to have received instruction and guidance in the welfare codes. The Government have continued to value the

  Exports of Cheese to Japan

  1989

  January-October 1990

  Exporting Country

  Quantity (tonne)

  Value2 (£/tonne)

  Quantity (tonne)

  Value2 (£/tonne)

  France

  2,214

  3,645

  2,136

  3,730

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  102

  1,459

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  15,001

  1,313

  8,064

  1,353

  430
  independent and authoritative advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. A comprehensive series of measures has been introduced to combat the problem of salmonella in eggs and poultry.

  We have moved quickly and decisively in the face of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, introducing measures to safeguard the public against any risk to human health, however remote, to bring the disease under control, and to promote necessary research. Without prejudicing the United Kingdom's high animal health status, a series of measures has been adopted to harmonise animal health measures in the single market to reduce unjustified barriers to trade.

  The Department's farm advisory service, ADAS, has since 1987 begun a transition towards becoming a commercial organisation and is due to be constituted as an executive agency in 1992.

  The Government have continued to work within the framework of the EC common fisheries policy to secure the best possible fishing opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen consistent with conservation, including obtaining recognition of our preferential claims under the 1976 Hague resolution and provision to take some of our western mackerel quotas east of 4 deg. west.

  We have announced timetables for phasing out the disposal at sea of industrial wastes and sewage sludge.

  Seabirds (Fishing Nets)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to prevent the trapping of seabirds in fishing nets.

  Mr. Curry
  A number of regulations and byelaws are concerned with the use of fishing nets, but I have no plans to introduce legislation against the accidental trapping of seabirds. There is little evidence to suggest that fishing nets are threatening the survival of any species.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage return on capital invested in agriculture in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and what the figures five, 10 and 20 years ago were.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available.

  Cheese
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much cheese from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each other European Community country has been sold to Japan in 1989, 1990 and 1991, and at what price per tonne in £ sterling: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The most recent information on exports of cheese to Japan is set out below.
  431

  1989

  January-October 1990

  Exporting Country

  Quantity (tonne)

  Value2 (£/tonne)

  Quantity (tonne)

  Value2 (£/tonne)

  Germany1

  10,786

  1,189

  4,423

  1,362

  Italy

  360

  2,815

  360

  3,411

  United Kingdom

  3,833

  1,698

  2,145

  1,367

  Denmark

  16,740

  1,475

  10,682

  1,771

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  1,431

  Ireland

  —

  —

  414

  977

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Excludes former GDR.

  2 Average unit value: fob, net of export refunds and MCAs.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prohibit the sale of cheese made with the addition of the genetically engineered enzyme chymosin without it being identified as such on the label.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee considered very carefully whether labelling was necessary in this case and advised that it was not since the enzyme itself is identical to that obtained from traditional calf rennet and neither the source organism nor its genetic material would be present in the food. The FAC's guidelines on the labelling of food produced using genetic modification were published on 17 January for comment and I have placed a copy of these in the Library of the House.

  Butter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much butter from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each other European Community country has been sold to the Soviet Union this year and at what price per tonne in £ sterling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No data are yet available on exports this year of butter from the European Community to the Soviet Union. A contract has been signed for the export of 200,000 tonnes of butter at reduced price under a derogation from minimum prices agreed by the GATT international dairy arrangement. No deliveries are known to have occurred under this contract to date.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his policy on the funding of grant-maintained schools remains as stated in the letter of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 10 November 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A grant-maintained school's grant for recurrent expenditure reflects what it would have received for direct costs from its former maintaining authority. It includes an additional amount in respect of LEA central costs and of LEA subsidies for school meals.

  In announcing the capital allocations for the grant-maintained sector for 1991–92, we made it clear that our intention was to ensure that schools becoming
  432
  grant-maintained were set up on a sound basis and were not penalised by past neglect by the LEA. This has led, on average, to relatively higher capital allocations for the grant-maintained sector in 1991–92 than for LEA-maintained schools.

  The Government make specific grant payments for staff development and the implementation of the national curriculum to grant-maintained schools and LEAs. Additional amounts of about £13 per pupil are being made available this year to grant-maintained schools to help them lay a foundation of expertise upon which to build.

  Transitional grants and other special purpose grants reflecting the particular circumstances of grant-maintained schools continue to be paid: for example, SPG(V) is paid to grant-maintained schools as they are liable for VAT whereas LEAs are not.

  Mr. David Marshall
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the case of Mr. David Marshall, concerning his dispute with Liverpool education authority, and whether he will ask the authority to review its decision.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on this matter. It is being considered.

  Pre-school Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the level of support from Surrey education authority to pre-school education.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Local authority expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment do not identify separate figures for pre-school education. A single set of figures is returned covering all nursery and primary provision.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the level of support from Surrey county council to pre-school playgroups.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Local authority expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment do not identify separate figures for education in pre-school playgroups. A single set of figures is returned covering all nursery and primary provision.

  Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list by institutions the allocation of recurrent grant and funded student numbers through the Universities Funding Council for the academic year 1991–92;

  (2) if he will place in the Library (i) a copy of the general letter to Vice-Chancellors and Principals relating to the Universities Funding Council allocation of recurrent grant and funded student numbers for the academic year 1991–92 and (ii) the annexes to the above in relation to each institution.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The various allocations are set out in the Universities Funding Council's circular letter 6/91 of 25 February 1991 and annexes, copies of which, as requested, have been placed in the Library.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are currently receiving a grammar school education in(a) Kent and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Fallon
  The number of pupils attending maintained grammar schools in Kent in January 1990 was 19,611. The total for England was 98,289.

  Data for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  School Premises
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library the responses to the review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is not our normal practice to publish responses to such consultation. The responses will of course be considered carefully and taken into account in the review of the regulations.

SCOTLAND

  Co-operatives
  Mr. MacMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage the development of retail, wholesale and manufacturing co-operatives in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish Development Agency is involved in a range of co-operative initiatives, particularly in support of agricultural producers and employee-owned co-operatives. It has also provided significant financial assistance to the Scottish co-operative development committee, which provides advice, training and management support.' The urban programme also supports projects aimed at developing co-operative ventures in the most deprived urban areas. Assisting the establishment or growth of community enterprises or co-operative enterprises will be one of the functions of Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies. The urban programme will also continue to support appropriate projects.

  Brain Injuries
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take in the provision of rehabilitation facilities for head-injured patients in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's intention to establish a new national service for the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients in Scotland was announced on 11 May last year. Consideration of bids to host the service is well advanced and an announcement may be expected in the near future.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any plans to increase the amount of moneys available in project grants to health boards for the rehabilitation of severely brain-injured patients;

  (2) when he expects to announce the amount of project grants to health boards for the rehabilitation of the severely brain-injured patient;

  (3) if he will give those health boards and other organisations which have submitted to his Department applications for project grants for the rehabilitation of the severely brain-injured patient, the number for each health board, the amount applied for and the date of the application.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's intention to establish a new national service for the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients was announced on 11 May last year. Proposals to host all or part of this service were submitted by Dumfries and Galloway, Grampian, Greater Glasgow, Lothian and Tayside health boards and Scotcare Ltd. As these proposals are still under consideration, it would riot be appropriate to publish details of individual bids. An announcement of the location of the service and its funding may be expected in the near future.

  Health Care Costs
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the cost per patient of general medical services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table below.

  Cost per patient of GMS services in Scotland 1989–90

  Health board

  Cost/Patient (£),

  Ayrshire and Arran

  33

  Borders

  38

  Argyll and Clyde

  35

  Fife

  32

  Greater Glasgow

  30

  Highland

  48

  Lanark

  29

  Grampian

  36

  Orkney

  59

  Lothian

  34

  Tayside

  34

  Forth Valley

  32

  Western Isles

  54

  Dumfries and Galloway

  39

  Shetland

  47

  Scotland

  34

  Ancillary Health Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts for ancillary services awarded by health boards in the last four years have been terminated either because the company went into liquidation or withdrew from the contract.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am aware of only one contract for domestic services being terminated. The firm had gone into receivership.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of unemployment in Scotland at the latest available date.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in Scotland in January 1991 was 201,300.

  Smoked Food
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to change the law regarding the transport of smoked food by mail order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Proposals to amend the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959 to introduce a system of new controls on the temperature of foods during production, storage, distribution and service to the consumer were the subject of a consultation in 1989. The proposed temperature controls are intended to minimise the opportunity for growth of pathogenic microorganisms such as listeria and salmonella.

  Smoked or cured fish is included in the list of specified food products which would have to be kept chilled unless they have undergone a process which prevents the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms at ambient temperature. While the Scottish regulations are still in draft, the Government have received representations about the way in which they would apply to certain foods, including foods sent by mail. After considering these, we believe that in certain areas it would be reasonable to make changes to the draft regulations which would not present a public health risk.

  Officials will therefore consult interested parties on a number of proposed changes. Including among these is a proposal to exempt foods delivered by mail order through the post or by courier to allow the industry more time to develop practical means of achieving necessary controls. Research studies have been commissioned by the Government to identify ways in which to maintain product stability in this area. When the results of this research are available, further discussions with the industry on practical solutions will be held. This exemption will be kept under review and we will examine urgently ways to provide consumers with information on these products.

  East Fortune Hospital
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many patients have been transferred out of East Fortune hospital because of recent ward closures; if he will list the hospitals or other places to which they have been transferred; and what information he has as to whether any of those patients have subsequently died;
  436
  (2) if he will make a statement on the employment of NHS staff affected by the closure of wards at East Fortune hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 February 1991]: A total of 17 long-stay and 11 geriatric assessment patients have been transferred from East Fortune hospital to the following hospitals:

  Long-stay

  Assessment

  Edenhall hospital

  13

  —

  Belhaven hospital

  3

  —

  St. Andrew's voluntary residential home, Dunbar

  1

  —

  Roodlands hospital

  —

  11

  Two patients have since died in Edenhall hospital. One was aged 89 years and the other aged 80 years. Both patients were suffering from several chronic illnesses. I am assured by Lothian health board that it is not unusual for two elderly and ill patients to die in one ward within a period of two to three weeks, especially at this time of year.

  Out of a total of 98 staff who could not remain at the hospital, 95 have been found suitable alternative posts. The remaining three staff have opted for redundancy as no suitable alternative posts which were acceptable to those staff could be found.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the value of mortgage interest tax relief if it had been index-linked for inflation since its inception and since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  If the mortgage interest relief limit had been indexed in line with the retail prices index since its inception, at £25,000, in 1974, it would be £119,000 in 1990–91. With indexation since 1979, the ceiling would be £57,000. The latest estimates of the total cost of mortgage interest relief in 1990–91, with the limit at these levels, are £9·9 billion and £9·3 billion respectively compared with £7·8 billion for the current limit of £30,000. The estimates exclude behavioural effects, which would be substantial.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 1987, we have continued to build upon the changes, begun in 1979, to strengthen the economy, foster a spirit of enterprise and improve living standards.

  Sterling has been brought into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, reinforcing the Government's strict anti-inflationary policy. Output is 7 per cent. higher. Beginning in 1987, business investment grew faster for three years than during any comparable period since the second world war. Taxes have been reformed and the basic rate of income tax cut to 25 per cent. Privatisation of 29 more major businesses has taken place and 24 per cent. of the adult population now own shares. The Government have exercised strict control of

  437
  public expenditure. General Government expenditure has been brought below 40 per cent. of GDP for the first time since 1966–67. Over the three years to March 1990, £26 billion of public sector debt was repaid. Over 2 million more people are in work than in 1987. We have put forward proposals for the next steps towards European Community and monetary union, involving the introduction of a common Community currency, the hard ecu, to be managed by a new monetary institution—the European Monetary Fund.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest forecast collection of receipts from(a) the higher rate of capital gains tax and (b) the lower rate of capital gains tax; and what were the comparable figures for total receipts from capital gains tax in 1990–91 and in 1978–79.

  Mr. Maude
  Receipts from capital gains tax in the years requested are:

  £ million

  1978–79

  353

  1 1990–91

  2,100

  1 1990 Autumn Statement forecast.

  It is estimated that, of receipts in 1990–91, about £1,600 million will have been charged at 40 per cent. on gains of higher rate taxpayers for 1988–89 and 1989–90 and £200 million will have been charged at 25 per cent. on gains of basic rate taxpayers and non-discretionary trusts for 1988–89 and 1989–90. The remaining £300 million will correspond to gains for 1987–88 and earlier years which were taxed at 30 per cent. and to gains of discretionary trusts in 1988–89 and 1989–90 which were taxed at 35 per cent.

  It is also estimated that, of receipts in 1978–79, about £300 million will have been charged at 30 per cent. with the remainder charged at the special rates then applying for gains under £9,500.

  These figures exclude gains realised by companies which are chargeable to corporation tax.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the introduction of a national lottery to help finance the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The Government fully acknowledge the importance and priority of health. Real resources for health service are planned to increase by 5 per cent. in 1991–92. There are no plans to introduce a national lottery.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the (i) annual and (ii) quarterly rise in real personal disposable incomes since January 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  The rises, expressed as percentages of the level in the previous year or quarter, are given in the table:

  Annual

  per cent.

  1979

  5·8

  1980

  1·5

  1981

  -0·7

  438

  Annual

  per cent.

  1982

  -0·2

  1983

  2·8

  1984

  2·4

  1985

  2·6

  1986

  4·5

  1987

  3·3

  1988

  5·7

  1989

  5·4

  Quarterly

  Per cent.

  1979

  Q1

  0·9

  Q2

  0·9

  Q3

  0·7

  Q4

  5·2

  1980

  Q1

  -3·6

  Q2

  0·1

  Q3

  1·7

  Q4

  -0·4

  1981

  Q1

  0·4

  Q2

  -1·9

  Q3

  -0·6

  Q4

  0·7

  1982

  Q1

  -0·7

  Q2

  1·7

  Q3

  -1·0

  Q4

  0·4

  1983

  Q1

  1·0

  Q2

  2·1

  Q3

  -0·4

  Q4

  0·7

  1984

  Q1

  0·5

  Q2

  0·5

  Q3

  0·5

  Q4

  1·7

  1985

  Q1

  -1·4

  Q2

  2·8

  Q3

  0·1

  Q4

  1·0

  1986

  Q1

  0·5

  Q2

  2·7

  Q3

  0·5

  Q4

  0·2

  1987

  Q1

  -0·6

  Q2

  2·4

  Q3

  1·2

  Q4

  1·2

  1988

  Q1

  1·3

  Q2

  1·7

  Q3

  0·7

  Q4

  2·3

  1989

  Q1

  1·0

  Q2

  2·2

  Q3

  -0·1

  Q4

  0·7

  1990

  Q1

  1·6

  Q2

  0·7

  Q3

  1·0

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the exchequer what corporation tax had been payable by(a) BT plc, (b) Cable and Wireless plc and (c) British Steel plc since they were privatised.

  Mr. Maude
  Details of the tax affairs of identified taxpayers are confidential and may not be revealed without the express permission of those concerned.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost in 1991–92 and in a full year of reducing the small companies rate of corporation tax to 20 per cent.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Table 4.5 of the 1990 autumn statement shows the direct effect of a 1 percentage point change in the small companies rate is £35 million in 1991–92. The corresponding full-year effect is £55 million.

  Subject to the qualifications in that table, the costs associated with a 5 percentage point reduction, to 20 per cent., may be expected to be broadly pro rata to the effects of a 1 percentage point change.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost in 1991–92 and in a full year of raising the lower limit for the reduced rate for corporation tax from £200,000 to(a) £250,000 and (b) £300,000; and how many firms would be affected in each case.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The costs would be as follows:

  Lower limit of marginal relief

  1991–92

  Full year

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  250,000

  20

  30

  300,000

  35

  50

  The figures assume company incomes at 1990–91 levels, that the upper limit for marginal relief remained at £1 million and that the change took effect from 1 April 1990. In each case about 30,000 companies would be affected.

  Savings (Advertising)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much expenditure has been incurred by the Inland Revenue on a television and newspaper advertising campaign to inform savers who are non-taxpayers that they will no longer need to pay tax on their savings after 6 April; what considerations underlay the decision to authorise such expenditure in addition to direct mailing; and what assessment was made of the costs and benefits of this additional expenditure.

  Mr. Maude
  The figure is £6,384,000. Advertising was the only effective way to explain the change to the up to 15 million non-taxpayers affected by it. The advertising campaign and the delivery of a leaflet to all households are complementary features of the publicity for the new system. They are designed to encourage as many as possible of those affected to register for payment of interest without deduction of tax and so reduce the number who make repayment claims. The costs of the publicity will be morc than offset by the consequential saving on administrative costs in making fewer repayments.
  440
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much expenditure has been incurred to produce and send leaflets to every household in Great Britain explaining that savers who are non-taxpayers will no longer need to pay tax on their savings after 6 April.

  Mr. Maude
  A total of £1,365,000.

  Inflation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average percentage increase in inflation during the period(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  Between December 1973 and December 1979 the average annual rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 16 per cent. per annum. This compares with 7·2 per cent. for the period December 1979 to December 1990.

  Kuwaiti Bank Holdings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) of 4 February 1991,Official Report, column 7, what information he has on the total value of investments and bank holdings in Britain by all Kuwaiti sources as of August 1990, and the comparable figures for 1988, 1986 and 1984.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for Kuwaiti bank holdings in Britain as of August 1990 are not available. However, United Kingdom banks and other financial institutions' external liabilities to Kuwait on 29 June 1990 were $10,871 million. Comparable figures for 1988, 1986 and 1984 are not available.

  The information requested on investments is not available.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Ridley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage public expenditure changed between 1983–84 and 1989–90 in real terms; and what percentage of gross domestic product public expenditure was in each of those years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Figures on general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, in real terms and general government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, as a proportion of gross domestic product were set out in table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement. The figures show that general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, rose by 4 per cent. in real terms between 1983–84 and 1989–90. As a proportion of gross domestic product it fell from 46½ per cent. to 39½ per cent. over the same period.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the cost to date to the United Kingdom of the Gulf war, (b) the amounts of assistance to the United Kingdom's Gulf costs either provided or promised, stating the sums of money from each relevant country or organisation, and (c) the increased revenue to the Treasury resulting from increases in oil prices since 2 August 1990.
  441
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 February 1991]: (a) The additional costs to the defence budget of the Gulf conflict so far assessed are some £1½ billion, including equipment lost and munitions used. Eventual defence costs, which would be spread over some years, are uncertain, but, allowing for continuation of the campaign, could be around £3 billion. There are also small costs on other public expenditure programmes and about £160 million of claims have been paid by ECGD to exporters against defaults by Iraq.

  (b) Assistance promised to date amounts to about £1·4 billion. This includes in cash £660 million from Kuwait, about £275 million from Germany, about £250 million from the United Arab Emirates, about £15 million from Hong Kong and about £8 million from Denmark. Within this total we estimate that the assistance received to date is worth about £350 million. This includes half the German cash contribution, £25 million cash contribution towards transport costs from Japan and assistance in kind, such as the provision of food, fuel, water and accommodation by Saudi Arabia under the agreement for host nation support. Assistance in kind has also been received from Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Kuwait, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and UAE.

  (c) Government revenues have so far been little affected by the increase in the oil prices for a period after last August. The increase in revenue attributable to the higher oil prices in the second half of 1990 is likely to be around £1 billion. More than half this will be received in March this year, and the remainder in 1991–92.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the various cash contributions towards the costs of the Gulf war promised by other countries to date, the dates when he expects each contribution to be paid; if the proceeds will be paid into the Consolidated Fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: The following financial contributions have been
  promised to date:

  Japan—$50 million (£25 million; received 18 January)

  Germany—DM800 million (about £275 million; £137 million received 20 February)

  Kuwait—£660 million

  United Arab Emirates—$500 million (about £250 million)

  Hong Kong—HKS230 million (about £15 million)

  Denmark—KR90 million (about £8 million)

  The second tranche of the German contribution is expected to be paid in March. The dates of the other payments are not yet known. The Japanese contribution has been appropriated in aid of class 1—Defence—votes. The first part of the German contribution—DM400 million—has just been paid into our foreign currency reserves and the sterling equivalent will be credited to the Consolidated Fund.

  Insolvent Companies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England as regards the setting up of a lifeboat fund for technically insolvent companies.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: None. However, the so-called "London approach", in which the Bank of England plays a facilitating role, where appropriate, can help to ensure that difficulties between
  442
  companies and their creditors are resolved in an orderly fashion and on the basis of the fullest possible information. The Government very much support this approach.

  Vehicle Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue from motor taxation in 1989–90; and what is his estimated revenue for 1990–91 divided into its constituent parts.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Following is the available information:

  1989 £ billion

  1990–91 £ billion (forecast)

  Vehicles excise duty

  2·9

  3·0

  Hydrocarbon oil excise duty

  8·7

  9·6

  Car tax

  1·5

  1·4

  Value-added tax

  5·2

  1—

  Total

  18·3

  1—not available

  Tax Burden (Distribution)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the regional distribution of(a) the personal tax burden and (b) the overall tax burden.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The amount of income tax payable by region for 1987–88, the latest year for which information is available, is shown in table 11·7 of Regional Trends 25 (1990 edition). Regional information for taxes overall is not available.

  TESSAs
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the likely size of deposit in a TESSA in the first year.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: It is too early to make a firm estimate.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each region of the United Kingdom(a) the number of higher rate tax payers, (b) the number of basic rate tax payers and (c) the number who pay no national insurance or income tax.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The latest available information for (a) and (b) relates to 1987–88 and has been published in table 11·7 of Regional Trends 25 (1990 edition). I regret that information relating to (c) is not available.

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he intends to give to Government Departments about the use of irradiated food in central Government establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The sale of irradiated foods is subject to the Food Labelling (Amendment) (Irradiated Foods) Regulations 1990.
  443
  It is a matter for individual Government Departments and establishments to determine policy for the use of irradiated foods with the provider of their catering services. Current civil service catering organisation policy is not to accept or knowingly use irradiated foods.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make it his policy to seek amendment to the EC draft software directive to allow organisations to back up their computer systems for use in disaster recovery of vital database systems;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the EC draft software directive does not place the owners of proprietary products in a monopoly situation;

  (3) whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the EC draft software directive is not used by large suppliers of IT products as a means of stifling competition.

  Mr. Leigh
  The directive, like existing United Kingdom copyright law, provides that persons who newly create computer programs are given exclusive property rights in those programs in the same way as authors of other copyright works. This encourages the production of new programs and fair competition between program creators, thus producing greater choice for the consumer. The directive will ensure that rights cannot be used to prevent either the independent development of interoperable programs or the making of back-up copies of programs.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received from British computer users concerning the restrictions placed on them by contracts prepared to conform to the EC draft software directive and what response he has made;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek amendment to the EC draft software directive to draw a distinction between the copying of programs with the primary purpose of transfer into a system for immediate resale and commercial gain and the copying of programs with the primary purposes of system maintenance and research;

  (3) what representations he has received from British computer users concerning the effects of the EC draft software directive on their software maintenance rights; and what response he has made;

  (4) what representations he has received from the British banking community concerning the impact of the copyright restrictions proposed by the EC draft software directive on the efficiency and standardisation of a bank's operating environment; and what response he has made;

  (5) what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the EC draft software directive on the freedom of choice of maintenance services for software licensees;

  (6) what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the EC draft software directive on the small and medium enterprises commonly known as third-party maintenance organisations;

  (7) what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the Council of Ministers common position on the EC draft software directive on the applicability of the fair dealing exception in respect of computer software.
  444
  Mr. Leigh
  I do not expect the directive to change existing practices in software maintenance significantly. Under existing United Kingdom copyright law, copyright owners are free to make whatever contractual arrangements they wish with users of their works, subject only to the general law of contract. This will continue to be the case under the directive except that owners of copyright in computer programs will not be able to prevent decompilation of those programs by persons wishing to create interoperable programs, under certain conditions. The creation of independent computer programs intended to maintain interoperability within computer systems will therefore be possible, free of contractual restraint.

  The fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will continue to apply to computer programs on points not covered by the directive. Representations on these matters have been received from the computer users of Europe group, which represents many United Kingdom bodies, including at least one in the banking sector.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the EC draft software directive on the use of open systems;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards current de facto standards used by the information technology business whilst open international standards are emerging; and what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the EC draft software directive on the continued use of these de facto standards;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to allow information properly learnt, pursuant to the EC draft software directive, to be used to develop both new non-infringing hardware and new non-infringing software;

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the EC draft software directive on the trade in those software products containing interfaces to other pieces of software which are so widely used as to be considered as de facto standards;

  (5) what representations he has received from British computer users concerning the effects of the EC draft software directive on the ability of compatible vendors to create and market competing computer programs; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Leigh
  Open systems, de facto standards, trade in software products incorporating those standards and competing computer programs have all developed in the United Kingdom in parallel with strong protection of computer programs under United Kingdom copyright law. I expect this situation to be unchanged under the proposed directive, which protects only the particular expressions of a computer program, not the ideas and principles which underlie it, and contains exceptions to the rights of copyright owners in order that interoperable programs may be developed.

  Stock Exchange
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the closure of the Newcastle branch of the London stock exchange.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.
  445
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department was consulted by the London stock exchange about the reduction in its regional representation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. This is a matter for the international stock exchange.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has met representatives of those sect ors of industry which face severe difficulties as a consequence of increases in the price of electricity where this increase provides comparative disadvantages in regard to the maintenance of international trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent meetings with industrialists on the subject of electricity prices, but is well aware of their concerns.

  Import Restrictions
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all items and products subject to either tariffs of more than 5 per cent., bilateral or EC-wide import quotas, voluntary restraint agreements of any type or anti-dumping duties.

  Mr. Redwood
  On the subjects of import quotas, voluntary restraint arrangements and anti-dumping duties, I refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade's replies of 17 January 1991 at columns 593–94, 4 February 1991 at column 26 and 5 February 1991 at column 78. On the question of anti-dumping duties, there are certain changes to the list that was placed in the Library of the House. Linear Tungsten Halogen Lamps from Japan is now subject to definitive anti-dumping duties of 35·6 per cent. and 46·5 per cent. which will expire on 20 January 1996. The definitive anti-dumping duties in force against two of the products on the list—clogs from Sweden and hydraulic excavators from Japan—have now expired. Provisional anti-dumping duties of between 2·1 per cent. and 17·4 per cent. have been imposed on small-screen colour television receivers from Hong Kong and China; these are due to expire on 24 May 1991.

  With regard to the Community's common customs tariff, a very wide range of products is subject to rates of more than 5 per cent. Full details are contained in the Official Journal of the European Communities which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Company liquidations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to the setting up of a second company by the owners of a company while the original company is in receivership.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no additional statutory provisions that relate to the formation and promotion of a company by the directors, shareholders or beneficial owners of another company that is in administrative receivership. If, however, action is taken to disqualify a director of a failed company from holding office in the future, the person concerned would have to obtain the 446
  leave of the court before setting up or taking part in the management of another company. Leave is granted only in exceptional circumstances.

ENERGY

  Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the proportion of energy used(a) in housing, (b) commercial, (c) industrial and (d) public buildings in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimated proportions of United Kingdom expenditure on energy in 1989 accounted for by different categories of building are as follows:

  Housing 27 per cent.; Public 4 per cent.; Commercial 9 per cent.; Industrial 3 per cent.

  Data for 1990 is not yet available.

  Source: Table 9 of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1990 and Building Research Establishment publications.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much money British Coal holds for provision of coal mining subsidence damage.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The corporation's annual report and accounts for 1989–90 show a cumulative provision of £243 million to cover its latent liability to meet the cost of surface damage expected to arise. The financial arrangements which the corporation makes for settling claims in any particular year are a matter for the corporation.

  OFFER
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many of the total staff of the Office of Electricity Regulation are on secondment from Government Departments and, in particular, from his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total number of OFFER staff on loan from other Government Departments is 22. Of these, four are from the Department of Energy.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total staff of OFFER.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total number of full-time equivalent staff in post at OFFER stands at 200·5.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many appointments to OFFER are subject to his decision;

  (2) how many of the appointments to OFFER which he makes are presently filled by people seconded from his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Director General of Electricity Supply alone is appointed by me. He is not seconded from my Department.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many appointments to OFFER are subject to consultation with him or his Department;

  (2) how many of the appointments to OFFER on which he is consulted are filled by people on secondment.
  447
  Mr. Wakeham
  I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are consulted by the director general prior to the appointment of the 12 chairmen of the consumers' committees. None of these appointments is filled by a person on secondment. My Department is naturally consulted where any appointment is to be filled by a person on secondment from the Department.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he or any of his Ministers or officials have been in contact with Professor Littlechild since he wrote to the chairman of the Electricity Consultation Committee on 18 February;

  (2) what contact he or any of his Ministers or officials had on 12 February with the Deputy Director General of Electricity Supply about electricity disconnections.

  Maintenance and repairs

  New build

  Supervision and management

  Improvement and repair grants

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  25·3

  62·3

  13·3

  15·9

  1979–80

  31·1

  54·4

  15·9

  24·8

  1980–81

  35·5

  68·3

  21·5

  28·8

  1981–82

  33·8

  67·5

  24·8

  28·8

  1982–83

  48·2

  93·3

  27·9

  34·3

  1983–84

  45·1

  99·4

  31·9

  45·5

  1984–85

  50·5

  89·0

  33·8

  58·4

  1985–86

  54·4

  81·5

  36·7

  60·2

  1986–87

  58·3

  63·9

  37·7

  56·5

  1987–88

  62·6

  55·7

  37·3

  45·2

  1988–89

  64·7

  55·9

  43·3

  36·4

  1989–90

  70·1

  51·3

  46·3

  33·7

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the average increases in Housing Executive rents in Northern Ireland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The average increases were:

  £

  1979

  0·83

  1980

  1·60

  1981

  2·72

  1982

  1·88

  1983

  0·72

  1984

  0·64

  1985

  0·55

  1986

  0·71

  1987

  0·55

  1988

  1·60

  1989

  1·75

  1990

  1·94

  1991

  1·73

  Waste Recycling
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is considering introducing financial measures to encourage the introduction of new processes and plants to recycle waste products.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry provides grant support to industry in Great Britain under the environmental technology innovation scheme for research into a range of environmental issues including recycling of industrial and
  448
  Mr. Wakeham
  I, my ministerial colleagues and officials are in regular contact with the Director General of Electricity Supply and OFFER on regulatory matters concerning electricity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amount spent by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on(a) maintenance and repairs, (b) building new houses, (c) administration and (d) improvement and repair grants, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the information requested is as follows:

  household waste. Grant is not available for new plant using existing technology. Consideration is being given to ways of providing similar support in Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Wards and Beds
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make funds available to enable wards and beds, closed permanently or temporarily, to be reopened.

  Mr. Hanley
  Resources of £830 million will be available to health and social services boards in Northern Ireland in 1991–92, an increase of almost £84 million on the current year. It is a matter for boards to determine the distribution of their resources across the various programmes of care.

  Bed closures in the last five years have been in line with the targets set in the Department's regional strategy and have been achieved through improvements in performance resulting in a more efficient use of beds and other resources. Over the same period the total number of patients treated increased by more than 12 per cent. to 315,962 and the total number of operations by 15 per cent. to 274,172.

  Fraud
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fraud cases were taken by the DHSS in Northern Ireland over the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 5,693.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how far copies of electoral registers are available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive district offices; and if he will take steps to improve the accuracy of the executive's records of occupancy, through use of the electoral register.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that staff in district offices consult the electoral register as and when required. The electoral register cannot, however, be used as the sole means of checking occupancy as it is compiled once a year and is not therefore always up to date.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland are on current waiting lists for cardiac surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  At 30 September 1990 there were 833.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been removed from lists of those awaiting cardiac surgery as a result of death during the waiting period in the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 67.

  Larne-Belfast Road (Accidents)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) road accidents, (b) fatalities and (c) serious injuries have occurred in each of the last 10 years on the Larne-Belfast road between Corr's corner and Lame harbour.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Number of Accidents

  Persons Killed

  Persons Seriously Injured

  1980

  19

  —

  6

  1981

  27

  —

  14

  1982

  20

  2

  11

  1983

  18

  —

  7

  1984

  22

  —

  7

  1985

  22

  3

  5

  1986

  33

  1

  17

  1987

  33

  4

  11

  1988

  40

  5

  23

  1989

  52

  1

  20

  1990

  42

  4

  14

  Larne Borough Council
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the reasons underlying the receipt by Lame borough council of relatively low amounts of general grant paid to district councils in each of the last 10 years; and what consideration he has given to revising the formula for general grant to achieve more equitable distribution.

  Mr. Needham
  General Exchequer grant (GEG) payable by the Department of the Environment (NI) to 450
  district councils is calculated in accordance with a statutory formula set out in article 3 of, and schedule 1 to, the Local Government etc (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The calculation is dependent on the population, rateable valuations and the penny rate product of a district in a particular year.

  The GEG is divided into two parts:

  i. the derating element which recompenses councils for loss of income due to the statutory derating of certain hereditaments; and

  ii. the resources element which provides additional finance to those councils whose valuation resources per head of population is below a standard determined by the Department.

  The amount of GEG paid to Lame borough council was calculated strictly in accordance with the statutory formula. There is no evidence to suggest that the formula results in an inequitable distribution of GEG and there are no plans at present to revise it.

  Policy Co-ordination Committee
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the policy coordination committee met between June 1987 and June 1990; and what subjects were discussed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The policy co-ordinating committee is an interdepartmental committee of officials which meets regularly to consider issues of common concern to Departments. By convention discussions between officials are internal to Government.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive dwellings sold to sitting tenants were returned to Housing Executive control because occupiers were unable to keep up mortgage payments; and how many such dwellings were returned to housing stock for letting.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I have been advised by its chief executive that no houses previously sold to sitting tenants who have been unable to keep up mortgage payments have been returned to Housing Executive control.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times all the Northern Ireland Office Ministers met together between June 1987 and June 1990.

  Mr. Brooke
  I meet the members of my ministerial team, both individually and together, frequently. It would not be practical to count the number of these occasions since 1987.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of Alzheimer's disease have been identified within Northern Ireland; how many sufferers are(a) hospitalised, (b) in residential/nursing homes and (c) being cared for by relatives; and whether he proposes to increase financial support for sufferers cared for by relatives in their own homes.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is estimated that about one in 10 of all people over age 65 in Northern Ireland suffers from
  451
  dementia. Of these, about 80 per cent. are affected by Alzheimer's disease with or without another condition. Thus approximately 15,500 people are likely to be affected by the disease. Information about the location of patients in hospital, residential or nursing homes or in the community is not available.

  Attendance allowance and mobility allowance help people including Alzheimer's sufferers with the extra costs of being disabled provided they satisfy the relevant conditions. The introduction of disability living allowance in 1992 will extend help to people less severely disabled who at present do not qualify for attendance allowance or mobility allowance. In addition the carer premium payable to carers on income support or housing benefit will be increased from £10 to £10·80 a week from 8 April 1991, the date from which there will be a general benefits uprating.

  The Government's policy on community care set out in "People First" aims to promote the development of a range of flexible and sensitive services in a variety of settings to meet the needs of vulnerable people. It recognises the valuable contribution that family, relatives and friends make to community care and aims to ensure that practical support for carers is accorded a high priority.

  Local Government Superannuation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have applied for added years under paragraph (i), (ii) and (iii) of article 16 of the Local Government (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1985; and how many such applications have been refused.

  Mr. Needham
  Determination of superannuation rights is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland local government officers superannuation committee, a statutory body charged with the administration of the superannuation fund. No records are held by the Department and it is not therefore possible to provide the information requested.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those organisations and the specific number of individuals who have expressed support to the Department of Education for the introduction of student loans in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Top-Up loans for Students" (Cm520) in November 1988, some 480 representations expressing a variety of views have been received from various sources. Of these 452 were postcards sent in pursuance of a campaign mounted by student unions

  Social Security
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which social security offices in Northern Ireland are taking telephone inquiries or representations in restricted hours; what restrictions are involved; on what date they came into operation, and what is their projected duration.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are three social security offices in Northern Ireland where the telephone service to the 452
  income support section is restricted. These are Corporation street (Belfast), Londonderry and Newtownabbey. Telephone inquiries are not accepted between the hours of 12.30 pm and 5 pm

  The restriction came into effect in September 1990 and is expected to be lifted soon.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the problems which have led to time restrictions being placed on social security offices' acceptance of telephone calls and on the problems caused for claimants and welfare advice centres by these restrictions.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recent introduction of a computer system for income support necessitated a massive training and conversion programme. Despite the extra measures provided to compensate for the inevitable disruption, a few social security offices found it difficult to maintain their full services and telephone inquiries were subsequently restricted.

  Although this may have caused some inconvenience, a full caller and correspondence service continued to operate for both claimants and welfare advice agencies.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the action which is being considered to help reduce backlogs of work in local social security offices and to end restrictions on acceptance of telephone inquiries.

  Mr. Hanley
  Extra overtime and additional staff have been allocated to the three social security offices where, because of pressure of work, telephone restrictions are in operation. Officials in the Department of Health and Social Security are keeping the position under close review and it is hoped that the restrictions will end shortly.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications to obtain supply of electricity from the Irish Republic have been made by (1) householders and (2) commercial undertakings in each of the last 10 years; how many have been granted and refused in each of those years; to how many premises in the Irish Republic the Northern Ireland Electricity Service has made a supply available in each of those years; and what is the total number of properties in Northern Ireland which receive their supply from the Republic and vice versa.

  Mr. Needham
  The following numbers of householders and commercial undertakings in Northern Ireland applied to obtain a supply of electricity from the Irish Republic during the period 1 February 1981 to 31 January 1991:

  Year commencing I February

  Households

  Commercial undertakings

  1981

  1

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  1

  —

  1984

  1

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  1

  1987

  3

  —

  1988

  1

  2

  1989

  —

  —

  1990

  1

  —

  453
  Two applications (both by commercial undertakings) were refused, one each in 1986 and 1988. I know of no premises in the Republic of Ireland which receive a supply of electricity from NIE. Information on the total number of properities in Northern Ireland which receive their supply from the Republic is not available.

  Clenbuteral
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to make the drug Clenbuteral a prohibited substance.

  Mr. Hanley
  The use of the drug Clenbuteral is already prohibited under the Medicines Act 1968 except where prescribed by a veterinary surgeon for therapeutic purposes in horses and bovines.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many seizures, of what quantities, of the drug Clenbuteral have been made in Northern Ireland during the past year; and in what areas the seizures were made.

  Filled places on ACE

  District council

  1 January 1989

  1 July 1989

  1 January 1990

  1 July 1990

  Belfast

  2,814

  3,285

  3,452

  3,311

  North Down

  119

  149

  185

  186

  Lisburn

  345

  382

  479

  412

  Newtownards

  148

  184

  210

  181

  Down

  195

  190

  211

  193

  Castlereagh

  115

  145

  153

  132

  Carrickfergus

  184

  197

  207

  191

  Larne

  107

  124

  121

  110

  Ballymena

  162

  198

  209

  232

  Antrim

  186

  204

  202

  203

  Moyle

  81

  114

  132

  127

  Coleraine

  128

  214

  224

  220

  Magherafelt

  171

  222

  247

  232

  Ballymoney

  67

  128

  171

  167

  Newtownabbey

  236

  324

  353

  342

  Cookstown

  145

  171

  171

  168

  Dungannon

  357

  382

  391

  388

  Armagh

  138

  234

  281

  245

  Banbridge

  95

  110

  127

  116

  Craigavon

  328

  356

  371

  373

  Newry and Mourne

  561

  639

  648

  611

  Derry

  747

  985

  1,050

  883

  Limavady

  95

  118

  185

  196

  Strabane

  226

  314

  307

  298

  Fermanagh

  243

  278

  316

  296

  Omagh

  224

  223

  255

  233

  Totals

  8,217

  9,870

  10,658

  10,046

  Education
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the level of funding for universities, teacher education colleges and further education colleges in Northern Ireland for the past five years(a) in real terms and (b) in terms of resources per student together with the numbers of students both full time and part time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The information is as follows:
  454
  Mr. Hanley
  There have been two seizures as follows:

  Ballygawley, Co. Tyrone:—

  32 × 500 ml plastic containers of the drug in liquid form.

  Aughnacloy, Co. Tyrone:—

  13 × 1 kilo plastic bags of the drug in powder form.

  Mr. William, Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any deaths in Northern Ireland during the past two years have been attributed to the use of the drug Clenbuteral by livestock owners which was inhaled during the feeding of the drug to cattle.

  Mr. Hanley
  None of which we are aware.

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were employed on ACE schemes in each council district in Northern Ireland at 1 January and 1 July in each of the past two years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Recurrent grant

  Financial years (1 April to 31 March)

  Real terms

  Universities

  Colleges of education

  Further education colleges

  Total

  Year

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  1985–86

  76,956

  6,279

  59,769

  143,004

  1986–87

  75,541

  5,884

  63,386

  144,811

  1987–88

  79,683

  6,346

  66,008

  152,037

  1988–89

  79,717

  6,476

  68,817

  155,010

  1989–90

  82,194

  6,788

  165,021

  154,003

  1 Figures for 1989–90 exclude academic salary increases paid in 1990–91.

  455

  Student numbers Academic years (1 August to 31 July)

  Universities

  Colleges of education

  Further education colleges

  Year

  F/T

  P/T

  FTE

  F/T

  P/T

  FTE

  F/T

  P/T

  FTE

  1985–86

  14,622

  5,224

  17,495

  1,130

  n/a

  n/a

  15,139

  39,931

  25

  1986–87

  14,973

  5,123

  17,791

  1,189

  n/a

  n/a

  15,699

  37,595

  26

  1987–88

  15,505

  5,339

  18,441

  1,271

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  1988–89

  15,976

  5,527

  19,016

  1,355

  n/a

  n/a

  15,619

  41,089

  30

  1989–90

  16,503

  5,881

  19,738

  1,410

  n/a

  n/a

  17,062

  41,622

  31

  Notes: F/T, P/T and FTE denote respectively full-time, and full-time-equivalent students.

  Part-time student numbers for the colleges of education are not available.

  Recurrent grant per student, real terms

  Universities

  Colleges of education

  Further education colleges

  Year

  Grant

  FTE

  Grant per FTE

  Grant

  F/T

  Grant per F/T student

  Grant

  FTE

  Grant per FTE

  £000

  £

  £000

  £

  £000

  £

  1985–86

  76,956

  17,495

  4,399

  6,279

  1,130

  5,557

  59,769

  25,909

  2,307

  1986–87

  75,541

  17,791

  4,246

  5,884

  1,189

  4,949

  63,386

  26,335

  2,407

  1987–88

  79,683

  18,441

  4,321

  6,346

  1,271

  4,993

  66,008

  28,143

  2,346

  1988–89

  79,717

  19,016

  4,192

  6,476

  1,355

  4,779

  68,817

  30,140

  2,283

  1989–90

  82,194

  19,738

  4,164

  6,788

  1,410

  4,814

  65,021

  31,009

  2,097

  The absence of part-time student numbers for the colleges of education means that their grant per student figures are not comparable with those for universities and further education colleges.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Appointments
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether he will arrange for the post of Director of Finance and Administration for the House of Commons to be re-advertised substituting `s/he' for the word 'he' in the original advertisement.

  Mr. Beith
  No. The original advertisements for the post of Director of Finance and Administration made it clear that the House of Commons is an equal opportunities employer. There are several female candidates among the very large number of applicants who have responded to these advertisements, and applications for the post are now being considered. If it were to prove necessary to re-advertise the post because none of the applicants was suitable for appointment, the availability of the post to candidates of either sex would be emphasised.

  Visual Display Units
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what health advice is available to the staff of the House and, in particular, to those who work with visual display units.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: A nursing sister was appointed to the House in 1977 and has been available for consultation by Members and staff since then. The House also has arrangements for access to the civil service occupational health service. In addition, arrangements have been made in the past for workplace cervical screening.
  456
  On 16 July 1990 the House of Commons Commission approved the establishment of an occupational health service for staff of the House of Commons. The House of Lords will participate in the scheme on a cost-sharing basis.

  The service will be staffed by a qualified medical adviser and the equivalent of two full-time nursing advisers. They will have the professional support of the occupational health department of St. Thomas's hospital on a contractual basis. The service is expected to begin on 1 March.

  The new unit will provide a range of medical and occupational health services for staff of both Houses, such as pre-employment screening, referrals in respect of long-term sickness, the maintenance of health standards, and the routine screening of certain occupations.

  In advance of using visual display units, staff are encouraged to take an eye test administered by the nursing sister. If any defect in eyesight is revealed the member of staff is referred to an optician. If spectacles are prescribed for use with VDUs, financial provision is available to cover their cost and the cost of the eye test.

  Staff working with VDUs are issued with a guidance booklet published by the Health and Safety Executive on the ergonomic aspects of their work. A more comprehensive publication produced jointly by CCTA and the Council of Civil Service Unions is issued to the departmental managers of staff operating VDUs.

  In addition, inspections of the ergonomic aspects of working with VDUs are carried out from time to time in departments of the House to establish good working practices. Once the occupational health service is established, these inspections will be arranged on a regular basis.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Libya
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the development of underground storage depots for chemical and nuclear arms in Libya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware of press reports of an underground facility near Sebha, several hundred miles south of Tripoli, which may be connected with Libya's chemical weapons development programme. We are not aware of any underground storage depots for nuclear weapons in Libya. It is not our practice to comment publicly on information which may be available to us on such matters.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to allow the accredited diplomatic representatives of the Baltic states to nominate their successors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Baltic states have no diplomatic representatives accredited to the Court of St. James's, though one individual continues to enjoy certain privileges as a matter of courtesy. The question therefore does not arise.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's current policy regarding the granting of diplomatic accreditation to representatives of the Baltic states.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Baltic states do not fulfil the conditions for recognition as independent sovereign states. The question of diplomatic accreditation for their representatives therefore does not arise. We continue, however, to extend certain diplomatic courtesies on a personal basis to the sole surviving member of the pre-war Baltic legations.

  Yemen
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why British subjects have been asked to leave the Republic of Yemen.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We considered that there was a high risk to the safety of British nationals in the Republic of Yemen from public demonstrations and violence against those nations allied against Iraq. On 14 January we therefore advised all British nationals whose continued presence was not essential to leave until the situation became clearer.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom Government's policy towards the new administration in the Republic of Yemen.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcomed the unification of the YAR and the PDRY, which was announced on 22 May 1990, and have enjoyed good relations with the new administration. However, in recent months we have differed over their response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

  Mr. Brian Angel
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Zimbabwe police report given to the High Commissioner on the murder in Harare of Mr. Brian Angel, a United Kingdom citizen.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The police report is not in the public domain, but the Zimbabwean authorities have been asked whether a copy may be placed in the House of Commons Library, as requested.

  There is to be a public inquiry into Mr. Angel's death in Harare on 1 March 1991.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he intends to enforce the UNIFIL mandate in south Lebanon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Twelve reaffirmed in their declaration on the Gulf of 19 February their strong support for the full implementation of the Taif agreement as the means to achieve national reconciliation in a Lebanon free of all foreign troops. We shall continue to support UNIFIL's contribution to this task.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further evidence that Israel is easing the curfew in the occupied Israeli territories.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Israelis reimposed curfews on the west bank and much of Gaza from 24 February. However, the daytime curfew has been lifted over the south of the Gaza strip and in Gaza city. Our consulate general in Jerusalem is continuing to monitor the situation carefully.

  The Gulf
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the role of the United Nations in co-ordinating the campaign to defeat the environmental pollution of the Gulf by the release of Iraqi oil.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Two United Nations specialised agencies have been principally involved in efforts to tackle the oil spills in the Gulf and their environmental consequences. The United Nations environment programme has sent its own team of experts to the Gulf to assess the situation and prepare a report for the UN Secretary-General. The International Maritime Organisation, based iii` London, is acting as a clearing house for the matching of specific requirements on site with specific offers of assistance in tackling the oil spills. We strongly support the efforts of both these agencies, and are providing administrative support to the IMO.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the statement of the Minister of State on 21 February, on the nature of the Soviet peace proposals, if he will specify what aspects of the proposals are unacceptable to the Government as a basis for settlement of the Gulf conflict.
  459
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Although certainly an improvement on earlier proposals, those emerging from Soviet/Iraqi talks on 19 February nevertheless did not constitute unconditional compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Flyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy reasons underpinned the decision by the allied military commanders to refuse to promise safe air passage to his Iraqi counterpart on his recent diplomatic visit from Baghdad to Moscow.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: No request for safe air passage was made by the Iraqi authorities. As we have made clear, allied forces have instructions to attack only military targets and facilities supporting the occupation of Kuwait.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports of abuses of human rights in Israel and the occupied territories he has received; what representations he has made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We receive various reports of alleged human rights abuses in Israel and the occupied territories. Subjects raised recently include the economic deprivation of Palestinians under lengthy curfew, the holding of Palestinians in prison in Israel, the detention without trial of Palestinian leaders and the deportation of four Palestinians from the occupied territories in January. We have raised all these issues with the Israelis and regularly remind them of their obligation to administer the occupied territories in accordance with the fourth Geneva convention.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been received concerning violations of human rights in Iran since 1979, what representations, and on what date, were made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received a large number of reports of human rights abuses in Iran since 1979. With our EC partners, we have frequently expressed our deep concern about these reports both through the United Nations and whenever possible directly to the Iranians. They will be well aware of the need to reply in detail to all the allegations contained in the UN special representative's reports.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning human rights in Egypt; what representations have been made to the Government of Egypt by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received a number of representations about the alleged persecution of Christians in Egypt. These relate to a particular case now before the Egyptian courts. This matter is sub judice, but we are watching developments. The attention of the Egyptian authorities has been drawn to growing public interest in the case.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received 460
  of violations of human rights in Turkey; what representations Her Majesty's Government have made about these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 October 1990 at column 389. Since then, the issue of human rights has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with the Turkish Foreign Minister on 13 January.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of violations of human rights in(a) Oman, (b) Qatar, (c) Bahrain and (d) the United Arab Emirates; what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware of reports from bodies such as Amnesty International of allegations of human rights abuses in some of the Gulf states, although we have seen no such reports in the case of Oman. We deplore all human rights violations, wherever they may occur. The Governments of the Gulf states are well aware of the importance we attach to the observance of international human rights standards throughout the world.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations to raise the problem of human rights abuses in East Timor at the earliest opportunity in the UN Security Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The appropriate UN forum for this issue at the moment is the Commission on Human Rights. The joint statement by the EC to the present session of UNHCR will refer to East Timor.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks between the Government of El Salvador and the FMLN.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that regular talks under UN auspices are held between the Government of El Salvador and the FMLN. We have frequently made clear to all concerned the importance we attach to a successful outcome.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made concerning democracy in Kuwait between 1986 and 2 August 1990 and since 2 August 1990; and what discussions about the restoration of the 1962 constitution have been held with the Emir of Kuwait.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Future constitutional arrangements will be a matter for the Government and people of Kuwait. The Kuwait national conference held in Jedda in October 1990 agreed that there should be a return to the provisions of the 1962 constitution as soon as possible after liberation.

  We welcome the Kuwaiti Crown Prince and Prime Minister's recent public reiteration of the Government's

  461
  commitment to popular participation under this constitution, including new elections for the National Assembly after liberation.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent advice his Department has given to United Kingdom citizens engaged in humanitarian relief work in the west Sahara area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received no request for advice from British citizens engaged in humanitarian relief work in the western Sahara.

  If the hon. Member would be so kind as to write to me specifying which type of advice he has in mind I shall see that he receives a full reply.

HEALTH

  Health Services, Kent
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in each health authority covering the Kent area how many hospitals have been(a) closed and (b) partially closed since March 1979;

  Total number of in-patient and day cases treated in Kent in years 1979 and 1989–90

  1979

  1989–90

  District health authority

  In-patients

  Day cases

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Discharges and deaths1

  South East Kent

  21,560

  1,458

  36,091

  5,698

  Canterbury and Thanet

  38,849

  2,629

  48,340

  5,518

  Dartford and Gravesend

  25,023

  2,322

  28,971

  3,176

  Maidstone

  16,692

  2,182

  25,552

  6,403

  Medway

  28,759

  5,576

  35,344

  3,215

  Tunbridge Wells

  29,313

  2,823

  32,770

  5,907

  Bexley

  16,601

  2,674

  23,788

  4,888

  Bromley

  29,822

  4,075

  34,563

  6,429

  1 Figures for 1979 relate to discharges and deaths. Figures for 1989–90 relate to finished consultant episodes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute and non-acute hospital beds there were in each health authority covering the Kent area in(a) March 1979 and (b) March 1990.

  Average daily number of available beds (wards open overnight only) and number of patients treated for acute and non-acute specialties in Kent in years 1979 and 1989–90

  1979

  1989–90

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Non-Acute

  Acute

  Non-Acute

  Average daily number of available beds:

  South East Kent

  549

  454

  557

  471

  Canterbury and Thanet

  990

  1,936

  756

  1,027

  Dartford and Gravesham

  661

  1,985

  491

  690

  Maidstone

  415

  1,326

  339

  695

  Medway

  570

  421

  559

  360

  Tunbridge Wells

  830

  1,589

  660

  725

  Bexley

  391

  1,262

  267

  728

  Bromley

  879

  1,712

  598

  1,026

  Discharges and deaths1

  South East Kent

  16,671

  4,889

  27,964

  8,127

  Canterbury and Thanet

  30,156

  8,693

  37,886

  10,454

  Dartford and Gravesham

  18,446

  6,577

  22,262

  6,709

  Maidstone

  12,543

  4,149

  19,958

  5,594

  Medway

  20,759

  8,000

  25,614

  9,730

  Tunbridge Wells

  23,781

  5,532

  27,147

  5,623

  Bexley

  11,755

  4,846

  15,527

  8,261

  Bromley

  23,022

  6,800

  24,905

  9,658

  1 Figures for 1979 relate to discharges and deaths. Figures for 1989–90 relate to finished consultant episodes.

  462
  (2) in each health authority covering the Kent area how many hospital units have been (a) closed and (b) partially closed since March 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not hold information centrally about closures of hospital units or partial closures of hospitals. Information about hospitals which have been approved for total closure following formal consultation is as follows:

  District Health Authority

  Number of hospitals closed 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1989

  Bexley

  0

  Bromley

  3

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1

  Dartford and Gravesham

  0

  Maidstone

  1

  Medway

  1

  South East Kent

  0

  Tunbridge Wells

  5

  The following table shows the extent to which the eight health authorities which cover the Kent area have increased in-patient treatment and day cases over the same period—1 January 1979 to 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for available beds and for patients treated are shown in the table.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his reply of 18 January,Official Report, columns 417–18, if he will make it his policy to publish in draft form any new indicators relating to long-standing illness or disabilities which may be used for standard spending assessments; and if he will consult widely on any such proposals before they are formally introduced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Any proposed amendment to the standard spending assessment will be subject to consultation with the local authority associations and will be published in draft form.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have died from cervical cancer in each of the past 10 years; if he will give the figures by region and district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Operations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the cancellation of operations in the Wigan health authority area; and if he will will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made with the Audit Commission for the publication of the comparative figures from their health authority audit profiles.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The health authority audit profiles are sent to each of the authorities concerned by the commission. There are no arrangements for them to be published.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether reports by the Audit Commission on NHS self-governing trusts will be publicly available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Reports by the Audit Commission, on the audit of NHS trusts or any other body, are made to the management of the body audited and are not published by the commission. Section 18 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 provides that certain reports cannot be excluded from material supplied to the press.

  Firework Injuries
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the health service of treating injuries caused by fireworks in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the Health Education Authority.
  464
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Health Education Authority was established in 1987 to undertake health education activity. Its current work concentrates on seven major education programmes—HIV, AIDS and sexual health; "Look After Your Heart"; cancer; smoking; alcohol; nutrition and dental health; and family and child health. The HEA initiates and supports a wide range of public information campaigns through mass media publicity and promotional events. In providing support to those in direct contact with the public, the HEA gives priority to developing and supporting health education in primary health care services, schools, colleges and youth settings, the workplace and local health promotion. Government funding of the HEA will exceed £30 million in 1991–92.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to replace the current dual system for general practitioners and clinic services as the funding system for family planning services, with a single method source of payment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An important feature of the reformed NHS in England is the bringing together of district health authorities and family health services authorities as partners in health care provision accountable to regional health authorities. RHAs will be able to ensure that DHAs and FHSAs work together to make most effective use of available resources and to develop a more integrated and balanced family planning service responsive to local needs, taking account of the need for consumer choice.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps he is taking to help local authority social services departments implement their inspection and registration responsibilities for adult residential homes; and what contacts he has had with local authority and private residential care interests on these subjects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 13 February, the chief social services' inspector in the Department issued "Inspecting for Quality—Guidance on Practice for Inspection Units in Social Services Departments and other Agencies". He also issued a paper entitled, "Inspection Units for Adults: Training Implications" to help with the training of inspection and registration staff. I am placing copies of this material in the Library. On the same day, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, I met representatives of a number of private residential care associations with representatives of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. At this meeting, we explored constructively issues that may arise in the relationship between private home owners and the registration and inspection officials of social services departments. The introduction of inspection units on 1 April 1991, with the new procedures for handling complaints, represent the first phase of the community care policies which the Government will implement in full by April 1993.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full and part-time staff are employed in the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys and at what cost; and what are their tasks.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At 1 February 1991, 2,297 full-time and 112 part-time staff were employed in the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. The estimated cost for the current financial year is £32,506,000, including salaries, national insurance costs and some superannuation.

  The staff carry out a broad range of tasks. These include preparation for the 1991 census of population, a variety of statistical work, designing, executing and publishing reports of surveys carried out for other Government Departments, maintaining the national health service central register and administration of the laws relating to births, death and marriage registration.

  In support of these activities, staff are also employed in developing and maintaining information technology systems and in providing personnel, finance, accommodation and management information services.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys is to conduct, commission or participate in a longitudinal survey of individuals, or information relating to individuals, obtained through the 1991 national census.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The OPCS has no plans to conduct, commission or participate in a longitudinal survey based on the 1991 census. Such a survey would entail repeated interviewing of a sample of the population over a period of time. However, the OPCS administers a longitudinal study which can be used to link together, when required, data for a 1 per cent. sample of the population of England and Wales to produce statistical tables. The study includes the information from the various records of events held by the OPCS. The events include the 1971 and 1981 censuses, births and deaths and so on. The study provides additional insights in the process of changes over time and increases the usefulness of information collected by the OPCS. As announced in the winter 1989 issue of "Population Trends", a copy of which is in the Library, the OPCS plans to include the appropriate sample of records from the 1991 census in the study.

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how district health authorities will make decisions about which hospitals to place contracts with for maternity services;

  (2) whether women will have a free choice of where to have their baby within the national health service after April 1991;

  (3) how decisions will be made, for each district health authority, about drawing on the contingency reserve for maternity services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities will seek the views of their residents on where they prefer to be treated through consultation with local GPs and organisations representing patients' interests. DHAs objectives will be to place their contracts in line with these preferences.
  466
  Health authorities will make provision to pay for the likely volume of referrals which are not covered by existing contracts. They will release those resources in response to demand.

  Decisions about where women have their babies will therefore continue to be a matter for discussion between the mother, her GP and relevant health professionals. A key advantage of the reforms will be the improved arrangements to give practical effect to such decisions.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for each district health authority, if he will state (i) the total amount and (ii) the percentage of the budget for contracts which has been set aside as a contingency reserve for extra-contractual referrals for maternity services;

  (2) if he will list for each district health authority (a) the districts and hospitals with which they have placed contracts for maternity services and (b) the number of births contracted for in each hospital and in each district.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are in the course of making decisions on these matters in preparation for the introduction of NHS contracts in April. This information is not held centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) each district health authority and (b) for each of the last three years (i) the number of women who gave birth in hospitals within their local district health authority, (ii) the number of women who gave birth in hospitals outside their local district health authority and (iii) for women giving birth out of their local district health authority, (1) a list of the districts and hospitals where they had babies, and (2) for each district and each hospital, the number of women who had their babies there.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Patient Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he is satisfied that there will not be a conflict of interest in cases where the same solicitor is acting for both parties when drawing up a purchaser/provider contract for patient services;

  (2) what guidance is given to health authorities and national health service trusts on the use of solicitors when drawing up purchaser/provider contracts for patient services under section 4 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A decision on whether to use solicitors when drawing up national health service contracts is for health service bodies themselves. No guidance has been issued.

  Whether a solicitor should be prepared to act for both parties, and whether there is a potential conflict of interest, is a question of professional conduct.

  Health Authority Spending
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish expenditure per capita by each regional health authority in England, indicating in the presentation of figures any distortions because of non-regional specialist units and teaching hospitals situated in each regional health authority.
  467
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 February 1991]: Following is information derivable from 1989–90 annual accounts submitted to the Department:

  Total Revenue Expenditure on Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) Per Head of Resident Population—1989–90

  Region

  £ (cash)

  Northern

  281

  Yorkshire

  267

  Trent

  259

  East Anglian

  258

  North West Thames

  294

  North East Thames

  338

  South East Thames

  305

  South West Thames

  304

  Wessex

  247

  Oxford

  232

  South Western

  262

  West Midlands

  265

  Mersey

  291

  North Western

  293

  Sources:

  1. Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities for
  468
  1989–90.

  2. Mid 1989 estimates of resident population (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. Revenue expenditure on HCHS covers the total revenue expenditure by the health authorities concerned including that on hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services. All capital expenditure and expenditure on family health services (formerly family practitioner services) is excluded.

  2. Expenditure by the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals is excluded but expenditure by regional and district health authorities on non-regional specialist units and teaching hospitals is not separately identifiable in their accounts and cannot be similarly excluded.

  3. Figures of expenditure per head of resident population vary between regions for a number of reasons other than the location of specialist units and teaching facilities. For example:

  (a) people quite commonly cross regional boundaries for treatment and the population figures make no allowance for this or for differences in the age/sex structure and morbidity of particular populations.

  (b) the expenditure figures for the Thames regions will be influenced by the payment of London weighting allowances to staff employed in relevant districts and by a generally higher level of costs than pertains in other parts of the country.

DEFENCE

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Ms. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will be considering the future of the Defence Export Services Organisation in the light of local representations and international events.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Quality Assurance Unit
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of apprentices with the quality assurance unit who were recruited in Teesside.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Fourteen of the DGDQA's apprentices were recruited from the north-east in 1990 out of a total of 49. There is also one apprentice from that region in his final year of training.

  Equipment Procurement
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations there have been between his Department, the relevant employers, and trade unions concerning(a) the European fighter aircraft programme and (b) the proposed replacement of the Challenger 1 battle tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Consultations take place, as required, between my Department and relevant companies and trade unions on a range of projects.

  Jordan (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received on the sale of arms and ammunition to Jordan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Apart from a question from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 17 May 1990 at column 520, none.

  The Gulf
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact the Red Cross has had with Iraqi personnel held as prisoners of war in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The International Committee of the Red Cross has full access to Iraqi prisoners of war for whom the United Kingdom is responsible. It has visited all those held in the United Kingdom and will visit those recently captured in the Gulf in due course. We understand that the committee has also had access to prisoners of war for whom the United States and Saudi Arabia are responsible, as required by the third Geneva convention.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response the Red Cross has had from the Iraqi authorities regarding captured British service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross has made repeated approaches to the Iraqi authorities regarding captured allied prisoners of war, but that Iraq has so far 470
  failed to meet its obligations under the third Geneva convention to provide personal details and access. The British Government continue to pursue the matter as being of the gravest concern.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of(a) RAF, (b) Army and (c) Royal Navy personnel serving in the Gulf area on 1 August, 1 September, 1 October, 1 November and 1 December 1990, 1 January and 1 February; what is the current total cost beyond normal estimated spending; and if he will make a statement on his current estimate of the likely total personal and financial commitment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For reasons of operational security it has been our practice not to break down manpower figures between the three services. The approximate total numbers of British forces personnel committed to Operation Granby for the dates requested are:

  Number

  1 September 1990

  5,000

  1 October 1990

  15,000

  1 November 1990

  16,000

  1 December 1990

  30,000

  1 January 1991

  35,000

  1 February 1991

  40,000

  About 1,000 British service personnel were in the Gulf area on 1 August, including the Armilla patrol and military training personnel and advisors. We have no plans at present for further major developments of personnel.

  The current additional cost of the United Kingdom's deployment is more than £1·5 billion. The final financial commitment will depend on a number of factors, not least of which is the duration of the conflict, but we could incur very considerable costs in the consumption of weapons and ammunition, raising the total bill, assuming replacement over several years, to the area of £3 billion.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether benzodiazepines are being prescribed to pilots in the Gulf between missions to help them sleep.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Temazepam, a type of benzodiazepine, is being prescribed in low doses under very strict medical control to assist RAF pilots to sleep on return from sorties in the Gulf.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will provide alternative means to the blue aerogrammes for families and friends to communicate with troops in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have no plans to provide alternative means to the blue aerogramme for families and friends to communicate with troops in the Gulf.

  The 'bluey' is well recognised by both civil and military postal staff and attracts first-class priority handling. There have been reported shortages of the aerogramme in some civil post offices, but this should not recur. Regular, substantial supplies are being delivered to the post office supplies division at Swindon and post offices should face no problems in replenishing their stocks.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Overseas)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current total annual cost of paying pensions to British pensioners residing in Canada;

  (2) what is the most recent estimate of the number of British pensioners residing in Canada.

  Mr. Jack
  The total cost of paying retirement benefit pension and widow's benefit to British beneficiaries residing in Canada in the 12-month period from January to December 1990 was approximately £82 million. The number of British pensioners and widows residing there was just over 100,000 at 31 December 1990.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of index-linking the pensions paid to British pensioners in Canada; and on what basis such an estimate is made.

  Mr. Jack
  To pay full United Kingdom rates of retirement pension and widows benefit immediately would cost an estimated £119 million in the first year. This figure, which is at April 1991 rates of benefit, is based on the actual cost of uprating the benefits in payment to a 2·5 per cent. random sample of beneficiaries in receipt of United Kingdom retirement pensions and widow's benefit in Canada in March 1987. The base figure has been updated to take account of benefit increases since then and of the number of pensioners and widows resident in Canada at 31 December 1990. If comparable increases were made in respect of all countries where annual pension increases are not currently made, the total cost would be about £287 million in the first year.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of British state pensioners living overseas, by country, who are in receipt of(a) an index-linked British state pension and (b) a non-index-linked British state pension.

  Mr. Jack
  The tables show the overseas countries where United Kingdom pensioners are known to live and the number of pensioners living there at 31 December 1990. Table(a) lists the countries where annual pension increases are paid, and table (b) where they are not.

  Table (A): number of retirement pensioners and widows benefit beneficiaries in overseas countries where annual increases are paid

  Country

  Number

  Alderney

  464

  Austria

  3,086

  Belgium

  4,162

  Bermuda

  364

  Cyprus

  3,783

  Denmark

  439

  Finland

  85

  France (including Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Reunion Island)

  8,195

  Germany

  16,041

  Gibraltar

  435

  Greece

  1,208

  Guernsey

  5,007

  Iceland

  32

  Irish Republic

  62,240

  Israel

  2,681

  Italy

  13,916

  Jamaica

  15,378

  Jersey

  6,997

  472

  Country

  Number

  Luxembourg

  89

  Malta

  1,917

  Mauritius

  180

  Netherlands

  3,474

  Philippines

  110

  Portugal (including Madeira)

  2,338

  Sark

  78

  Spain (including the Balearic and Canary Islands)

  22,593

  Sweden

  234

  Switzerland

  2,151

  Turkey

  341

  United States of America

  60,318

  Yugoslavia

  952

  Total

  239,288

  Table B: Number of retirement pensioners and widows benefit beneficiaries in overseas countries where annual pension increases are not paid

  Country

  Number

  Albania

  5

  Algeria

  3

  Andorra

  164

  Angola

  2

  Anguilla

  77

  Antigua and Barbuda

  210

  Argentina

  191

  Ascencion Island

  4

  Australia

  138,668

  Bahamas

  145

  Bahrain

  23

  Bangladesh

  3,640

  Barbados

  1,432

  Belize

  20

  Benin

  2

  Bolivia

  8

  Botswana

  71

  Brazil

  241

  Brunei

  17

  Bulgaria

  8

  Burma

  3

  Burundi

  1

  Canada

  101,723

  Cayman Islands

  53

  Central African Republic

  3

  Chile

  74

  China

  17

  Colombia

  24

  Cook Islands

  6

  Costa Rica

  14

  Cote D'Ivoire

  1

  Cuba

  2

  Czechoslovakia

  46

  Djibouti

  64

  Dominica, Commonwealth of

  474

  Dominican Republic

  156

  Ecuador

  14

  Egypt

  53

  El Salvador

  1

  Ethiopia

  33

  Falkland Islands and Dependencies

  12

  Faroe Islands

  5

  Fiji

  34

  Gambia

  20

  Ghana

  74

  Grenada

  579

  Guatemala

  8

  Guinea

  1

  Guyana

  181

  Haiti

  1

  Honduras

  4

  Hong Kong

  581

  Hungary

  195

  India

  3,546

  Indonesia

  26

  Iran

  3

  473

  Country

  Number

  Japan

  60

  Jordan

  12

  Kenya

  498

  Kiribati

  3

  Kuwait

  7

  Lebanon

  16

  Lesotho

  8

  Liberia

  3

  Libya

  5

  Macau

  4

  Madagascar

  2

  Malawi

  72

  Malaysia (including Sarawak)

  93

  Maldive Islands

  2

  Mali

  1

  Mauritania

  1

  Mexico

  100

  Monaco

  212

  Mongolia

  1

  Montserrat

  268

  Morocco

  45

  Mozambique

  2

  Namibia

  15

  Nauru

  1

  Nepal

  15

  Netherlands Antilles

  7

  New Zealand

  30,494

  Nicaragua

  3

  Nigeria

  165

  Norfolk Island

  13

  Norway

  246

  Oman

  19

  Pakistan

  6,582

  Panama

  6

  Papua New Guinea

  13

  Paraguay

  3

  Peru

  48

  Poland

  2,375

  Qatar

  9

  Romania

  15

  Rwanda

  1

  St. Helena and Dependencies

  44

  St. Kitts-Nevis

  369

  St. Lucia

  688

  St. Vincent

  410

  San Marino

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  52

  Senegal

  8

  Seychelles

  40

  Sierra Leone

  51

  Singapore

  96

  Solomon Islands

  6

  Somalia

  99

  South Africa

  31,347

  South Korea

  3

  Sri Lanka

  181

  Sudan

  8

  Swaziland

  73

  Syria

  4

  Tahiti

  1

  Tanzania

  10

  Thailand

  33

  Togo

  111

  Tonga

  2

  Trinidad and Tobago

  4

  Tunisia

  397

  Turks & Caicos Islands

  9

  Tuvalu

  2

  Uganda

  22

  United Arab Emirates

  75

  USSR

  774

  Uruguay

  20

  Vanuatu (New Hebrides)

  2

  Vatican City

  1

  Venezuela

  38

  Virgin Islands (British)

  26

  Western Samoa

  12

  474

  Country

  Number

  Yemen Arab Republic (North)

  1,633

  Zaire

  2

  Zambia

  174

  Zimbabwe

  4,902

  Total

  336,157

  Notes:

  a) There were a further 1,760 pensioners and widows whose country of residence was not known at the time the figures were prepared.

  b) The tables include 10,584 pensioners and 359 widows to whom the Department is making payment on behalf of the Northern Ireland Authorities.

  Fraud
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by region, the allocated number of staff days for fraud work covering the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990; and what was the number used.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department allocates resources for the investigation of fraud on a yearly basis in terms of posts. The number of posts allocated to benefit fraud work by region, for the year 1990–91, are shown in the table, with the number of staff days actually used on fraud work by region during the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990.

  Regions

  Allocated complement for fraud work 1990–91

  Staff days used on fraud work 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990

  North East

  469

  61,855·0

  Midlands

  518

  61,625·3

  London North

  472

  60,130·2

  London South

  502

  52,325·6

  Wales and South West

  436

  52,243·5

  North West

  433

  53,314·5

  Scotland

  359

  43,336·5

  Total

  3,189

  384,830·6

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes in priority categories used for allocating grants from the social fund since its introduction, for each of the local offices where the criteria have changed.

  Mr. Scott
  This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will visit Glasgow, Pollok to meet parent groups to discuss his plans for child benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  I shall visit Glasgow on 28 February as part of a long-term programme of tightly scheduled visits to local offices but, unfortunately, the time available on this occasion does not allow for meeting parent groups as the hon. Member suggests.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy not to implement the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990, S.I. 1990/2564, before they have been considered by the House or a Committee of the House.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990 were laid before Parliament on 19 December 1990 and came into force on 14 January 1991. The regulations are subject to negative procedure and will continue in force unless the negative resolution to be debated in Standing Committee shortly is approved.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide illustrative examples of people who would be(a) better off and (b) worse off claiming family credit once the condition of entitlement is reduced from 24 hours to 16 hours.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: The extent to which people will be better off claiming family credit as a result of the change in the hours threshold for family credit will vary according to factors such as the hours worked, hourly rates of pay, family size and age of children.

  For example, based on the methods and assumptions in the DSS tax benefit model tables, a lone parent with one child aged three years and weekly earnings from part-time employment of around £40 for between 16 and 24 hours work would experience an increase in net income, after paying rent and community charge, as a result of being eligible for family credit under the new rule.

  Similarly, a lone parent with one child aged eight years and weekly earnings of around £70 for between 16 and 24 hours work who does not currently qualify for income support would be better off as a result of becoming eligible for family credit.

  There will also be a number of people who are currently on income support but not in work but who, as a result of the change, will decide to boost their incomes by taking a job working 16 hours or more which will enable them to qualify for family credit, and thus be better off.

  No existing beneficiaries will be worse off as a result of the change, since transitional protection will ensure that there is no loss of benefit for those already on income support and working between 16 and 24 hours at the point of change. However, for some claiming thereafter, for example a couple with a large family and a large mortgage, the combination of earnings from 16 and 24 hours work plus family credit will be less than they would have received from 16 and 24 hours work plus income support.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Businesses
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women are employed in small businesses in 1991; and what was the figure for 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Small businesses employing fewer than 20 people employed 7 million people in 1986, the latest year 476
  for which figures are available, compared with only 5·4 million in 1979. Separate figures for men and women are not available.

  Training
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve the numbers receiving training in work.

  Mr. Howard
  The main responsibility for training people in work must lie with their employers. They will receive support and encouragement through the network of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, and local enterprise companies in Scotland and through the investors in people initiative which will encourage employers to invest in all their employers.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the numbers of employees receiving training in Britain.

  Mr. Jackson
  Figures from the labour force survey show that in the spring of 1989, 3·1 million employees received job-related training in the four weeks prior to the survey. This was an increase of more than 70 per cent. compared with the same period in 1984.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils are now established; and how many more are being planned.

  Mr. Howard
  Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in England and Wales are now in place and 51 are fully operational. By the summer, the full network will be up and running—a full two years ahead of schedule.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the British tourist board to discuss the state of the tourist industry in Britain.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of the British Tourist Authority on 10 December.

  In the light of the present difficulties of the tourist industry, £800,000 has been made available to enable the English tourist board, working closely with the authority and the three other national tourist boards, to launch a major campaign next month to ensure that United Kingdom residents are aware of the opportunities for taking a holiday in the United Kingdom. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has also decided to make available to the BTA a further £800,000 on top of the grant in aid already agreed for 1991–92 for promotion overseas after the situation in the Gulf has been resolved.

  Coal Mine Safety
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the director general of the Health and Safety Executive to discuss safety in coal mines.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document on the management
  477
  and administration of safety and health at mines in May 1989, revised in November 1990, following extensive consultations with mining unions and others.

  Discussions are continuing, so it would be inappropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to be involved at this stage.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  Mr. Jackson
  The National Council for Vocational Qualifications was established in 1986 and is a central feature of our vocational education and training policies. It has a lead role in bringing about a comprehensive and coherent system of national vocational qualifications covering every occupation and extending to all levels of employment. Such a system provides a quality framework for identifying and designing relevant training to ensure that the nation's work force has or acquires the skills needed in employment to compete successfully.

  A review last year of the council's progress in establishing the new system concluded that a firm foundation had been laid, with national vocational qualifications available now to around one third of the work force in many major industries.

  In the light of such progress, the council has been given additional resources and has been set the target of ensuring that, by the end of 1992 national vocational qualifications applicable to 80 per cent. of the work force are available in all the most important occupational areas.

  This is a very challenging target, but there is much support for it, particularly among employers who have come together in more than 150 groups to develop national vocational qualifications for occupations in their industries. We are confident that the target can be achieved.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in employment in the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Howard
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 25,365,000 in June 1979 and at 27,393,000 in September 1990.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of job vacancies at jobcentres in the London borough of Wandsworth on 21 February.

  Mr. Forth
  On 4 January 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unfilled vacancies at the jobcentres covering the Wandsworth area was 129.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer, 18 February,Official Report, column 581, what proposals he has for depositing a copy of the corporate plan of the South Glamorgan TEC in the Library.

  Mr. Jackson
  The executive summary of the plans of the South Glamorgan TEC will be deposited in the Library when it becomes available.
  478
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what involvement his Department had in the tender process for constructing the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters project at Dumballs road, Cardiff.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has not been involved in the tendering process for construction work to the proposed South Glamorgan TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date his director of field operations first contacted the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC concerning the procedure for carrying out the construction of the new TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Jackson
  The first contact took place on 9 December 1990 and was in the form of a telephone conversation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department was first made aware of the involvement of E. C. Harris & Co., quantity surveyors, in the tendering process for the construction of the new South Glamorgan TEC.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department first became aware of the involvement of E. C. Harris, quantity surveyors, in the tendering process for the refurbishment of South Glamorgan TEC offices on 24 September 1990.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place copies in the Library of the notes of the telephone discussion which took place between the director of field operations and the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC on 7 December 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  No notes of this telephone discussion were taken.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department was informed that the Bank of Wales had ceased any financial involvement in the project to develop the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Jackson
  Financing arrangements of this kind are a matter for the TEC board.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what analysis his Department made of the relative costs and benefits of South Glamorgan TEC renting new premises for its operations compared with participation in the new headquarters refurbishment project; and what advice was given to the TEC in this respect in June and July 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  In June and July 1990, my Department discussed various locations with the South Glamorgan TEC. The final decision on where to locate is for the individual TEC to make, taking into account the finances available.

  Safety Representatives
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what examination his Department has conducted of the Swedish system of regional safety representatives and its applicability to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Systems of safety representatives differ greatly from one country to another because of major
  479
  differences in legal systems and in approaches to industrial relations. The Health and Safety Commission is responsible for keeping British health and safety legislation under review. In doing so, it keeps itself informed of relevant developments in other countries, including Sweden. It is for the commission to propose that elements of other countries' systems be adopted in this country should it decide that this would be appropriate.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the recent report commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive on the implementation and effectiveness of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, in particular on the decline noted in the proportion of firms with appointed safety representatives.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for the Health and Safety Commission to consider whether to propose any change in the present system of safety representatives and safety committees in the light of the report published by the executive. I will consider any proposals that the commission may decide to put to me.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what free explanatory leaflets or other publicity and advisory material to raise public awareness and provide guidance on the aims and advantages of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 have been produced by the Health and Safety Executive since 1977; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Comprehensive guidance on the 1977 regulations is contained in the Health and Safety Commission's booklet "Safety Representatives and Safety Committees", first published in 1977 and reissued in a new format in 1988. The booklet contains the texts of the regulations, two associated approved codes of practice and supporting guidance notes.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will send an official to observe the second national conference on repetitive strain injury to be held in Nottingham on 16 March; and if he will make a statement.
  480
  Mr. Forth
  Officials in the Health and Safety Executive are obtaining details of this conference, on the basis of which a decision on whether to attend will be made.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for changing the role of local committees for the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Jackson
  We discussed the future role of committees for the employment of disabled people in our consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" and asked for comments on how local advisory arrangements might best be developed. We are presently considering the responses we have received.

  Rover Learning Business
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had on the work of Rover Learning Business, with particular reference to the emphasis on self-development.

  Mr. Jackson
  My officials have recently met Rover Learning Business to examine ways to encourage other companies to adopt self-development initiatives linked to business performance similar to that introduced at Rover. They agreed jointly to run seminars to spread to other businesses the message that support for self-development can lead to real business performance improvements.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment the overall percentage increase in earnings during the periods(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The overall increase in earnings in the whole economy during the period 1974 to 1979 was 109 per cent. and the provisional overall increase during the period 1979 to 1990 was 181 per cent.

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

Lord Runcie
The Right Reverend and Right Honourable Robert Alexander Kennedy Runcie, MC, lately Archbishop of Canterbury, having been created Baron Runcie, of Cuddesdon in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Belstead and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Baroness Seccombe
Dame Joan Anna Dalziel Seccombe, DBE, having been created Baroness Seccombe, of Kineton in the Country of Warwickshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Lord Lane of Horsell.

Geothermal Energy: Research
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are pursuing research, either on a national or a Community basis, into harnessing energy from geothermal sources in subterranean rocks.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, yes. When the current phase of research on hot dry rock technology is completed in September 1991 the next phase of work will concentrate on collaboration with a European programme now under way involving France, Germany and the European Commission.
This work is expected to be carried out by the Camborne School of Mines and associates, and RTZ Consultants Limited, and government funding of £3.3 million will be provided over the period 1st October 1991 to 31st March 1994.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. As it is a clean source of energy and kind to the environment, will the Government ensure that the expertise gained from the pilot project in Cornwall is not discarded or lost?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are ensuring that there will be technology transfer even though to date the findings are not giving ground for encouragement.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend say what sites in Britain have been explored for this purpose?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, only one site is currently being explored. It is in Cornwall.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry that I missed part of the question from the noble Earl. Is it known how many sites in Great Britain are suitable for this technology?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, apart from Cornwall it is thought that there could be one area in the North-East.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are glad that the work is at least continuing. Will the noble Lord enlighten us a little further? How well is the work going? Are there any signs yet that energy from this source is likely to be an economic prospect in the foreseeable future?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the review carried out by the Department of Energy in 1990 concluded that very substantial uncertainties remain about the practicability of extracting useful energy from hot dry rocks in the UK.
Perhaps I may give an example. The study carried out by the department concluded that an early commercial hot dry rock station could cost 19p per kilowatt hour. That compares with the cost of a combined cycle gas turbine of between 2.3p and 2.8p per kilowatt hour, assuming a discount rate of 10 per cent.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Lord referred to the North-East. Does he mean somewhere near East Anglia or Wick? To the north-east of where is he referring?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I refer to North-East England.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify his answer to me? I believe he stated that for the moment the source is not economic but that it is the Government's view that we must continue with research in the hope that one day this will prove to be an efficient source of energy. Am I right in saying that that is the Government's position?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, yes. There are no prospects of it being economic in the short term. We are continuing with research until we can collaborate with Europe on a wider scale.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that geothermal sources, known as hot rocks, may well be needed at some time in the future as costs change and as objections and difficulties with other sources increase?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valuable point. That is borne in mind by the department in its approach to the research.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, has experience in New Zealand and Iceland been studied in that regard?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am told that so far this technology has not worked anywhere in the world.

The Gulf War: Cease-fire Proposal
3.4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, having regard to the heavy loss of civilian life in Iraq, they will now respond to the Pope's call for an immediate cease-fire in the Gulf.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Pope has called for an end to hostilities rather than for a cease-fire. His Holiness has also said:
"we are not pacifists and we do not want peace at any price; peace and justice is our aim".
It is in the pursuit of peace and justice that Her Majesty's Government joined the coalition forces to implement the Security Council resolutions aimed at the liberation of Kuwait, the restoration of its legitimate Government and the establishment of international peace and security.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Question has been overtaken by events. However, is it not the case that in the present situation it is even more right and proper that there should be a cease-fire now? Have the Government considered that matter and, if so, what is their answer?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no. We now need a public and authoritative statement by Saddam Hussein setting out his commitment to comply fully with all the Security Council resolutions.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is nothing in the Catholic theology of a just war that requires an immediate cease-fire in the Gulf? Is he also aware that, while the opinion of his Holiness should always be treated with the greatest respect so should the opinion of other Catholics? The opinion of this Catholic is that the evil man Saddam Hussein and his henchmen should be pursued resolutely by the allies until he is defeated.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of the British public, including those who live in Putney, are convinced that there should be the following three conditions for a cease-fire: first, Saddam Hussein and his cohorts must get rid of all their weapons of destruction; secondly, some of them must return to Kuwait and repair the appalling damage caused by their murder and rape of that country; thirdly, Saddam Hussein and all that he stands for must be taken before a tribunal and asked to account for his crimes?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The subject of war crimes must be addressed in the context of the United Nations Security Council resolutions as part of the post-hostilities settlement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in conveying their views to the coalition on when a cease-fire should take place, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the importance of winning the peace as well as winning the war?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a good point and, of course, we must try to achieve that. We are in close touch with our coalition partners and with our allies.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mellish about the appalling treatment of Kuwait and its people? Can the Minister say how many Kuwaitis have been taken to Iraq as hostages? Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that when the war is over action will be taken against those responsible so that they are dealt with in accordance with the Geneva Convention and are not allowed to get away with it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we take most seriously the point made by the noble Lord. At present I do not have figures showing how many Kuwaitis have been rounded up and taken back to Iraq.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that, as a pre-condition to a cease-fire, prisoners of war and hostages are returned?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we seek the return of our prisoners of war as soon as possible. We shall honour our obligations under the Geneva Convention and hope that other countries will do likewise.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, am I right in believing that the subject will be covered by a Government Statement to be made later today? If so, is it not true that anything said now will be overtaken by events long before the Statement is made?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the situation is fast-moving and it is continually evolving. Events occurring at one moment are overtaken by events occurring the next. The noble Lord is right in saying that a Statement will be made later today and I am sure that it will address some of the issues that have been raised.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, does the Minister care to say whether the Question on the Order Paper is helpful or unhelpful to those citizens of our country at present on active service in the Gulf?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for Members on the Front Bench to comment on the helpfulness or otherwise of Questions on the Order Paper. However, I am sure that all noble Lords wish our troops in the Gulf well and congratulate them on their magnificent performance.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of the comments made in answer to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, will the Minister say specifically whether Her Majesty's Government still stand totally and completely by the United Nations resolutions as regards this war? In view of the fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has described it as a US war and not a UN war, will the Government state categorically that their war aims are only those covered by United Nations resolutions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the forces of the coalition are in the Gulf in order to carry out the United Nations resolutions. Our aims are those set out in the resolutions; namely, to get Iraq out of Kuwait, to

863
restore the legitimate government, to re-establish peace and security in the area and to uphold the authority of the United Nations.
Lout Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will bring this Question to an end. It seems to me an abuse of the House when a Statement is to be made on the subject this afternoon.

Motorcyclists: Off-Street Training
3.11 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are yet able to assess the benefits of the use of off-street training for young motorcyclists before the granting of driving licences.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, compulsory basic training for those who receive new provisional motorcycle and moped entitlement was introduced on 1st December 1990. It is too early to assess the benefits. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory will be assessing the impact of the compulsory training including the effect on motorcycle casualty rates.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not very helpful Answer. Is my noble friend aware that the accident injury rate for young motorcyclists of 17 and 18 years of age is five times higher than that for older motorcyclists? Therefore, there is an urgent need for young people to have off-street training before obtaining a licence. Has off-street training capacity now reached a level at which all applicants for new motorcycle licences can be required compulsorily to acquire a certificate from an off-street training centre before they qualify for a licence?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am aware of the horrifying figures quoted by my noble friend. For various reasons, however, the number of casualties and deaths is decreasing. We are satisfied that the provisions under the new arrangements are sufficient.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I greatly admire the courage of young motorcyclists. Will the noble Lord nevertheless suggest to them that they exercise greater care when riding through the streets?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe that that is the thrust of the training they receive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate to the House how many off-street training centres there are, how many instructors are currently employed and how many inspectors are available in order to deal with the point so cogently put by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? Can he indicate also whether the Government believe that it may be prudent to deny insurance to all learner drivers carrying out dispatch work while holding only a provisional licence?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Driving Standards Agency has approved approximately 200 training bodies operating from 850 training sites throughout Great Britain. The figures are still expanding. Nearly 2,500 instructor certificates have been issued, and that figure too is expanding. All training bodies are monitored and the DSA has undertaken to visit all training sites at least twice a year. I believe that the final part of the noble Lord's question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is possible to force an applicant for a motorcycle driving licence to obtain a certificate from an off-street centre before he obtains his licence?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a new dimension. I shall look into the matter and write to him.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that many motorcycles now on the market are capable of top speeds well over double that of the legal speed limit? The rate of acceleration makes even a Porsche or a Ferrari look comparatively staid. Does any part of the off-street training for young motorcyclists —even if it is only a lecture—prepare them for handling larger motorcycles which have different characteristics?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my understanding is that there is such training.

Parliament: Supply of Information
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the provision of information to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that all information required by Parliament should be provided in the form laid down by Parliament.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I did not hear that Answer distinctly. Has the noble Lord read last week's report of the Select Committee of another place? Paragraph 111 refers to attempts made to conceal certain important aspects of a sale agreement from the House of Commons. Paragraph 109 states that the Secretary of State should have told the full story to the commission at the time and another paragraph concludes that the House of Commons was seriously misled.
In view of those facts, would it not be correct for the Secretary of State involved to make an apology to Parliament for misleading the House or withholding information? Secondly, paragraph 74 refers to the withholding of correspondence between the DTI and the Inland Revenue. Does not the withholding of vital documents from its Select Committee diminish the authority of Parliament?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord did not table his supplementary question as the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord is well aware that the period of response by the Department of Trade and Industry is 60 days from publication. I am surprised that he expects me to abandon the principle of comity between the two Houses on the basis of that 60-day period, if nothing else.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the other place has instituted certain procedures to determine whether or not information was withheld. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House what procedures he has in mind to discover whether or not this House was misled or whether information was withheld and what remedies he proposes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is well wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it could be demeaning to the elected Chamber to have questioned in this House the way in which it handles its reports?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He repeats a point which I made earlier in response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that my noble friend is not questioning the procedure of the other Chamber but is seeking to find out the possible outcome and the noble Lord's opinion of that? Will he not give us the benefit of that opinion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always with the greatest respect that I come to the Dispatch Box, particularly with regard to the relationship between this House and another place. That was the purpose of my reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recognise that the original Question relates to information given to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? In the case to which I refer, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a Member of this House. That is why I am concentrating on the procedures of this House rather than those of another place.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this point. However, I draw his attention to the Question on the Order Paper, which in no way refers to the matter he mentions.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I am seeking a reply to the Question on the Order Paper, which asks what is the Government's policy on the provision of information? The difficulty is that, when the Secretary of State happens to be a Member of your Lordships' House and is not asked to make a personal statement or apology in any shape or form
866
and cannot do so in the other place, a gap appears in the information which can be made available in response to Questions in Parliament.
The Joint Committee that was set up said,
"we deplore the fact that attempts were made to conceal certain important aspects of the sale".
Surely a policy exists in regard to how we can obtain information about those aspects that were concealed.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to my original Answer and to the point that I made earlier. The relationship is that between the committee of another place and the department. The department must reply to the committee within 60 days of publication of the original report. After that point it will be entirely proper.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister make it clear to the House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they do not take the view that the end always justifies the means? Will they make it quite clear that, in achieving the aims desired by government, they will not tolerate anybody—whether Minister or otherwise—falling below the standard of public life that is normally expected in the United Kingdom?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, back to my original reply that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that all information required by Parliament shall be provided in a form laid down by Parliament.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister is being somewhat disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that I have asked this or a similar Question on numerous occasions arising from the fact that the noble Lord who was then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave certain answers in this House and I accused him of misleading Parliament. Is the Minister aware that my statement has now been substantiated in a report from another place? That does not alter my original Question. I still ask what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to information from the DTI. It is now established that certain information from the DTI has not been supplied to Parliament and in certain cases Parliament has been misled. That is the issue which originated in this House, is still in this House and about which I am asking in this House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I humbly suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that, if he wishes to ask that question, which is not the Question on the Order Paper, he should formally table it.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the latest situation in the Gulf.

Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
In 1987 the Lord President invited the Top Salaries Review Body to undertake a review of the parliamentary pension scheme, the pensions of the Prime Minister, Speaker and Lord Chancellor and ministerial severance pay. When the TSRB reported in May 1988, we made clear that we accepted the recommendations. This Bill implements those TSRB recommendations and also provides for a new night subsistence allowance for Ministers in the Lords.
The House will know that statutory ex officio pensions are paid without any qualifying period to the Prime Minister, the Speaker and Lord Chancellor, the justification for these special arrangements being the high dignity of the three offices. At present under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972, the Prime Minister's pension is fixed at fifteen-fortieths of salary, the Speaker's at twenty-fortieths and the Lord Chancellor at seventeen-fortieths of salary. The TSRB in its 1988 report recommended that instead of these different pension ratios, current and future office holders should be entitled to pensions of one half of their final salary; and Clause 1 of the Bill has that effect.
I should draw the attention of the House to Clause 1(5). Currently there is a restriction on the pensions increase that may be paid to former office holders. The TSRB recommended that this should be lifted and we shall be laying regulations under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to give effect to that recommendation.
We feel however, that, despite this uncapping, as the pensions ratio is changing so substantially, too large a gap will open up between the pension entitlement of the current Prime Minister and the pensions in payment to former Prime Ministers. We have therefore taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to set the pension level of all former Prime Ministers at the same figure which the current Prime Minister will be entitled to after enactment; that is £25,362.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 so that regulations may be made to permit the Prime Minister and Speaker to participate in the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
868
Clause 3 relates the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of the Lord Chief Justice. Noble Lords may recall that the 1983 TSRB report recommended that the Lord Chancellor should receive a slight salary lead of £2,000 over the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his role as head of the judiciary. Up to now each increase to the Lord Chancellor's salary in implementation of this proposal has required an order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. Now the salary lead is to be contained in legislation.
I turn to Clause 4 which deals with severance payments and, in line with the TSRB recommendation, extends the severance payment scheme currently available to Lords' Ministers to Ministers and paid office holders who are Members of the House of Commons or who are outside Parliament.
The TSRB recommended that on losing office for whatever reason Members of the Commons should receive a severance payment based on three months' net loss of income, and Members not in either House should receive three months' loss of ministerial salary. It also recommended that the two-year qualifying period for Lords' Ministers should be dropped; that the Prime Minister and Speaker should be excluded from those arrangements; and that the Lord Chancellor should cease to be eligible because of preferential pension arrangements.
The justification for this is well understood. Ministers are required to relinquish outside appointments when they are appointed. This can often mean a substantial loss of income as well as a far busier working schedule. On leaving office a Minister has to make a rapid adjustment to cope with the financial consequences. It often takes time to pick up the threads of a previous career or to establish a new one. We believe that modest severance payments are entirely reasonable to bridge the gap.
I now turn to Clause 5 which introduces a new allowance for Lords' Ministers and paid office holders in the Lords. On appointment a Minister or paid office holder in this House loses the overnight subsistence allowance which he or she could claim as a Back-Bencher. But certainly most Ministers find it necessary to set up a London base—if they do not already have one—in order to meet the heavy demands of their jobs, and it seems only right that they should have some help towards the cost of running a second home in London. This help will now be forthcoming as a result of the introduction of a night subsistence allowance based on the Back-Benchers' overnight allowance.
But Ministers do not work only when the House is sitting and we therefore propose that this new allowance should be paid not on the basis of the number of days the House sits but at a flat rate of 220 times the overnight allowance; 220 representing the number of working days in a year, though most Ministers in my experience work a good deal longer than that. The allowance will go up at the same time as, and in line with, the Back-Benchers' allowance. At present it would be £14,960; producing, after account has been taken of tax deductions and withdrawal of the London supplement, a net benefit of around £7,700.

869
Clause 6 will enable the Lord President to make regulations in the other place to fix the Exchequer contribution to the parliamentary contributory pension fund. I do not propose to say a great deal about this clause save that it contains a permissive power whose use will depend on the outcome of a TSRB review of the future financing of the parliamentary pension scheme.
Clause 7 makes some changes to the Members' fund, which is a statutory fund administered by trustees who are able to offer grants to former Members of the other place or their dependants who experience financial difficulties. The clause brings up to date the wording of the 1948 Act and gives the trustees a wider discretion. The financial implications of the Bill are small and are contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Waddington.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin, as others will, by declaring my interest. I will benefit from the provisions contained in the Bill. Unlike other occasions, when the speech of the introducer of a Bill is repeated almost word for word, I believe that the House is indebted to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the care that he has taken not only in explaining the facts—that is to say, the words on the face of the Bill —but also their implications. We on this side of the House give the Bill a very warm and general welcome.
It is a Bill which has received all-party support in another place and I expect that it will enjoy the same fate in your Lordships' House. I took particular note of the fact that in another place the Leader of the House, Mr. John MacGregor, spent 49 minutes introducing the Bill; though he was interrupted 17 times. That means that not only were there many Members on both sides of the House with a deep interest in the matter but that the Leader of the House in another place was well prepared and concerned to ensure that the points raised were dealt with. I certainly appreciate very much not only the care that he has taken but the fact that a succession of Leaders of the House over many years have ensured that this legislation has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
I know that my colleagues in another place take a deep and continuing interest in the matter. They have expressed to me their satisfaction at the present position. What we are concerned with here today and what the Minister has spoken about, is a series of small matters in themselves but which together make up a significant difference in the pay, arrangements and conditions of a great many people. First, we are talking about an improved level of pensions for the Prime Minister, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. The noble Lord the Leader of this House indicated that that was entirely fitting and proper to the dignity of the office holders. We say "Amen" to that.
870
The noble Lord also referred to the creation of severance payments to Ministers who cease to hold office, for whatever reason, before reaching the age of 65. I believe that in another place, and certainly in this House, we support the general premise on which this new arrangement has been made. The noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to a night allowance to noble Lords, Ministers and other office holders in this House. That is the area in which I declared my own direct interest. In particular, the noble Lord dwelt somewhat on the basis and ratio of contributions to the parliamentary contributory pension fund. When the noble Lord replies can he say something more about the reference to the Top Salaries Review Body? Has he any news to give this House of the current state of those references?
I am sure that the House is grateful for the easement and the operation of the House of Commons Members' fund. My honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Alf Morris, has toiled for many years on behalf of Members of the other place with trustees who represent all sides of the House. He has spent many hours in working out the best arrangements. I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House and many others are aware of the painful circumstances in which the widows of many former colleagues have found themselves. It is eminently fitting that the current rules and regulations are being eased so that the trustees can be a little more generous.
In my view, all these matters are modest but entirely fitting and proper in 1990–91 to give to our parliamentarians a better deal than they have hitherto enjoyed. We on this side of the House are very grateful indeed, not only to the noble Lord the Leader of the House but to his colleagues in another place who have worked to ensure that these better arrangements are brought in.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I feel somewhat diffident about speaking on this Bill since much of it affects the interests of Members of another place. At least I have no interest to declare in the matter. Noble Lords like the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are able to speak with more authority than I in drawing on their experience on a number of matters with which the Bill deals. However, I have some industrial experience of the administration of pension schemes and pay determination. Therefore, I may be in a good position to bring dispassionate judgment to bear briefly on those points which featured most prominently in recent debates on the Bill in another place.
I warmly welcome the introduction under Clause 5 of the new allowance for Ministers in your Lordships' House. I believe that I speak for all my noble friends, particularly those of us who stay in London during the week, in saying that the proposal that Ministers here should in future be eligible for the same overnight subsistence allowance payable on the basis of 220 days is wholly justified.
It is no reflection on noble Lords who now serve us so conscientiously as Ministers to say that we would all benefit if the noble Lord the Leader of the House

871
and the Chief Whip were able to draw on more of their supporters as potential recruits to the Government Front Bench. That applies whatever the political complexion of the Government.
One of the issues concerning this Bill that most troubled Members of another place was that of the relative contributions to the parliamentary contributory pension fund made by the Exchequer and Members of the fund. I was surprised to learn that at present, in contrast to the situation in so many pension schemes in the private sector, Members of the parliamentary fund contribute 9 per cent. of their salary and the Exchequer less than half that amount; namely, 4.4 per cent.
The trustees of the parliamentary fund consider that in future there should be a fixed relationship between the contributions from the Exchequer and of Members, with the Exchequer bearing the greater share. However, that would have the disadvantage that Members' contributions would fluctuate and would thus lose the stability and predictability that they now have. In those circumstances, I am sure that the Government are right to refer the matter to the Top Salaries Review Body, particularly since the people who fund the employers' contributions are the general body of taxpayers.
The purpose of Clause 6, as the Leader of the House has told us, is to avoid the need to introduce primary legislation to make any changes in the balance of contributions that may eventually be agreed. Hence the provision for these changes to be effected by regulations. It seems to me reasonable to ensure in this way that the changes operate without undue delay.
Another matter which has obviously caused Members of another place considerable anxiety, though it arises only indirectly from the Bill, is the position in relation to the resettlement grant payable to MPs under their early retirement scheme. There appear to be two causes of concern. First, people ceasing to be MPs after the age of 65 are at present ineligible to receive the grant. Secondly, years of service as a Member of the European Parliament do not count as qualifying service under the scheme. I am glad that at Third Reading of the Bill in another place the Leader of the House said that the Government now accept that service as an MEP should count for this purpose so that all former MEPs who are now Members of the House of Commons would benefit from that change. A majority of Members of another place, of all parties, have indicated, as signatories to an Early Day Motion, that the whole question of the resettlement grant needs to be re-examined, so I am glad that the TSRB is to be invited to look at it again. The essential point is that on both those matters Members of Parliament are themselves potential beneficiaries. They should be determined, therefore, by an independent arbiter in the shape of the TSRB.
Finally, I come to the first three clauses of the Bill. If I may respectfully say so, throughout the 35 years in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House we have been exceedingly well served by the noble and learned Lords who sit on the Woolsack. Their office is an onerous one, extending far beyond
872
their duties here, and it appears altogether appropriate that they should in future enjoy this salary lead over the Lord Chief Justice and the other benefits for which the Bill provides. I do not propose to comment on the remaining provisions of the Bill except to say that they are entirely acceptable to us on these Benches.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, I have been involved in the question of ministerial salaries for a considerable time, going back to 1963 when the late Earl of Stockton instructed me, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to go into the whole matter of ministerial salaries. Your Lordships may, after this lapse of time, be amused to hear that in 1963 the rate of salary for a full member of the Cabinet was £5,000 a year—a rate which had been originally fixed in the year of grace 1841. In 1841 £5,000 a year was a magnificent remuneration. In 1963—I can give evidence, if necessary—it was very far from magnificent, being subject fully to tax and to the rise in prices. I am therefore particularly interested to see that this Bill has now been brought forward.
The Leader of the House in another place, John MacGregor, said that the Government had shown no indecent haste in bringing it forward. Indeed, that is so, because the committee which made these recommendations reported in 1988. Therefore, far from any indecent haste there might have been what could be regarded as a certain measure of stately delay in bringing it forward. Having said that, I particularly welcome Clause 5. As noble Lords may know, some of us have been deeply concerned for a long time at the wholly inadequate remuneration, particularly of junior Ministers and Lords in Waiting in this House. Given the age at which they are normally recruited—when acceptance of office involves interrupting a professional or other career and when there are very likely to be children beginning education—a very severe financial sacrifice has been demanded of noble Lords who have accepted, in particular, junior office.
If I may be allowed to say so, the House has been particularly fortunate in the high calibre and devotion to duty of those noble Lords who have in these circumstances accepted office. But it simply could not go on like that. One cannot create a situation in which really severe difficulty and hardship is caused to people and expect them nonetheless to be recruited into the jobs where that hardship will be found. I hope and believe that the substantial improvement—I use the words deliberately—which is involved for noble Lords, particularly for noble Lords in junior positions in this House, brought about by Clause 5 will provide a very large measure of relief. I warmly congratulate the Government on having now decided to bring it forward. It will help them to resolve what has been in the circumstances, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal admitted, the difficult problem of recruiting for junior posts.
I have one question to ask my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal as to the detail. As I understand it, the allowance that will be paid will be the same rate of allowance as the night subsistence allowance payable to noble Lords but will be based on the assumption of

873
220 nights. I take it that, in order to earn this, there is no obligation on the Minister concerned to be 220 nights in London. In certain departments the Minister may be required to travel all over the world to carry out his public duties. It would be ridiculous if he should be mulcted in this way because of that.
I express a doubt as to whether, if this is to work properly, 220 nights is enough. It is certainly not my experience of ministerial office that a Minister in a department in London worked only 220 days a year. If that had been so I think there are many noble Lords in this House who would agree that life would have been considerably easier. I doubt, for example, whether either the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal or my noble friend the Chief Whip would really be able to say that they had only worked 220 days in the year. Therefore, I wonder whether the figure of 220 might be looked at again. I am sure that it is intended as a calculation, excluding weekends—that is, 104 days out of 365—but that still leaves quite a margin of days which are not covered; and most Ministers in most governments work for a great deal longer than that. Therefore, while my enthusiasm for the proposal is not diminished in any way, I hope that the figure of 220 may be looked at with a view to increasing it.
Having said that, I am very glad indeed, as I believe all your Lordships are, that the Government have decided to move in this matter. Among other things, it will make for the more efficient operation of the House by removing what has been quite a difficulty in recruiting and remunerating those who play so essential a part in its proceedings. In this day and age junior Ministers almost always have to be junior in age, and that is just the period of life when one is most vulnerable to financial pressures. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on their courage in going forward. I hope, subject to the point about the 220 nights, that the Government will carry this through. I believe that it will do an enormous amount of good.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Bill deals with the situation of widows of senior Ministers?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps when he replies the noble Lord can clarify a point which has always worried me. I understand that the Lord Chancellor receives an enormously greater salary than the Prime Minister. Can he say whether that is so because the Lord Chancellor is worth more, because he works harder or because lawyers in this country are grossly overpaid?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should stress that I am not speaking in any way in opposition to the Bill because I fully accept it. However, in introducing and outlining the Bill, the Minister talked about fair treatment for Ministers and former Ministers to ensure that they did not lose out in total. Do I take it, therefore, that the legislation in no way covers Members of that place who have never been Ministers but who have been assiduous Members of that place without the benefit of a ministerial salary and who, in some cases, worked just as hard as Ministers, some of
874
whom are now quite incapacitated and no longer able to attend your Lordships' House? Were those people considered in any way? If they were not, does that not indicate once again the provision of rather preferential treatment for a certain group of people?
I recall that about two or three years ago when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was Leader of the House our remuneration—if that is the correct term—was under review. We were given an almost copper bottom guarantee that something would be done of a sympathetic nature in respect of former Members. Evidence was called for and given in extenso. However, the character of your Lordships' House had changed quite considerably from that which existed when the original pattern was set and, unfortunately, nothing has been done in the matter. Therefore, while I fully agree with what is proposed, I think it is rather regrettable that the people about whom I am talking—that is, some former Members of another place—are now living on very small pensions. It should be borne in mind that the pensions fund is well in excess. I cannot understand why the situation of those people was not given some consideration. I am sure that such consideration would have been sympathetically received by everyone concerned.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and speaking as a member of the panel of the Chairman of Committees and in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I should point out that the Lord Chancellor receives an additional payment because he is well worth it.
I ask the noble Lord who introduced the Bill to confirm that adequate time will be given to discuss the Bill both in Committee and on Report. There are many important questions involved in the matter. When I was Chief Whip in another place I had to deal with Members of my party who had lost their parliamentary seats. To serve in Parliament for perhaps five, 10 or 15 years and then suddenly to be truncated is difficult. It was not an easy transition to go from overalls on a shop floor in a factory to being a Member of Parliament. I ask your Lordships to consider the fact that the transition from being a Member of Parliament to being nothing was even more difficult. Therefore, I had much difficulty in trying to resettle Members who had lost their seats.
I think that substantial time should be allowed to deal with this aspect of the matter both in Committee and on Report. The Bill must not be rushed through on the nod. The issues involved are extremely important to individuals. If we do not consider ourselves as individuals at this level of the legislative process, then there is not much hope for those people—who number perhaps millions—who are unemployed. Let us, therefore, be considerate in the matter. I merely ask the noble Lord to confirm in his reply that there will be adequate time for discussion during the later stages of the Bill's proceedings.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I know that noble Lords are anxious to hear the Statement. I shall not, therefore, detain the House for very long. I believe that some noble Lords may have been concerned because on the original Order Paper my name did not appear as being the mover of the Second Reading of the Bill. However, I believe that that was corrected on a later Order Paper.
In my opening speech I was guilty of making a serious omission in that I did not thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for all the work that he has carried out in the matter. Indeed, he worked extremely hard to obtain what he believed was justice for Ministers in this House. We are all most grateful to him for the efforts he made.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Opposition Benches. I can assure him about something which he already knows; namely, that the Bill followed very protracted discussions with honourable Members in another place and also with noble Lords. We ultimately achieved a solution which now rightly receives a good welcome from this Chamber.
I was asked about the position regarding the reference to the TSRB of matters concerning the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The reference was made last week and a reply is expected by May. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, welcomed the new overnight allowance. It is obviously not right that anyone should be dissuaded from serving in this place as a Minister as a result of not being adequately compensated for the fact that he has to have a second home. It was, of course, right to refer the various matter; mentioned by the noble Lord regarding the parliamentary contributory pension fund to the TSRB. The latter will also be looking at the question of severance pay for Members in another place.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his remarks. I echo his comments on the remuneration of junior Ministers. There will be no obligation on a Minister to be actually resident in London for 220 nights. It was really a question of obtaining a formula which, on the one hand, was related to the allowance paid to Back-Benchers in this House and which, on the other hand, would yield a result not entirely dissimilar to the allowance which is granted to Back-Benchers and Ministers in another place— that is, the so-called "additional cost allowance" which is payable to Members in the other place.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked about the situation of widows of senior Ministers. That issue is not dealt with in the Bill. However, it has already been dealt with by way of reference to the TSRB. I do not know whether I should now embark upon a long explanation as to why the Lord Chancellor is paid more than the Prime Minister. I shall leave that issue for another day. Suffice it to say that I am sure that the noble Lord agrees with me that it was rather absurd for the Lord Chancellor to receive a pension
876
computed on a different basis from the way in which the pension of the Prime Minister is computed, or indeed that of the Speaker.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked about the situation of those who have left another place, who have come here but who are not as yet eligible for their pension—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was not referring only to Members of this Chamber. There are some elderly former Members of another place who have not come here and who are in a situation of distress.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the House heard what the noble Lord said. Obviously, we did not set out to deal with everything by way of this Bill. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the points he made and try to catch up with the history of the matter. Further, I can promise the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that there will be ample time for discussion of the matters about which he is concerned. With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Gulf War
3.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on the latest situation in the Gulf.
"Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, on pressing Foreign Office business, I have been asked to reply.
"Last night there was a report on Baghdad radio that Iraqi forces had been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait. In a broadcast this morning, Saddam Hussein appeared to confirm this. At the same time as this order was apparently given, however, two further Scud attacks were launched, one of which caused a large number of casualties among US forces in Dhahran. At this time, we have no reliable evidence of a general Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. In many areas in southern Iraq and Kuwait, Iraqi forces are retreating, but as a result of allied military action. British and allied troops are still in contact with Iraqi forces.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, what we require now is that Saddam Hussein publicly and explicitly accepts all the Security Council resolutions. To ensure the safety and security of our forces we require all Iraqi forces in the theatre of operations, both those occupying Kuwait and those supporting the occupation, to abandon their equipment and withdraw. Otherwise they will continue to be treated as hostile."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. We support all the points that the Minister made. I have only one question for him: in the event of all Iraqi troops abandoning their equipment, as we rightly propose, and moving out of Kuwait northwards, do they have any assurance that they will not be attacked as belligerents?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He has had the enviable experience of making two Statements of great encouragement and importance on successive days. It is hard to comment upon the Statement when the position is so fast-moving—when one has just read on the tape that there are no Iraqi troops left in Kuwait City, and that the withdrawal was organised. It is especially difficult to comment upon the Statement, when, in accordance with custom relating to Private Notice Questions, one has had no preview of the Statement. Nevertheless, I am sure that my noble friends would wish me to associate ourselves with the views expressed by the Minister.
There can be no question of allowing the withdrawal back home of fully armed troops with their tanks and artillery. That would be going far too far. What is more, in this difficult situation, which is neither peace nor war, there is a special danger to the coalition forces, and their security must be paramount. Nevertheless, I hope that there is no question of coalition forces firing upon troops who are withdrawing from the battle. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the coalition. Will the Government assure us that the coalition is doing nothing to jeopardise its post-war objectives; for example, the maintenance of the United States/Soviet collaboration which is so important for the future; the strengthening of the authority of the Security Council; and the widening of support for the coalition in the Moslem world? All those post-war objectives are of enormous importance. I hope that the Minister can assure us that they are in no way being jeopardised by the present conduct and policies of the coalition.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their remarks. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is no intention of attacking unarmed troops who are withdrawing, but obviously formed combat units retreating with their arms must be regarded as hostile. I want to make that point clear. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made the point about the security of the coalition forces which is of extreme and paramount importance. He also talked about post-war objectives. I can confirm that those post-war objectives remain as they were.
3.2 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that certain organisations, individuals, newspapers and periodicals are rightly concerned about the fate of the people in Iraq and the withdrawing Iraqi army. Should it not be made clear to them that Saddam Hussein and his murderous army which invaded Kuwait are withdrawing only because of the presence of the coalition in the Gulf? If there is any sadness to
878
be felt, it should be felt first for casualties in the coalition forces which have probably saved Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and many other Arab states. The Arab people and the great Islamic republics must understand that they have probably been saved from massive slaughter by the coalition forces which have done a magnificent job on behalf of all humanity.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that there are many in your Lordships' House who would disagree with the thoughts and sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is essential that retreating Iraqi columns be thoroughly screened by the coalition forces to ensure that they do not include Kuwaiti civilians who have evidently recently been kidnapped in large numbers to be held as hostages in Iraq?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am certain that every effort will be made to detect those circumstances if and when they arise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has this situation been reported to the Security Council? Is the Security Council meeting to discuss it, and, if so, when will it do so and what powers will it have to deal with the situation that the Minister has outlined this afternoon?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my understanding is that the Security Council is aware of the situation at the moment; but as to what action it will take at what time is as yet unclear.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, would the Minister like to put on record the unusual events taking place in your Lordships' House?—neither the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, nor the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, have cared to blame all the problems of the Middle East on the state of Israel.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take that point.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
4.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The House will recall that a little over a year ago, we published our White Paper The Way Ahead which outlined our programme for the reform of benefits for disabled people. The Bill represents the final stage of that programme.
We set out in that paper a whole series of proposals for changes and a timetable for their introduction. We have stuck to that programme and met every one of the commitments we then made. Indeed, we have gone further: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security outlined some welcome additional improvements in his uprating Statement last autumn. I do not want to weary the House with the full catalogue of changes. I have on several occasions been able to give account of our spending

879
record over the past 11 or 12 years. Spending on the long-term sick and the disabled has doubled in real terms to over £10 billion per annum. I shall give some idea of what we have done in the past year.
We have increased the disability premiums within the income-related benefits by more than twice the rate of inflation. That benefited 400,000 disabled people. We more than doubled the disabled child's premium from £6·50 to £15·40—giving substantial help to 20,000 of the least well-off families. We extended mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind. We have also announced that from April we shall be removing any doubt that people who have had both legs amputated will be entitled to mobility allowance. We have introduced a premium within the income-related benefits for carers and in the past two years increased by 150 per cent. the amount that carers can earn before it affects the amount of invalid care allowance we pay them. Most recently, in December, we gave age-related additions of up to £20 a week to people on severe disablement allowance—the group who have not had the chance to build up a contribution record. And, as your Lordships will recall, we have introduced widely-welcomed improvements to attendance allowance by abolishing the rule preventing its payment to babies under two and by giving top rate attendance allowance automatically without a qualifying period to people suffering from a terminal illness.
These are all significant moves forward, and they demonstrate the Government's commitment to making the benefit system responsive to disabled people's needs.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of the backcloth against which those measures should be viewed. There has been a huge expansion in the numbers receiving all the main disability or incapacity benefits. To take as an example the extra costs benefits, the numbers receiving attendance allowance have risen threefold from 265,000 in 1979 to 890,000 today. Mobility allowance now reaches 630,000 people, rather than the 95,000 who received it 12 years ago.
I am aware of the argument that runs that this is not new money but simply an effect of improved take-up, but it is new money for the people who are receiving benefit on account of their disability who were not getting anything before. And it is of course new money that the taxpayer must find.
The Bill introduces the final two elements of The Way Ahead package. It brings in two new benefits and—again going beyond what we promised last year—introduces a radical new assessment regime.
The first benefit—disability living allowance (DLA) —tackles a central problem with the existing extra costs benefits which is that disabled people who narrowly fail to meet the qualifying conditions at present get nothing from the benefit system in recognition of their disabilities.
The second benefit—disability working allowance (DWA)—addresses for the first time the needs of people who are able to work to some degree but whose
880
earning capacity is limited by their disability. At present, such people can find themselves in a trap. They may be better off if they remain on their incapacity benefit than they would be if they took up work. Disability working allowance is designed to tackle that disincentive.
Those two initiatives—greater coverage of help with extra costs, and new help for disabled people who can and wish to work—were two main strands of the strategy that we outlined in the The Way Ahead.
Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill introduce the disability living allowance. It will build on the strengths of the existing benefits. I say "strengths" because the OPCS evidence showed clearly that attendance allowance and mobility allowance were well targeted on the most commonly occurring of the disabilities that entail extra costs. For that reason we have left unchanged the qualifying criteria for the existing rates of benefit. Recipients of those rates will be transferred automatically across to DLA.
But on both the mobility and care sides of the new benefit there will be new lower rates for disabled people under the age of 65. Instead of the present cliff edge, we shall have a benefit that better recognises that there are degrees of disability. There will be two routes by which people can qualify for the new rate of the care component. The first will be if they require attention for a significant portion of the day, in one or more aggregated periods. We envisage "significant portion" being interpreted as an hour or thereabouts. For example, this route will help people who need help getting in and out of bed or a bath, or people who require assistance in administering courses of injections or medicines. The second route will be a test of whether someone could, if he wished to, prepare a main cooked meal for himself. I should stress that this will be an entirely abstract test. We are not, as my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State said in another place, in the business of reinventing a household duties test, but we did want to include people whose care needs went broader than a test related purely to bodily functions.
The mobility component will be paid to people who, though physically able to walk, are so severely physically handicapped or mentally disabled that they require the guidance or supervision of another person when walking outdoors. That is a condition which we anticipate will bring 150,000 people on to benefit, primarily people with mental handicap, those suffering severe visual impairments and those with severe behaviour problems.
For both the care and the mobility components, the Bill introduces a common qualifying period of three months and a test of whether the disability is likely to continue, the time limit for that being six months.
For the less well-off among the disabled population, both of the new lower rates will give them access to the disability premium within income-related benefits. Someone on income support qualifying afresh for one or other of those rates will thus see a rise of rather more than £25 a week in their income.

881
Although DLA is aimed at people who became disabled before the age of 65, we are extending across the board the provision in mobility allowance whereby a claim can be entered up to the 66th birthday. And, unlike mobility allowance, there will be no upper age limit for receipt of any of the rates of DLA.
Clauses 6 to 9 introduce the disability working allowance. I am sure everyone will share our belief that society should look increasingly at what people with disabilities can do, rather than at what they cannot do, and then should look at what the rest of society, including the benefit system, can do to assist them. That was why we came forward with DWA. The Bill aims to offer disabled people the chance to try working—even if they are not sure they can cope with a full-time job—and be sure they will be better off as a result. Up to now, someone in that situation might well have had either to risk taking a job which he thought might be beyond his capacities or to accept a drop in his income because a job which he judged he could cope with paid him less than he was getting on benefit. People who can only work as few as 16 hours a week will be able to qualify for DWA.
The group whom we intend to benefit will be identified by a qualifying benefit test: they will either have been receiving a long-term incapacity benefit or be getting an extra costs benefit. Beyond that, for his initial claim, the claimant will simply have to state that he has a disability or illness that, in the Bill's words, puts him "at a disadvantage in getting a job". Current receipt of DLA or recent receipt of an incapacity benefit will be taken to confirm this. On a renewal claim, again he will declare that he has a disability.
In the majority of cases receipt of one of the higher rates of DLA (equivalent to present attendance allowance and mobility allowance) or previous receipt of severe disablement allowances (SDA) will be taken as confirmation. In a minority of cases—perhaps 40 per cent. of repeat claims—the claimant will be asked to fill in a self-assessment form covering a whole range of functional disabilities. If the adjudication officer's decision is that he has one of those disabilities, he will qualify because that disability will be enough to put him at a disadvantage. I should make clear that the disadvantage will not be something that is open to the adjudication officer who decides the claim to question. If the objective criteria are satisfied the disability test will be satisfied.
The test of income will be along similar lines to the one we have in family credit but because we are adding an amount equivalent to a single person's disability premium in income support DWA represents a better deal than family credit for those who have the option of claiming family credit.
I will mention one further feature of DWA, the linking rule. We all know that this kind of benefit will work as we wish only if people are confident that they will not lose if their attempt at work fails and they prove incapable of work. At the moment someone coming off severe disablement allowance or invalidity benefit has to judge within eight weeks whether his venture into work is going to be a success. If he leaves
882
it longer, and later discovers that he cannot cope, he is obliged to spend 28 weeks requalifying for the benefit he used to get.
We do not want DWA claimants to have to weigh up their position because we believe it would put some people off trying out a job in the first instance. The Bill therefore introduces a much more generous two year linking rule. That should provide important reassurance for those wanting to take up work. As a final point, I should perhaps reiterate that DWA is only for those people who choose to take work; there is no question of forcing people to give up their incapacity benefits.
I turn now to assessment and adjudication, the third theme to the Bill which is hidden largely in Schedule 1. The radical innovation we are preparing in this field will be common to both new benefits. We have listened carefully to what individual disabled people, their carers and their representative organisations have had to tell us about how claimants perceive the whole business of claiming disability benefits.
We have brought forward a radical shift towards self-assessment, backed of course by the comments of those people in the best position to know most about the effect that the claimant's disability has on his everyday existence. We want to give claimants an opportunity to give a fuller version themselves; to marshal whatever evidence from whatever professional or informal source they choose. We believe that will help us in striving, as we are already doing, to improve our decision making. It will help to make the process more open and personal to claimants.
The Bill provides that decision making on DLA, DWA and attendance allowance will be vested in adjudication officers rather than doctors. There will of course still be many difficult decisions on the margins of entitlement and it would be foolish to promise that adjudication officers will always get it right. But the Bill provides for adjudication officers to be able to receive adequate support in the form of advice on medical issues from departmental doctors. It also creates for DLA and attendance allowance a purely advisory board replacing the existing attendance allowance board. Its role will be limited to providing expert advice, informed by the latest medical developments, on specifically medical matters.
The new adjudication procedures have been widely welcomed in principle. In particular, we have received an excellent response to our proposals on new rights of appeal to independent disability appeal tribunals. In order to ensure that the focus is truly placed on the effects of a condition, we have stipulated that ideally one of the members of the tribunals should either be a disabled person—or should have practical experience of the needs of disabled people.
The Government understand the feelings of those who would have us move forward even more rapidly in this area. But the Bill is a substantial step forward in improving provision for people with disabilities. It will give significant new help to well over 300,000 people at a gross cost of £325 million. By 1993–94, we expect 1.9 million people to be receiving a benefit in

883
recognition of their extra costs—a more than fivefold increase since 1979. The Bill's spending is on top of the more than £10 billion we are now spending on benefits for people who are either disabled or long-term sick. The Bill, together with our many other recent improvements, builds substantially on that record. I commend it to the House.
I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
4.24 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of the Bill. The clarity is particularly to be admired because I believe that this week he and his wife are in the process of increasing their entitlement to child benefit! As he said, we are dealing with a Bill that concerns two benefits. I propose to concentrate on the disability living allowance, while my noble friend Lady Turner, with her great expertise in employment matters, will deal with the disability working allowance. Before turning to the Bill, perhaps I may say how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his place, helping us to deal with the Bill on his return to the House after his recent illness.
As the Minister said, the DLA—I believe that we may use the acronyms—is a new name for a combination of the existing mobility allowance and attendance allowance with the new rates built in. I should be interested to know how long this merger of the two allowances has been planned by the department. It is less than two years since the All-Party Disablement Group, of which I am a member, met the Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott. I asked him whether there was any intention to merge the two allowances; at that time he gave a categorical denial. The Minister is an honourable man and I am sure that he knew of no such intention, but I do wonder when the planning began at official level.
The new allowance consists of five benefits: the three care benefits (the higher rate attendance allowance, the standard rate attendance allowance and the new lower rate of £10 a week) and the two mobility benefits—the present rate and the £10 lower rate. Of course, we welcome the expansion of the lower rates and the expansion in coverage. I believe that it is correct that there will now be no fewer than 11 possible combinations of benefit under the DLA.
I cannot help but remember previous discussions on social security Bills when we have argued strongly from all round the House for a more flexible mix of benefits. That was always rejected on the ground that such flexibility would only add to the administrative complications. I see the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his place and he will remember, as will other noble Lords who take an interest in such matters, the constant reiteration of the swings and roundabouts argument: some will gain while others will lose. I am not sure that it has ever been conclusively proved statistically that the swings actually do equal the roundabouts, but the proposal that no fewer than 11 combinations of allowances be
884
included in the one overall benefit represents a positive merry-go-round of benefits. However, we welcome the Government's attempt to widen the scope of both the attendance and the mobility allowances.
The biggest weakness of the disability living allowance is that it is certainly not a living allowance. We are all aware of the substantial extra costs of disability: heating, laundry, diet, communication, clothing, extra help with household tasks and similar costs. To some extent these costs used to be met by the old special payments scheme which was abolished in April 1988.
Research by the Disablement Income Group indicates extra costs of between £42 and £65 a week for the more severely disabled. Similar research by a number of disability organisations indicates that the extra costs of disability are considerable and much in excess of the figures which were produced by the OPCS. We feel that the OPCS figures considerably understate the extra costs of disability and we shall put down amendments to the Bill to deal with the point.
Another area where, frankly, it is hard to follow the Government's reasoning is the lower age limit of five years for claiming the mobility component of the DLA. It seems that the Government equate the need for the mobility component with the age for starting state education: five. That ignores the fact that many children under five attend a playgroup or have nursery education. Above all it ignores the fact that disabled children are entitled to special education from the age of two. We shall also wish to put down amendments to correct this anomaly.
Another area in which we shall bring forward an amendment which I am sure will command your Lordships' support is the extension of the higher rate mobility component to people with learning difficulties and challenging behaviour. This is familiar ground for your Lordships. In 1989 I moved an amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others to secure the mobility allowance for the deaf-blind and the severely mentally handicapped. The amendment was accepted by this House; it was rejected by the Government when they brought it back on grounds that were not even mentioned when the House originally debated the issue—namely, the numbers involved. We welcome the fact that, as the Minister mentioned, since then the Government have extended the mobility allowance to the deaf-blind.
Returning to the problems of the severely mentally handicapped, your Lordships will remember that there was an extraordinary statistical argument by the Government based rather mysteriously on the OPCS data tapes. The figures that the Government claimed for the number of people who would benefit from the changes they wish to introduce were said to range from 50,000 to 150,000 people and back again. MENCAP, the Spastics Society and the Mobility Allowance Campaign have never moved from their original estimate that 8,000 to 9,000 people would benefit from this extension.

885
I am delighted that the Government now seem to accept that figure. At Report stage in another place the Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, stated:
"The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in essence, what we are concerned about here is an assessment of numbers and whether it is possible to devise a way of ring-fencing the 8,000 to 9,000 people of whom Mencap spoke. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that commitment".
He further stated:
"I acknowledge that that undertaking was given, and I am on record as giving an undertaking to do my best to find a way of defining those 8,000 to 9,000 people".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/91; col. 474.]
We are now concerned with a problem of definition and not one of numbers. We shall seek to deal with that problem when we consider the Bill in detail. I should like to ask the Minister whether between us we can try to find a suitable way to define that group of people so that they can receive the higher rate of the mobility component.
We shall put down amendments to secure the future of the independent living fund. The cost to the Government will be nothing beyond the £62 million that is already allocated to the fund, which currently helps in excess of 7,000 severely disabled people and pays an average of £72 per week. In January of last year a severely disabled couple aged 59 stated that since they have had access to the independent living fund they have had the happiest and most worry-free time for just over five years.
Considerable concern has been expressed in regard to the Government's intention to hand over responsibility for severely disabled people who are now helped by the fund to local authorities in 1993 with the advent of the community care plans. The independent living fund is an excellent example of ring-fenced community care. We hope to persuade your Lordships to protect that position by writing it into the Bill.
A considerable anomaly, not to say injustice, is the proposal by the Government to limit the invalid care allowance (ICA) to those who care for those receiving only the higher or middle rate of the care components and to exclude those who are caring for those on the lower rate. It is difficult to understand why someone who is caring for a disabled person for 35 hours a week or more and is thereby prevented from working should not receive the invalid care allowance. If the person being cared for is receiving the higher and middle rate of the care component, then the carer will receive ICA, but not if the disabled person is receiving the lower rate. We shall seek to redress that situation.
We shall examine other provisions in the Bill at a later stage and seek to put right any omissions. Two important matters are, firstly, how to deal with the backdating of claims where there is a good case for the claimant not being able to claim on time and, secondly, the exclusion of people aged over 65 from the mobility component.
My noble friend Lady Turner will deal in detail with the disability working allowance provisions. I was impressed by a letter from the National Consumer
886
Council which stated that the disability living allowance was worthy of support but needed amendment. However, I fear that it dismissed the DWA by stating that it did not merit support. Concern has been expressed that people with long-term disabilities will not be able to claim DWA and that those who do claim will have considerable problems because of the way in which the benefit is to be calculated and administered.
As the Minister implied, the Bill represents more or less the final response to both the OPCS surveys and the White Paper The Way Ahead. This is not the time to go into what we regard as the piecemeal and in many cases inadequate nature of that response. The Minister listed the improvements in social security benefits, which we welcome. He referred to the expansion in the numbers of those who claim benefits, which accounts for a large part of the increase in expenditure. However, a substantial number of social security benefits have been frozen in real terms, after adjustment for inflation, since 1979, compared with the 20 per cent. increase in real income of the working population in the same period.
Despite the efforts of the Government we are no nearer to obtaining the comprehensive disability cost allowance and the disability income benefit which, if taken together, would ensure that people with disabilities are not at a permanent disadvantage in society. A situation exists whereby people with exactly the same degree of disability receive widely varying levels of benefit, depending upon the way in which the disability was caused and not on the disability itself, with its attendant costs and its effect on earning power.
That situation and the many other anomalies and injustices in the benefit system for people with disabilities can be put right only by a comprehensive and coherent combination of allowances and benefits that are designed to deal with the extra costs of disability and the need for a proper disability income. That is something that cannot be achieved overnight; it can be done only if the Government have the will to do it. I can assure your Lordships that the next Labour Government will certainly have that will.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his kind reference to me. I join him in thanking the Minister for the clarity of his original explanation.
The Bill is reasonably acceptable but it does not go far enough. The disability living allowance is described as a new benefit but it is a combination of two existing benefits: attendance allowance and mobility allowance. As the Minister explained, it introduces a third lowest rate of attendance allowance of £10 per week for people who require help with their bodily functions for a significant portion of the day from another person, or who cannot prepare a cooked main meal for themselves if they have the ingredients. It is estimated that 140,000 people will be covered by that situation. It also extends the mobility allowance by the introduction of a second and lower rate of £10

887
per week for 150,000 people who are able to walk but who a re so severely disabled, physically or mentally, that out of doors they require guidance and supervision from another person for most of the time.
We are grateful for the extended benefits, but there is one very severe objection to the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. It makes no provision for dealing with the additional costs which disabled people may be expected to incur; for example, a special diet, extra heating, communication, greater laundry costs, and so on. I hope that the Bill will be amended to cover those items.
As noble Lords will know, there was a tied vote in another place in Committee which was only determined by the chairman's casting vote. It should be borne in mind that those who suffer from industrial injury are in receipt of £76.60 per week. During research into costs people were asked how much they spent on those items, but many people put a low figure because they did not have the money to pay for more. Applicants should be shown a list of possible costs and asked to say whether they have incurred any of them, and, if not, whether they would have done so if they could have afforded them. In connection with the matter of costs, there is a problem in relation to those who become incapacitated after the age of 65. They do not qualify for mobility allowance. I should be grateful if the Minister could say something about the position of those people.
With regard to the mobility allowance, the provision for children begins at the age of five. There would seem to be a strong case for it commencing from the age of two when the local authority has responsibility for education. That is another point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised.
The disability living allowance is not a simplification, as represented by the Government. People may well be in doubt as to whether any part of the two benefits—attendance allowance or mobility allowance —are payable after the age of 65. Also, as we have heard, the range of options is confusing.
During the discussion in another place, to which I referred earlier, the Minister acknowledged that disabled people incur additional costs on account of their disablement but he rejected an amendment on the ground that it reverted to the complexity of the old system of social security. All the major disability organisations reject the Minister's suggestion that administrative complexity should prevent the design of a system to meet the additional costs of disablement.
The disability working allowance introduced in the second part of the Bill provides a means-tested benefit of up to £37.20 for single people and £51.75 for lone parents and married couples. It would apply to some 50,000 people on low pay using low thresholds of £34.60 for single people and £57.60 for lone parents and married couples.
The requirement to work 16 hours a week in order to qualify may be too restrictive. Some people may
888
prefer to build up more slowly to that figure. Then there is the exclusion of all those who are not in receipt of another benefit.
In conclusion, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I refer to the independent living fund which at present helps about 4,000 people. As he pointed out, it is scheduled to come to an end in 1993 when it is hoped that local authorities will be able to take on its work. In my view, that fund should be put on a permanent statutory basis and I hope that the Bill will be amended to bring that about.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to take part in this debate in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It gives me a feeling of nostalgia. It also gives me hope that now that he is no longer hobbled by his brief he will be able to take part in the Committee stages and join the rest of us in pressing amendments on the Government.
I am also extremely honoured to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who we all recognise has a greater knowledge of social security matters than anyone else in this House. His speech is immensely welcome. That is not to say that I do not wish to thank the Minister for the great clarity with which he opened the debate.
Speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I need a disability speaking allowance because there is very little left to say. Therefore I shall be very brief. On the subject of the disability living allowance I shall say merely that I regard it at this stage as a misnomer because it will be all but impossible for severely disabled people to live on it without suffering. It is therefore not meaningful in the sense of what one would ordinarily expect of a disability living allowance.
On a related matter, and following up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, it is far too early to scrap the independent living fund. Its life should be prolonged until such time as the needs of severely disabled people, for example, who number only some 7,000 or so, have been met on a statutory basis. At that point the disability living allowance can be phased out.
It is not right that the burden on the fund should be transferred to the local authorities after 1993. Ordinarily I would consider that a very good suggestion provided that the fund was ring-fenced, but now is the worst possible time for that added burden to be placed on local authorities, which are being forced to cut their welfare services drastically. It is most inappropriate and I support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we should try to remedy that in Committee.
Having said that, I am one of those who applaud the Government's implementation of The Way Ahead by amalgamating the present attendance allowance with the mobility allowance. I consider it to be very much a step in the right direction towards what we all hope by the end of the century will be a comprehensive

889
disability income scheme. The amalgamation of the two allowances will make it much easier for us to press amendments on the Government to that end.
I welcome the disability working allowance. It is a pioneer step, a first attempt at recognising the needs of those disabled people who have a partial capacity to work and helping them within the social security system. Their potential could not be realised without the help of the social security system and so I regard that as an admirable initiative. I also regard the imaginative introduction of self-assessment within the assessment procedure as immensely welcome. Therefore, I find the second part of the Bill admirable.
I do not in any way wish to diminish that accolade by saying that the second part of the Bill is capable of improvement in detail, which it is. That is essential in order to bring within its scope the 50,000 people who could be helped by it. Unless the second part of the Bill is amended those people will be literally helpless. I hope that means testing, for example, will be thoroughly explored in Committee, and, ideally, abolished. If it is not abolished the thresholds should be substantially raised. I should like to see a lower earnings threshold. I should also like the maximum benefit rates to be raised. While we are about it, I cannot see why we should not seek to exempt people in that category from National Health Service charges. I do not believe that any of those aims could not be achieved in this House. Without them the benefits of the second part of the Bill will not reach those who are intended to be the beneficiaries.
I look forward to the unhobbled and active help of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in a lively Committee stage which I hope will be free of party political dissension.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible because I know that my noble friend the Minister has urgent business outside this House and I do not want to delay him.
I welcome the part of the Bill relating to the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. However, my noble friend will not be surprised when I tell him that, together with others, I shall endeavour to improve it at later stages as the Bill goes through your Lordships' House in order to benefit more disabled people and to improve the benefits that they receive.
In particular I draw your Lordships' attention to the first paragraph of page 2 of the Bill—namely, Clause 1(2) new Section 37ZA(6)—which reads:
"A person shall not be entitled to a disability living allowance unless he satisfies prescribed conditions as to residence and presence in Great Britain".
I am sure that the Minister and many other noble Lords are aware of the situation. Similar conditions are prescribed with respect to the severe disablement allowance. It allows people to receive the allowance only if they have been in the United Kingdom for more than 10 out of the last 20 years. That precludes a small but very important number of people. I hope that we shall not allow the same condition to affect the
890
disability living allowance and that noble Lords will assist me to remove the anomaly for severe disablement allowance as this Bill goes through this House.
The provision affects the families of Crown servants. As I understand it, it does not affect Crown servants themselves. When the country sends a Crown servant abroad to serve the nation in whatever capacity, it is quite reasonable to expect that the family should be with that Crown servant. In fact it would be intolerable if that family had to stay behind for any length of time. A number of Crown Servants remain out of the country for more than 10 of the 20 years. I suspect that that will happen to a number of civil servants who work for the EC. I know that it happens to members of the armed forces, not so much the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, but the Army and in particular a small part of the Army.
Because of the need for wide and open training spaces, members of the armoured regiments spend much time in Germany, for example. So far as the forces are concerned that counts as a home posting but so far as social security is concerned it counts as being abroad. Such people can easily have two postings to Germany followed by an overseas posting and then go back to Germany, each posting lasting for approximately three years. They could even have two postings back to Germany before going abroad again, so spending 12 years abroad out of the 20 years.
It must not be forgotten that at the moment this affects the families whose fathers and husbands are serving in the Gulf. They are not there purely out of patriotism but in some ways are serving a higher end —altruism—because they are not fighting for the United Kingdom but for the United Nations. We should not let them down.
I understand that the necessary alteration will not cost the Government a great deal of money. The numbers of individuals involved is between 5 and 10. I have been worrying the Government for over a year now and so far have got nowhere. It is important that we should deal with this matter in respect of the disability living allowance and the severe disablement allowance. I trust that your Lordships will assist me in improving that aspect of the Bill as it goes through this House.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, other noble Lords have referred to the implications of the Bill across a wide variety of groups and cases which make up the spectrum of disability. I propose to concentrate my few remarks on people with HIV and AIDS. The question of additional costs not covered by the Bill —a point mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Banks—is of most concern to that group. The special requirements went by the board with the replacement of the old supplementary benefit system.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, in Standing Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Scott, referred scornfully to that system. He said that it would not be wise to return to the amazing complexities of the old supplementary benefit

891
additional requirements. He accused the Opposition of reinvention of all the complexities of the additional requirements system.
Let us admit that there were some complexities. But let us also acknowledge that the old system had the capacity to meet some very pressing needs which the present Bill does not recognise. With regard to complexities, it appears from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that a further 1,100 staff will be required to administer the scheme, so it looks as though some complexities are expected also under the new regime. In a field so sensitive and diverse that is bound to be the case.
Under the previous system for people living with AIDS the additional requirements could add up to an extra £40 or £50 a week. In a number of cases AIDS sufferers received over £30 a week for diet alone. Such patients require the intake of additional protein and calories over and above the norm merely to maintain body weight and combat symptoms such as anorexia, fatigue, dysphagia, diarrhoea, malabsorption and the side effects of drugs such as nausea and vomiting which are secondary to chemotherapy.
In 1991 a joint initiative by the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Bloomsbury Health Authority found that the mean weekly cost of a standardised high protein high calorie diet in London came to £42. That is very much in line with costings of dietary plans produced by other organisations for people with symptomatic HIV infection. The Department of Dietetics of the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle-upon-Tyne recommended for a person with AIDS living alone a diet which cost £32.75 at 1988 prices. In the same year the counselling clinic of the Clinical Department of Infectious Diseases of the Greater Glasgow Health Board costed its dietary plan at £30.44. Again, in 1988 the organisation Frontliners, which is a self-help group for people with advanced HIV infection, proposed a diet costing £34.20.
At this point I wish to take the Government to task for their misleading use of research done by MacDonald and Forsythe in the Children's Hospital in 1986, which came up with much lower dietary figures. Anita MacDonald, the senior researcher, has since repudiated the use made by the Government of her research, which was directed at low income families and children in particular and was costed at the very minimum for the subsistence of people with no ailments. She writes with regard to patients with HIV infection or AIDS—in fact I have here her letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Miss Anne Widdicombe—that that paper is not applicable. She goes on to say that such people may well require expensive nutritional drinks such as Complan and that their diet may well cost over 50 per cent. more than a normal healthy diet would cost. She writes:
"I therefore consider that the information in my paper has been inappropriately used by the DSS against the case made for additional dietary support for food for people with Aids and HIV infection".
A boosted diet is not the only special requirement for those people. As has already been mentioned,
892
heating is another item. Charities such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, Frontliners, Crusaid, ACET, Body Positive and the Monument Trust which operate hardship funds for people with symptomatic HIV frequently report that most grants are awarded for the payment of household bills which cannot otherwise be afforded. Predictably, unpaid heating bills crop up time and again.
If doctors are correct in advising people with HIV to maintain an adequate body temperature in order to maximise resistance to opportunistic infections, then the situation gives rise to considerable concern. Until April 1988, a weekly heating allowance worth up to £5.55 could be paid to people who could prove that they were housebound, or that they had a serious physical illness and required extra heat as a result, and/or that they were in accommodation which was extremely difficult to heat. However, since that date such help is not available.
Other problems such as drenching night sweats and incontinence obviously lead to extra bathing and laundering requirements. I shall not go into detail until Committee stage. But suffice it to say that people who are HIV symptomatic are often too weak to carry bed clothes to the launderette and find launderettes too expensive. Again, until April 1988, additional laundry costs incurred through ill health were met virtually in full, but now not at all.
I can give plenty of instances of case histories to support these assertions. However, I believe that it is more appropriate to reserve them for amendments at Committee stage. At Second Reading it is more useful to put what I have said in a broader context.
New AIDS cases are not only on the increase; people with AIDS, due to improved drug therapies, are living longer. Life expectation has increased from 10 to 20 months across the board. We are thus facing increasing numbers of people alive with AIDS at any one time and it is essential that they have the wherewithal to stay relatively well as long as possible outside hospital.
At the outset of the epidemic, people with AIDS spent much of their time in hospital. There has since been an encouraging movement towards longer spells in the community and shorter periods of hospitalisation—I have checked this fact with a number of doctors—due to improved medical treatment and techniques and a new emphasis on care at home rather than in an institution. It would be a thousand pities if this trend were to be reversed both in terms of quality of life for AIDS sufferers and NHS costs.
If the trend is reversed, it simply means that the Government will have to raise the earmarked funds for AIDS for the NHS faster than would otherwise be the case and more beds will be required, putting pressure on other hospital specialties. The present costs of AIDS in-patients per year is estimated by the Department of Health at £20,000. But those estimates are difficult to assess; I have had higher estimates of up to £30,000. The Department of Health estimate for

893
out-patients is only £2,000 NHS costs, plus £1,500 for local authority social services. The figures speak for themselves.
However, if people are to live a viable life in the community, they will undoubtedly need the support that they could receive under the previous system. Otherwise they will become ill and will be in-patients with the resource implications that that entails.
I am not one of those who is in favour of an endless proliferation of welfare benefits. These matters have to be considered carefully. However, it is an area in which it will be found that denying people the additional help that they need in special circumstances is not only inhumane but a false economy. I shall therefore support amendments at Committee stage —referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—designed to extend the scope of the Bill beyond attendance and mobility to cover additional costs.
I have one other concern of a slightly different nature. Clause 3 establishes a Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. Clause 4 activates Schedules 1 and 2. Schedule 1 introduces new adjudication arrangements for both disability living allowance and attendance allowance. Clause 5 appears to contemplate (although it is only permissive) the dissolution of the Attendance Allowance Board.
The Attendance Allowance Board has been working extremely well in one respect. That is in relation to the award of attendance allowance to the terminally ill without a six-month qualifying period —an initiative incorporated in the last Social Security Act which originated in your Lordships' House. I understand that applications have been processed in 10 to 14 days. That is highly satisfactory since speed is necessarily of the essence in such circumstances.
However, what will be the situation in the future? Is it the intention to scramble the two boards together? From the extremely lucid opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—I may have been a little remiss in not following him fully—I gathered that a purely advisory board will replace the present executive Attendance Allowance Board. Is that so? If so, are we not in danger of more sluggish procedures from the new bureaucracy of 1,100 civil servants, to whom reference is made in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, while they assess a large number of self-assessments? I agree that self-assessment is a great step forward. But it will introduce considerable complications.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to difficult decisions at the margins of entitlement. I believe that those were his words. I refer to them only to suggest that a great deal of work will pass through the new board. I do not wish the present smooth working of the Attendance Allowance Board in particular in relation to the terminally ill to be lost. I hope that he will be able to give me some assurances on that when he winds up the debate.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, disability can strike anyone at any time. It is random, unforeseen and shattering. My husband was diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis in 1983. By 1985 the disease had progressed sufficiently to stop his busy practice at the Bar. Five years ago we found ourselves facing a bleak future indeed. We had a modest mortgage in relation to our income and a modest overdraft. Those were debts which suddenly assumed monumental proportions. But we have been lucky; many are not. My husband now has a different career, mainly as a tribunal chairman. We have taken the decision to do as much as we can and as he becomes worse we find a way to keep him active and working.
The Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Working Allowance Bill is very much a step in the right direction. One of the perversities of becoming disabled is that at the very time when one's financial needs increase, one's ability to earn either reduces or disappears altogether. Not only does the disabled person have to bear the physical problems; his self-esteem and self worth take a huge knock. We live in a society which judges and measures the worth of a person by the amount of money that they can earn. To keep a disabled person working is probably the most important single factor in maintaining the quality of life for him and his family. It is dreadful to have to make a choice between working and not working if by working one has to take a drop in income.
I am sure that everyone will welcome the introduction of the disability working allowance. It will help many people who are currently receiving incapacity benefits to make a transition to work and many others who have had to give up full-time employment but may still manage some hours per week.
We ourselves had to go through many hoops to qualify for mobility and attendance allowances. There are two quite lengthy assessments by a doctor who is not known to the disabled person or his family. Disability is a very complex matter. Its effects cannot be judged by seeing someone once. There are good and bad days. There are even good and bad weeks. Even the weather has a serious effect. It is so much more logical that professionals caring for the disabled person should be the ones supporting a self-assessment by the disabled person himself.
I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee for three years. I cannot say that during that time I mastered the technicalities of social security. In fact I must confess that with each passing year I felt less able to understand the intricacies of the system. The only way in which I could make any judgment was by working out whether the effect on the claimant was good or bad. Applying the same yardstick to the Bill, I believe that the effect is wholly good.
In a letter to the Secretary of State the chairman of the advisory committee stated:
"the committee welcomes the improvements which you propose to make".

895
He went on to say that they were in line with the committee's report entitled Benefits for Disabled People, A Strategy for Change.
I am saddened by the fact that the Disability Alliance has disociated itself from the Bill because it believes that the provisions do not go far enough. There will always be more to be done in this field. We should treat the Bill as a step in the right direction and not as the end of the line. We need to maintain constant pressure and try to make improvements as and when it is possible.
My husband has been well served by the state. We have received a great deal of help and support from our doctor, the social services, occupational therapists and the district nurse. We could not have managed without that help. We have been grateful for the mobility and attendance allowances. Any improvement and simplification in them can only be welcomed.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to speak in particular about the disability working allowance which I find to be the most interesting concept. I am pleased to welcome the Bill; it is marvellous that the provision is included in it. Clause 6 contains the qualifying conditions. Clauses 6, 7 and 9 are clear and easy to follow. The best aspect is that the provision will top up people's earnings.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in saying that the time should come when means testing is abolished. That would be preferable because where someone is well off there could be a claw-back provision in the tax system for collecting surplus money. The effect would be the same and a great deal of time need not be spent on means testing.
I also welcome self-assessment but have a few words of caution. Statutory sick pay is based on self-assessment certificates. My experience of industrial tribunals shows that some are legitimate while others are not. People accept that fact because no payment is attached to such an assessment. In this instance most cases of self-assessment will be accurate and correct. However, there must always be a means of carrying out a spot check as is the case with medical prescriptions and dental treatment. One case out of many others is chosen for examination; in particular the prescribing patterns. If a doctor or dentist is giving support to a greater number of patients the case should be examined. It is to the benefit of the genuinely disabled that people are truthful when completing forms.
I draw a parallel with the orange badge scheme which was being dealt with when I first became a Member of this House. Almost one-third of the population were then driving with orange badges on their cars. Some people who really needed help from such a scheme were unable to obtain it because the benefit had been made too easily available to others. I thoroughly support the self-assessment provision but offer that word of caution.
I was also pleased to read that when introducing the Bill in the other place the Secretary of State said that claimants will still have the right to have a medical
896
examination if they prefer. That is important because although self-assessment is simple for many people someone used to the previous system may find the change difficult to accept. It is good that the option exists for people who wish to continue to see a doctor. I was less cheered by the Minister's comment that there will be a longer claim form. I had thought that the aim was to simplify the forms and to shorten them. In other debates in this House I have spoken of what is almost a book that one must complete in respect of dental service.
Another important provision is that under the scheme one will become qualified if one is able to claim a disadvantage in obtaining employment. That is excellent but there are visible and invisible handicaps. Some people suffer badly; for instance, those in the early stages of multiple sclerosis, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. Some of those people are abused when they take a seat on a bus because others think that they look young and fit. Such people can look well but suffer from a severe disability. The real Cinderella of handicaps is a disability in hearing. A person with hearing difficulties is greatly disadvantaged in his or her employment. More should be done to provide aids and to help people to obtain jobs. I support all those who say that it is marvellous for a person with any degree of handicap to have the satisfaction of doing a job and usually of doing it well. I have been most impressed by the people who I have seen and the work that they have done.
I wish to bring forward an amendment in respect of the two years' linking provision. It is marvellous that within two years one can claim one's previous right to assistance. However, in the case of an episodic type of condition, such as multiple sclerosis, people may be able to work for six months but then go through a bad episode and must return to claiming benefit. For people who have a genuinely defined case I should like to see that period become a rolling two years. Instead of the period being fixed from the original date of the claim it should run for two years from the previous remission or from when benefit was last claimed. I had the opportunity to ask the Minister in the other place about that matter. He said that he was not sure but believed that after two years one must claim again. I shall examine that issue and perhaps bring forward an amendment.
The advisory board is an excellent provision and I am pleased to note that it will contain members who have practical experience of the needs of disabled people, or someone who is himself disabled. I take that also to mean "herself" disabled. I am also pleased that there will be a right of appeal. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the board will cover the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. Although I hope and presume that it will, that is not clear. I support the Bill.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Carter said in opening the debate from these Benches, it is my intention to deal with the second part of the Bill, that is, the disability working allowance, he having dealt with the living allowance.

897
As the Minister said, the intention of the DWA is to provide an incentive for partially disabled people who are disadvantaged in the labour market to take employment. I believe that it is described as bridging the gap to employment. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that that is a laudable objective and one that we should welcome. However, the problem is that the Bill as drafted does not do what it claims to do.
All the organisations representing the disabled have been most critical of this section of the Bill. They point out that the qualifying rules are likely to exclude many potential claimants. The rules are complicated and, as we know, complications mean that people who may be able to claim benefit fail to make a claim. I am informed that the exclusions are such that the department's own projections do not foresee many people using the allowance. I believe that we have more than 3.1 million disabled people capable of working. That is the estimate made by some of the organisations representing disabled people. Yet the disability working allowance is at best projected to reach a maximum of 50,000 people. That is no answer to under-employment or non-employment of disabled people.
We shall table amendments in Committee to try to deal with some of the exclusions. First, as we have been told, claimants will have to be working for a minimum of 16 working hours per week. There is no rationale for that. It means excluding people with fluctuating conditions and those able to work perhaps only two days a week. We hope to be able to deal with that exclusion in Committee.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the benefit is means tested. Again, that is a recipe for ensuring that fewer people than might otherwise have benefited apply. The means test will take into account a partner's income and capital. Claimants with a working partner will be unlikely to qualify for the DWA. That will tend to exclude in particular married women claiming severe disablement allowance. Disabled people need to be treated as individuals rather than as appendages to partners.
The qualifying benefit routes—that is, receipt of invalidity benefit, SDA, or disability premia—will exclude disabled people who are not claiming those benefits or who simply prefer to sign on as available for work. For example, people who have impaired hearing or sight but who are not registered may be only partially capable of work but, as I understand it, will not qualify for the new DWA.
People who claim the disadvantage test must establish that they are disadvantaged in the pursuit of employment. Most of the organisations representing the disabled have expressed anxiety about that. The Spastics Society believes that there should not be a capacity test at all and that the disability alone should be sufficient to qualify. According to surveys it has carried out, employers are one-and-a-half times more likely to offer an interview to an able bodied applicant than to a disabled person. The society cites instances of disabled people who become very dispirited after
898
continually trying, without result, to secure employment. Again, we should like to explore that further in Committee.
The exclusions could create another poverty trap. As the Disability Alliance puts it:
"The low threshold levels and benefit levels combined with the steep 70 per cent. taper produce little real incentive to claim the DWA with a severe poverty trap for those who do. The 70 per cent. taper means that a claimant will only see 30p out of every pound earned over the threshold level".
The alliance believes that higher threshold levels and benefit levels relating to current average earnings and uprated in line with annual changes in earnings are essential if the DWA is sincerely intended to improve the earning capacity and financial position of disabled people. A lower taper rate is essential to prevent the emergence of a poverty trap.
As a number of noble Lords have said, there are other aspects with which the proposed new scheme does not deal adequately. The able bodied often fail to appreciate the extra costs incurred by the disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred to that in her moving speech. Jobs around the home which the able bodied can cope with are impossible for disabled people, who have to pay to have them done. Essential equipment—such as house adaptations—can be very expensive. The additional costs were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, whom I am very happy to see back with us. I value his expertise.
Disabled people should not be penalised for having a little capital, particularly when that capital may be their partner's. In some cases the capital may arise from lump sums awarded following industrial injury compensation claims and forthcoming only because the injuries were the result of the negligence of an employer or some other person. In our view it is wrong that those amounts should be taken into account. All the organisations caring for the disabled seem to indicate that the capital limit of £8,000 set by the Government is too low. To take the income and capital of a partner into account will reduce the amount of the DWA and, perhaps in a majority of cases, extinguish entitlement altogether.
It seems to us that the clauses of the Bill relating to the DWA need amending in order to meet the needs of disabled people who nevertheless wish to work and are capable of some work. We propose to address ourselves to those amendments when the Bill is in Committee.
Finally, the financial implications of the DWA are alleged to be neutral. The gross cost will be offset by reduction of other benefits. Therefore, this is not something extra; it is something for which other benefits will pay. We believe that there is a case for a genuine DWA and in Committee we shall work to ensure that we achieve that.
There is reference in the Bill to extra costs of £10 million which are being offset by tax gains of £20 million. If that is the case, it looks as though a profit of £10 million is being made. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention.
As other noble Lords have said, aspects of the Bill which we sincerely welcome are the provisions in regard to assessment and the appeals mechanism. We

899
believe that that has been sorted out in a reasonable and good way. The provisions have been widely welcomed.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to the social security spotlight on the Liberal Benches. It has been my privilege in discussing previous social security legislation to cross swords with my noble kinsman Lord Russell. It makes a welcome change on this occasion not to see him in his place.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I look forward to a very lively Committee stage. I am grateful for the notice which many noble Lords have given as to the various amendments which we can expect to see tabled.
I do not believe that it would be right and proper for me to answer every point that has been raised today. Those points should be dealt with in Committee. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if a great many points which have been raised in the debate are not answered. However, I shall try to deal with one or two of the matters raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, complained about the complexity of the DLA and said that there were 11 rates. I believe that he said that it was a merry-go-round. I remind the noble Lord that the procedures are a simplification. There is merely one claim pack for both mobility and care components as compared to the two separate forms which there are for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. There is only one medical examination, one notice of award, one order book, one application on renewal and merely one request for a view on deterioration to cover increased entitlement to both the care and mobility components.
A subject which has greatly exercised noble Lords is the argument that there is no help provided for extra costs other than the help for care and mobility. It is simply not true to say that the current benefits and the new disability living allowance cover only two out of the 13 different types of disability identified by the OPCS. Many more people under 65 receiving attendance allowance have needs relating to disabilities such as incontinence, intellectual functioning, consciousness, communication and behaviour rather than personal care. In the same way many of those under the age of 65 receiving mobility allowance have needs relating to disabilities connected with reaching and stretching, dexterity and personal care rather than merely locomotion.
The existing benefits are well targeted on people suffering from the greatest degree of disability and in most need of help. A large proportion of those in the high severity categories were shown to be in receipt of attendance allowance, and a similarly high percentage of those in the same categories under pension age were in receipt of mobility allowance. Care and mobility needs represent the common denominator between the most frequently occurring and the most expensive of the disability related costs which people incur; the more expensive disabilities were the least common.
900
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the special needs of people with AIDS. On this occasion I am sorry to appear repetitive. I must confirm what my right honourable friend the Minister said. We have a choice between a complex system which attempts to cater for every individual case with the result that no one quite knows to what he or she is entitled and opting for a simpler system with one claim form for one benefit giving help with the extra costs. The old system may have offered extra types of help; but it actually delivered that help to a smaller proportion of disabled people with extra costs. Our choice is the simpler system which has proved so successful since both attendance and mobility allowances were introduced.
I turn to the question of the severely mentally handicapped, a matter with which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—who no longer appears to be present—will be familiar. We had long arguments regarding numbers during the enactment of the Social Security Act 1989. I am sure that many noble Lords will remember them.
I accept that it is a difficult and complex issue. I stress that there is no lack of will on our part to resolve it. We have always said, and my right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People reiterated this in another place, that if we can isolate the 8,000 or 9,000 people in the group whom MENCAP is convinced are markedly more disabled than the others who will, as I mentioned in opening the debate, come into the lower rate, then we will happily do so. However, our differences over the figures are genuine. We accept in some measure that we have been talking at cross purposes. As my right honourable friend said in a detailed letter to all the Members of the Standing Committee in another place—which I shall make available to Members of this House if required to do so—we used the OPCS evidence to identify all those whose behaviour problems were so severe as to generate a need for guidance, supervision or control when walking. The figure is 150,000. We readily accept that it includes many with mental illness. There are also sizeable numbers with mental handicap.
We have not been convinced that previous amendments which sought to pinpoint in legislation the group identified by MENCAP succeeded in so doing. I make no criticism of those amendments; it is an extremely difficult task. It is an issue which we have many times attempted to resolve without producing a solution. However, my right honourable friend the Minister gave an assurance that we would take another look at the matter. We need to find a test capable of adjudication. I have to say that tests for benefit which rely on, for example, IQ tests, will not work. They move us in the opposite direction from the self-assessment system that we are very keen to promote.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I wish to see the position absolutely clearly. Is the Minister saying that the Government now accept the figure of 8,000 or 9,000, and that the only problem is one of words in finding a formula that defines that group clearly enough?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cited the figure of 8,000 or 9,000 given by MENCAP. The problem of words raised by the noble Lord is a very real one. If one does not have the right words one will not have merely 8,000 or 9,000; one will have a much greater figure. That is what I am attempting to say. If we could isolate the group identified by MENCAP—I stress that we must find a way of doing that—then we would be happy to do so. As I say, we shall come back to this point in Committee.
Lord Carter: My Lords, while we are on the point perhaps I can say that the Minister mentioned that if we were to find a scheme it would move away from self-assessment. However, severely disabled or mentally handicapped people will not be able to assess themselves for benefit.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, self-assessment procedure is designed not only for the individual concerned, but also for the carer who will fill in the forms. We shall return to the matter in Committee. I see little point in toing and froing at this moment. However, I do not wish to delude the House into believing that we shall be able to come forward with a solution other than to say that our minds are open. If there is a way of moving forward we shall be prepared to look again at the matter.
Perhaps I can make a brief comment on the question of the lower age limit for the mobility component being pitched at the age of five. I recognise that there will always be difficult decisions in social security systems regarding where we draw the line. I believe the original decision made by the Labour Government to draw the line at the age of five for mobility allowance makes sense. It is school age and the age at which children normally become less dependent upon their parents. Prior to that stage it is normal for children to be unable to go without their parents' help. Paying the mobility component to under-fives is an important matter and especially so when one is under pressure to raise the age limit to the over-65s, which is not the main claim on the existing or extra resources.
I turn to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Swinfen regarding SDA and the residents and presence test. As my noble friend said, he has drawn my attention and the attention of others to his anxieties regarding the test on various occasions. He will be aware that it is an issue which goes strictly beyond the ambit of the Bill. However, I understand his desire to raise the issue again. Today I am not able to give him a reply. However it is a matter to which we shall return at later stages in the Bill.
I turn to the question of the dissolution of the Attendance Allowance Board raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I confirm that the Attendance Allowance Board will be dissolved and all future decisions will be taken by adjudication officers. That proposal has been widely welcomed in response to the DLA consultation document which makes clear that the emphasis is not on the medical condition but on the effects of the condition.
I confirm also that we are committed to maintaining the clearance times of claims in relation to
902
the terminally ill. I welcome very much the words of the noble Lord in praising the Government for the speed with which we have been able to act. My noble friend Lady Gardner asked whether the replacement of the Attendance Allowance Board would cover also the disability working allowance. The simple answer is no. The board will be providing advice regarding the medical aspects associated with DLA and attendance allowance. It is unlikely that an adjudication officer will need similar advice on the disability working allowance.
I welcome the remarks, experience and expertise of my noble friend Lady Flather in speaking about the disability working allowance and giving her personal account of the problems that the disabled can face and the advantages that this allowance will bring. My noble friend said that she felt that after three years on the Social Security Advisory Committee she knew less possibly about the system than she did at the beginning. That can happen at times to all of us who are involved in the social security field. However, I am sure that my noble friend was being falsely modest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, complained about the low caseload for the disability working allowance. We have never argued that the DWA will provide the answer to all the problems of disabled people. We feel that it is an important step forward in removing the obstacle which has prevented many disabled people from opting to work. The 50,000 whom we expect to be getting the disability working allowance at any one time will find the new benefit provides them with a stepping-stone back into the labour market.
We made it clear in The Way Ahead that the disability working allowance is intended particularly to help people on incapacity benefits make the difficult transition back into work when they are ready to do so. In designing the benefit we have paid particular attention to meeting the needs of people who are just starting a job; for example, the payment of their disability working allowance very quickly if they are so entitled. The rules are intended to be as straightforward as possible so that people can work out for themselves whether they qualify. They are also designed to make the best use we can of the information we already have to avoid asking claimants for more. In effect, the qualifying benefit test is part of the test of disability for the disability working allowance.
We believe that this test provides strong enough evidence to avoid the need for claimants to undergo a medical examination as part of their disability working allowance claim. Such examinations can be an ordeal for the claimant and almost inevitably hold up the benefit claim. Removing the requirement to get one of the qualifying benefits—something which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, was proposing—would widen the scope of the disability working allowance so much that it would change entirely in character. The change would bring a very large number of people into the benefit and the cost might well be of the order of £200 million net of any other benefit changes.

903
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and others argued that the disability working allowance should not be means-tested and that we should use the tax system. I sympathise with my noble friend's sentiments. Obviously, in paying money to people who are in work we have to make a judgment about priorities. The disability working allowance will make a valuable contribution to removing an obstacle which prevented many disabled people from choosing to work.
I wish to make one brief comment about the longer claim form which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes complained about. As with everything in social security, we have to choose the lesser of two evils. If we make the claim form easy to read and simple to follow we cannot keep it short. I know that the House will be aware, as I have mentioned before, that the Department of Social Security, which I have the honour to represent, has on various occasions won awards from the Plain English Campaign for the clarity of its claim forms. In the case of new benefits we have already started testing the claim forms we propose with disabled people to make sure that they are, as termed, "user friendly".
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we should not hive a comprehensive disability income. The noble Lord promised that a future Labour government—should there ever be one —will bring that in. We know what that means. A vast amount of help already exists within the network of disability benefits which is well targeted on the groups whose needs it is designed to meet. The extra cost benefits announced in this Bill will by 1993–94 be going to five times as many people as were receiving them in 1978–79. We believe that it is far better to build on the success of the existing system than to create some byzantine new benefit in which claimants would have very little idea what they were applying for or how much they might get. That course, in respect of supplementary benefits, simply led to people not understanding what they could claim and not knowing whether they were getting all that they should. It is all very well giving people rights; it is far better to make sure that they have rights that they know how to exercise.
We are now building further on the enormous success of current benefits and targeting those people who do not at the moment get into benefit but whose incomes are likely to be lower as a result of their disabilities. That will put us into what 12 years ago would have been an unimaginable situation with more than five times as many people getting an extra cost benefit as there were then. We do not pretend that this Bill will be the last word on the provision for disabled people. We claim that it is a significant step forward and that along with the rest of The Way Ahead package it delivers substantial new help to many hundreds of thousands of disabled people. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Part-time and Temporary Employment: ECC Report
5.46 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Part-time and Temporary Employment [2nd Report, 1990–91, HL paper 7].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to thank the Members of Sub-Committee C for their help and co-operation in conducting this inquiry. In particular, I thank the clerk to the committee, Dr. Phillipa Tudor, for her invaluable assistance both in the drafting of the report and in guiding the committee through the complications of the three directives involved. I also thank the Government for their help during the course of the inquiry and for their considerable response. The noble Viscount has had the response to my Written Question placed in the Library for the information of your Lordships. I hope that it has been of assistance to those intending to take part in this debate today.
Before dealing with the substance of the report, I first refer to the difficulty encountered by the committee relating to the Commission's timetable which is given on page 22, paragraph 94 of the report. It is also referred to in the Government's response. Following the Commission's adoption of the social charter and the publishing of the action programme, Sub-Committee C had been anticipating the arrival of the draft directives as it was expected that they would appear on the agenda of the Council of Ministers before the end of 1990.
The three draft directives were adopted by the Commission on 29th June 1990, which was somewhat later than expected, but the official English text was not published until 28th August. The draft directives, together with the Government's explanatory memorandum, were not available until 25th September when the House was still in recess, giving the sub-committee very little time in which to inquire into a subject of such importance.
The committee is of the opinion that if there is to be proper parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation then adequate time must be built into the Commission's programme. If the committee was unfair to the Department of Employment in expressing its concern at the delay I apologise to the Minister and, through him, to the department. The three draft directives are on non-standard or atypical work. These were among the first of the social action proposals to be published by the Commission.
The first draft directive contains a large number of proposals governing the working conditions of part-time and temporary workers in the European Community. Its provisions exclude those who work on average fewer than eight hours a week, but cover other part-time workers, temporary staff, including people working via employment agencies, those on fixed-term contracts and unseasonal workers. Part-time and temporary workers employed for eight hours

905
or more a week would be entitled to vocational training and social services, including benefits in cash and kind, on a pro rata basis.
The second draft directive requires member states to ensure that part-time employees have the same entitlements to social security, annual holidays, dismissal allowances and seniority allowances as full-time employees in proportion to the total hours worked. It also places restrictions on temporary employment contracts.
The third draft directive aims to ensure that temporary workers enjoy the same general level of health and safety protection as other workers in the place where the temporary workers work. Temporary workers should be banned from work requiring special medical supervision over a long period, except for exceptional cases.
These draft directives should be seen in the light of changing employment patterns and of demographic factors within the countries of the Community. This is outlined in Part 2 of the report on pages 9 to 11. The tables on page 9 are taken from an EC labour force sample survey quoted in Commission Document 8072/90. Table 1 indicates that in 1988 part-time employees accounted for 22.8 per cent. of all employees in the UK, though Mr. Forth, the Minister appearing before the committee, put the figure at 19 per cent. This would appear to be confirmed in the memorandum from the Department of Employment which indicated that there are some 5.5 million part-time and temporary workers in the United Kingdom, representing 25 per cent. of the total number of employees. Of the part-time employees, 89 per cent. are women and of the temporary employees 63 per cent. are women. So these directives are very much about women.
The United Kingdom has for some years had one of the highest percentages of part-time employees in Europe, a position it now shares with the Netherlands and Denmark. Other European countries have not had these same high percentages. But as table 2 indicates, the growth rate of part-time employment between 1983 and 1988 has been higher in the majority of member countries than in the UK itself. On the other hand, the UK has the third lowest percentage of temporary employees, whereas Spain, Portugal and Greece have very high percentages. Because of this substantial proportion of part-time and temporary employees in most member states—a proportion set to increase under demographic pressures—the committee was not enamoured of the terms "atypical" and "non-standard" used by the Commission. Your Lordships will note that the report stresses that "non-standard" employees are not "sub-standard" employees but are a large and vitally important sector of the workforce.
Of the three draft directives, the third, aiming to ensure that temporary workers receive the same health and safety protection as full-time employees, is the least controversial. In the UK this provision already exists but the committee had evidence that in some other countries there is a higher incidence of failure to protect temporary workers than full-time employees.
906
With the exception of one or two minor points, the Government appear to have little difficulty with this directive and the committee agrees with the Government's reservations. Subject to that, we recommend the adoption of this directive.
The other two directives are much more controversial, as the evidence indicates. The Government take the view shared by most employer organisations that the cost of implementing the directives would deter employers from taking on part-time and temporary workers and would therefore work against the interests of those whom the directives are intended to help most; namely, married women and the disabled. The Equal Opportunities Commission and other organisations do not share that view. Nor is the committee convinced that the directives would have a significant effect on employment opportunities. The committee considers that general economic conditions are likely to have a far greater effect than the current draft directives on the employment of part-time and temporary workers.
The committee agrees with much of the evidence about the vagueness of the Commission's definition and is strongly of the view that the draft directives fail to distinguish clearly between the different categories of non-standard workers. The committee believes that a clear distinction should be made between the employment protection needs of part-time workers, who are employed on a regular basis, and temporary workers. While it is desirable in the view of the committee that relevant social benefits should, so far as is possible, be provided to all workers on a pro rata basis, the committee accepts that this may not be possible in all cases. The ultimate aim must be to provide fair employment conditions for all workers throughout the Community. Therefore, the committee supports the Commission's proposals to extend employment protection to part-time workers. Part-time workers should enjoy access to state and occupational pension schemes and should have pro rata entitlements to annual holidays, redundancy pay and seniority allowances.
On training, the committee agrees that both part-time and temporary workers should have access to vocational training, with the caveat, which the Commission itself recognised, that the duration of the work and the nature of the tasks involved would need to be taken into account. Many of the other provisions which, in the view of the committee, come under the heading of good practice could not be objected to in principle.
I regret that the Government's response makes it clear that they still do not share the committee's view. The committee recognises that some increase in cost will be involved and that there might be difficulty for some small and medium size businesses. But the committee did not find convincing some of the estimates supplied by government and by some companies. In a supplementary memorandum on pages 33 to 45, the Government provide a breakdown of their costings. It is a very comprehensive breakdown. Incidentally, the memorandum covers five directives, two of which, although they were

907
referred to in the evidence to the committee, are not covered by this report; that is, the directives on working time and on the protection of pregnant women.
The committee is not challenging the Government's figures on the basis of their assumptions, though these are strongly contested by the TUC evidence in the supplementary memorandum on page 53. The committee is instead suggesting that other considerations which were put to it in evidence should also be taken into account. Those considerations include the following. First, it should be possible to restructure the national insurance scheme in such a way that both hours of work and earnings would be covered. Such a combination would ensure the continued contributions from high earners based on only a few hours of work. As regards the low earners, contributions could either be credited or the sliding scale adjusted to start at the very low threshold. Those views were put not only by supporters of the directives but also by some opponents.
Secondly, if part-timers were treated in the same way as full-time workers they could become a more stable element in the labour force, leading to compensating economies in staff turnover. We are all aware of the high cost of recruitment and training of new employees which employers have to face. It would also help women to build part-time work into their life career structure.
Thirdly, part-timers can often be more productive than full-time workers. At paragraph 2.7 on page 2 of the evidence the EOC gives interesting information on that aspect. Fourthly, an increasing number of companies are providing pro rata benefits for part-time workers, apparently without reducing their competitiveness.
Fifthly, domestic law is continually being challenged—often successfully—under European equality legislation. At paragraph 93 on page 22 of the report the committee expressed the view that,
"progress through the uncertain development of case law can never be as satisfactory as comprehensive legislation".
The committee agrees with the legal bases chosen by the Commission for the first and third directives. However, it considers that the second directive relates to the rights and interests of employed persons and cannot therefore properly be based on Article 100A. The committee considered that the legal basis should be Article 100. Unlike the Government, the committee believes that the Council not only has the competence but that it also has the duty to legislate in that area.
The Commission originally requested the Council of Ministers to take a decision on the first proposal and to adopt its common position on the second and third proposals before the end of the year—that is, 1990—but in the event that did not happen. The Council of Ministers held a preliminary discussion on the proposals on 26th November when objections were raised by a number of member states. Several member states disagreed with the treaty base chosen by the Commission for the second directive, which allows qualified majority voting. The Commission has subsequently published minor amendments to its proposals, but these have not yet been adopted.
908
Therefore, the subject covered by the three draft directives is still open to debate and consultation. I hope that today's debate on the report will make a constructive contribution to that process. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Part-time and Temporary Employment [2nd Report, 1990–91, HL paper 7].—(Baroness Lockwood.)
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the clear way in which she introduced the report. I was not a member of Sub-Committee C at the time it conducted the inquiry but from these Benches I am happy generally to support its findings. Until I read the background information given in Part 2 of the report, I had not fully appreciated the extent to which part-time and temporary employees now form so large a part—about one quarter—of the employed workforce; nor, for that matter, had I realised that in the case of those employed on a part-time basis as many as 90 per cent. are women.
As the report indicates, the incidence of part-time working is likely to grow further in the 1990s as a result of demographic changes which will bring a decline in the number of school-leavers. Therefore, employers will be increasingly obliged to retain, or attract back to work, people who have retired, or parents—again, mostly women —who will wish to work on a part-time basis.
There is also evidence to suggest that there will continue to be an increase in the number of employees who have more than one job. That will apply especially to people who have skills that are in short supply. I understand that there are already about 1 million people who have two or more jobs. The basic question posed by the draft directives is how far part-time and temporary workers should receive pro rata equality of treatment with other workers. Except in a few instances—for example, in the case of promotion opportunities—I believe that part-time workers should be so treated.
Supervision is a special case. It demands a degree of commitment that most part-timers are not in a position to offer. On the other hand, increasing use of part-time employees will mean that in some cases the pool of full-time staff from which promotions can be made may reduce to the point where making supervisory posts part-time will have to be considered, perhaps by the system of job sharing. I understand that there is already an example of this in London. It appears that two women are joint general managers of a community health unit controlling a budget of £15 million. It is possible that such examples will increase to the extent that, even in the case of supervisory posts, basic equality of treatment between full-timers and part-timers will prove to be realistic.
Justification for the view that part-timers should, in general, receive the same rewards and benefits on a pro rata basis as full-time employees was perhaps best summed up by the Institute of Personnel Management

909
in its written evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment nearly two years ago. The institute stated:
"Good personnel practice is, in our view, indivisible. If it is felt that employees need a level of legal rights and protections, then it does not appear logical to argue that these rights and protections should be restricted only to those who work above an arbitrary number of hours per week. The complexities of working arrangements nowadays do not allow for such simplistic rules".
For at least the past 10 years, my noble friend Lady Seear and I have constantly argued that case, especially when debating the Government's approach to legislation affecting employment protection.
It is true that many of the more obvious discriminations against part-timers have been removed as a result of case law deriving from the Sex Discrimination Act; but that is not an altogether satisfactory way in which to achieve equality of treatment between full and part-timers as it has clearly not been planned or structured for that purpose. What are the arguments against taking further steps in that direction? The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has already referred to them in general terms and to the committee's response, but perhaps I may be allowed to add to what she has said.
In their evidence to Sub-committee C the Government expressed concern about the additional cost to employers of implementing the draft directives in the employment sectors most involved. The committee recognised the fact that some increase in cost could occur but was not convinced of the accuracy of the sum on the evidence supplied to it. The Government's estimates were based upon the assumption that there would be no change in the system of national insurance contributions, but the committee took the view that that system had been changed in the past and could, if necessary, be changed again.
The CBI said that the additional costs involved in providing pro rata terms and conditions would make part-time workers less attractive to some employers. The Government also believed that implementation of the directives would reduce total employment opportunities. However, the CBI acknowledged that many companies already applied pro rata terms to part-timers. I share the view expressed by the committee that general economic conditions are likely to have a greater effect than the directives upon the employment of part-time workers.
In evidence to the committee much was made of a survey of women currently outside the labour market because of their family responsibilities. Of those who said that they would like to return to work at some time within the next five years, up to 80 per cent. are said to have expressed a preference for some form of part-time work. It is therefore claimed that there is no need for legislation to improve their conditions. I take the contrary view: demographic trends and the need for organisational flexibility suggest that the overall effect of implementing the directives would not
910
significantly change recruitment policy for part-time and temporary staff, the use of whom should be encouraged as a response to labour shortages.
There is one important proviso I should like to make about the advisability of introducing European Community legislation to regulate the employment of part-time and, to some extent, temporary employees. I sought to stress that point in our recent debate on health and safety at work. In my view, it applies equally to the draft directives: it is that existing legislation should concentrate on setting broad objectives rather than presenting detailed regulations, thus avoiding the creation of unnecessary obstacles to the development of those forms of employment.
I should now like to deal with a specific matter arising out of the report: vocational training, a subject your Lordships debated only recently. Like the committee, I agree with the proposals that part-time and temporary employees should have access to vocational training on the same basis as full-time employees, account being taken of the duration of the work and the nature of the tasks to be carried out. From these Benches, we have long argued that expenditure on training should be regarded as an essential long-term investment on which the so-called skills revolution vitally depends. Here is a glorious opportunity to expand the field in which training can be given, and we cannot afford to ignore it.
The means of achieving that aim are already available in the shape of TECs. There must be a strong case for earmarking a certain proportion of the funds available to them for training part-time staff. Such an approach might evoke more interest in the training of part-timers, especially for the large numbers of companies not making sufficient provision to enable part-timers to function as effectively as they could. The report puts the point well when it says:
"In the case of part-time employees vocational training is an essential investment as it may provide a means of low-paid employees in low-grade jobs reaching their full potential".
In that connection, I was much struck by an article in last year's annual review of St. George's House, Windsor, a place for which I have great respect, written by Mr. Peter Ashby, its employment studies fellow. He wrote:
"Training, just like education, is concerned with the growth and development of the individual, and the capacity of the individual to contribute more to society, and to gain more in return through a fuller sense of contribution. Self-betterment, enhanced capacity to give and to grow—these are what training is about".
On the draft directive concerning the safety and health at work of temporary employees, I have little to add to what I said a few weeks ago in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The committee agreed with the principle that temporary employees should have the same health and safety protection as full-time employees. As the report says:
"It should be unthinkable for any employer not to exercise due care over the health and safety of any employee, whether they are employed for a single day or 40 years".
Further legislation in that field may well be unnecessary in the United Kingdom, but evidence of inadequate provision in other member states surely justifies the draft directive. It is gratifying to know that our Secretary of State has now joined his opposite

911
numbers in the Community in reaching a common position upon it. I hope that European employment Ministers will in due course reach a similar consensus on other proposals coming forward under the Social Charter Action Programme.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has clearly outlined the case in her report to us. She did that with the same skill as that with which she controlled a large and individually minded committee. At first sight, the medical aspects of the issue appear straightforward. There is clear agreement that all part-time and temporary workers should have the same health and safety protection as full-time employees. There is a temptation which we deplore, acceded to in some member states, to provide inadequate health and safety provision for temporary employees.
We also agree that full information should be made available to all employees, and that temporary workers should not be employed on work requiring special medical supervision. However the evidence we received as to what is damaging to health varied substantially. Some of those giving evidence were worried that occupational stress syndrome was a health hazard, not fully covered by the normal responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. They also suggested that health could be damaged by the sick building syndrome.
Mr. Donald McIntosh, the head of a leading firm of insurance lawyers, recently predicted a rapid growth of claims through work-related injuries in the next five years. The key to this is the importance of employers giving all employees full information of known risks arising from their work.
A suppressed warning to British Rail about the danger of deafness made it easy for thousands who brought claims against the company when that matter emerged through litigation. The hearing loss could have been avoided by providing protection costing one shilling and threepence per person in 1951 when that warning was suppressed.
Company doctors have an important role. It is urged that there should be a change in the law to encourage the disclosure of health and safety information and to protect company doctors against dismissal and damages if they make a disclosure in the public interest.
How does one spread this real life situation? How does one spread this message through the Community? Much of it is concerned simply with good practice. And how can this be applied to part-time or temporary workers?
We have made the important distinction that temporary workers should not be used in certain types of work. What should the training opportunities be? My view is that the case has become clearer as our investigations have proceeded. There may be occasions when every facility, including training,
912
should be available to temporary workers, and I have no doubt that those capable and willing to do part-time work should have priority.
Much has been said in the report and by speakers in this and in an earlier debate about the future of part-time employees. Of prime importance is the orientation courses for people such as married women wishing to return to work. One must spell out to them the opportunities before training so that they have some idea of what is offered and of the skilled part-time jobs which are suitable and which can be fitted in with other responsibilities. A proper use of women returning to part-time work could fill a substantial shortage in some posts in the future.
There is a further point which has nothing to do with today's debate and is not suitable for discussion today. But I wonder whether during a recession skilled staff could be used on a part-time basis to train others, thereby increasing skilled full-time staff for when the recession is over. That might be a matter for consideration in the future.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Lockwood for her comprehensive description of the report that we are discussing tonight. This subject is a difficult and complicated one to put over, and she did it extremely well. I should also like to thank her for her chairing of the committee.
I wish to concentrate on one aspect, but to my mind it is a very important one—that is, the question of equal opportunities. That means equal opportunities for men, women and the disabled, but I shall focus on women.
Of the total workforce in the United Kingdom of over 27 million, 19 per cent. work part-time, and 89 per cent. of those working part-time are women. Eight per cent. of part-timers are disabled, and of those, 6.9 per cent. are women. Half a million women work for less than eight hours a week, 1½ million for between eight and 15 hours, and 81 million for over 16 hours. Those figures justify paying particular attention to the position of women. It is expected that any increase in the labour force in the 1990s will be largely accounted for by more women in the 25 to 40 year-old age group. By the year 2000 it is estimated that women will represent 47 per cent. of the workforce. I hope that that sets the scene.
There was considerable discussion in the course of our inquiry about whether increasing the rights of part-time workers as proposed in the directives would prevent or discourage employers from using part-timers. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Low Pay Unit were firm in discounting that suggestion, saying that similar arguments had been used when other Acts—for instance, the Equal Pay Act—had been implemented, and had been proved to be without foundation. As I have just said, the increase predicted in the numbers of women in the workforce by the year 2000 would also seem to disprove that possibility. Women are needed, and they want to work.

913
In its evidence to us, the TUC referred to a study commissioned for the Department of Employment in 1988 in which fewer than 1 per cent. of employers gave as a reason for employing part-timers the fact that they had fewer rights. In general, employers liked the flexibility that part-time staff gave them.
The TUC believed that there was no correlation between levels of employment protection for part-time workers and levels of unemployment among women workers. In Germany, Portugal, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom female unemployment is at a low level compared with other member states. As each of those four states has different levels of employment protection, it is difficult to sustain the argument that employment protection is directly linked to female unemployment, though I realise that the Government cite France as an exception here. The popularity of part-time work for women was confirmed by a Gallup survey for the CBI in 1988, when 400 women not working were interviewed. Of those who wanted to return to work some time in the next five years, over 80 per cent. wanted part-time work.
The EOC accepted that, while many women preferred to stay at home to look after their young children, there were many who did not. The Women at Work survey showed that a quarter of mothers at home with young children cited lack of available child care as the main reason for their not returning to work. A lack of child care for the under-fives, but more particularly for the five to 13 year-olds out of school hours, forces millions of women to work part-time when they return to work.
In answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who asked where we stood in the European league as regards child care facilities—were we bottom, below standard or average?—Mrs. Byrne White of the EOC said, "A quick answer is that we are at the bottom of the league, along with Ireland". That is nothing to be particularly proud of.
About 50 per cent. of women in employment in the United Kingdom who have become pregnant are not eligible for maternity leave as of right; nor do they have the right to return to their jobs after pregnancy. The result is that many women drop out of employment for some time and are forced to work part-time on their return even if they would have preferred to work full-time.
Another problem is the need to look after elderly relatives. This usually means reducing from full-time to part-time work. The EOC had had complaints from men who wished to do so but whose requests had been refused by employers. Increased status, pay and protection for part-timers is likely to have the effect that adults of both sexes may choose to work part-time at different stages of the family cycle.
The committee recognises that there are examples of good practice among employers, but these are not general. It is unlikely that good practice will increase or improve while terms and conditions remain a matter of negotiation between employer and employee. Legislation is necessary.
914
The EOC believes that improvement in the pay, employment entitlements and status of part-time work can have a powerful impact on equality of opportunity in the 1990s and beyond, and that failure to provide it will exacerbate future problems of female dependency and poverty in old age.
I hope that the case is made that women are a necessary part of the workforce and that to give them greater rights of protection in employment will neither lessen their opportunities nor discourage employers from recruiting them, as the Government and the CBI seem to fear. The Government made a good deal of this in their response to our report, and today I received correspondence from the Institute of Directors and the British Chamber of Commerce, which are clearly worried and are pressing their point of view. I suggest that economic conditions are likely to have a far greater effect than the directive we are discussing.
I have not yet mentioned vocational training, but others have dealt with it. The right of access to this training should be available to part-time workers, as it is or should be for permanent employees. In our previous report on vocational training, we emphasised the need for a much more skilled workforce. There is no reason why there should not be part-time training opportunities for those preparing for or returning to work, as distinct from those actually in work. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, made that point.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us in his reply that the TECs can take on this new responsibility, making opportunities much more available and better than at the moment. The Department of Employment research showed that 6 million women of working age are not in employment. Two million are in full-time education, but that still leaves 4 million not in work; 1 million of them have A-levels or a degree level qualification. What an opportunity is being lost if we do not make use of these able people, who could easily be trained if the right training were made available.
In paragraph 93 of the section on the opinion of the committee, we make the point that, although European Court decisions have began to influence the elimination of discrimination,
"they can act only where there is an element of sex discrimination in the adverse treatment of part-time or temporary workers and progress through the uncertain development of case law can never be as satisfactory as comprehensive legislation".
I hope that the Government will be willing to bring forward the necessary legislation. It seems to me to be rather humiliating so often to be found at fault by the European Court, as has happened.
The evidence we produced is overwhelming. As part-time workers employed for less than 16 hours a week receive no job protection for the first five years during which they are employed, they are effectively of the same status as temporary employees. They, and their colleagues who work more than 16 hours, are considered peripheral to the workforce. The EOC believes that their contribution is in most, if not all, cases integral to the work performed by full-time workers and should be protected on the same basis. It

915
is only fair to say that some companies, especially in banking, finance, and retail industries, offer all benefits on a pro rata basis.
I wish to touch on one other aspect: promotion for those working part-time. There is plenty of evidence that differences in treatment between part-time and full-time workers create artificial rigidities in employment, discouraging the development of part-time work opportunities in the higher status and better paid jobs. It is generally accepted that there are far too few women obtaining top jobs in the professions, in the academic world, in law, in business, in the Civil Service, in Parliament.
The Hansard Society commissioned an investigation into the barriers women face in public life called Women at the Top. It was published in January last year. The commission was chaired by Lady Howe and had a distinguished membership. It made a number of excellent recommendations. The report makes the point that 80 per cent. of new workers in the next five years will be women, most of whom will have family responsibilities. This, it says, may mean that the best man for the job in the 1990s may well be a woman. However, the Hansard Society states that unless existing barriers are dismantled, women will continue to be denied access to positions of influence and authority. To achieve promotion to senior jobs, women too often have to be better than the men. Work, especially at senior levels, is often organised on the unquestioned assumption that it can only be done full time. This disqualifies many women. For some jobs, full-time work is necessary, but many jobs at senior level could perfectly well be shared or part-time, given sufficient imagination and flexibility on the part of management. The Hansard Society's report points out that men in senior positions are often part-time workers when they combine their main job with another activity such as serving on boards, commissions and tribunals.
I hope that the Government have taken note of the Hansard Society's report and that its findings will encourage them to legislate so that we comply with the directives we discuss in our report. There can be no doubt that better conditions of work for part-timers, together with far better child care facilities, could markedly increase and encourage the availability of women and, with the training they should receive, make them an even more useful addition to the workforce than they are now, as well as opening far greater opportunities to them.
I hope that the built-in prejudices preventing women from reaching the top will, with time and education, evaporate. The Government could, of course, improve matters quickly here in the House of Lords, where there are only 75 women in the total of 1,115 Peers.
6.35 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her skill and kindness as chairman of the sub-committee and for the clarity with which she explained the report. I also wish to thank her for her kindness in answering my many questions outside the committee. Of course I agree with the substance of the report and its findings on
916
part-time and temporary employment, especially the commission's proposals to extend the employment protection afforded to part-time workers.
I should like to take up one point which should be brought to your Lordships' special attention. On page 75 of the written evidence, the Institute of Directors brought up the fact that increasingly employees are requesting to work on a part-time and temporary basis because it suits their abilities and circumstances. This is not only for the personal circumstances of women but for the disabled of both sexes. When we mention the disabled, we speak of persons who have a basket of disabilities and abilities and who can benefit the community as well as themselves. However, for one reason or another they are not able to engage in full employment. Some in this group may need additional support in the workplace. They should be allowed to contribute their skills and abilities and receive an appropriate wage for the work.
It seems to me that clear distinctions should be drawn between the two following categories of women who need part-time employment: women with older children, especially during the school holidays, and those who have elderly or disabled persons to look after. For these categories, part-time or temporary employment can be very necessary. It is interesting to note that the Commission is conscious of the needs of disabled people, as shown by its report of 15th December 1988: Report on the Employment of Disabled People in the Community. It gives percentages and I quote some. In Germany 6 per cent. are employed where there is a minimum of 15 employees; in Greece, it is 3 per cent.; in France 6 per cent. in 1991 where there are 20 employees or more; in the United Kingdom it is 3 per cent. where there are 20 or more employees. This is in both the private and the public sectors.
RADAR and other organisations for disabled people would like to see the principle of the levy system as used in Germany introduced into this country. It would be a more effective method of enforcing our quota system. The levy system is an automatic fine where employers fail to fulfil their quota obligations. However, that is where individuals are available to fill the quota.
I have spoken of the disabled and we cannot afford to deny ourselves the contribution they can make as part-timers, nor can we deny to them the opportunities for work which they desire.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I speak as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee and therefore from the Back-Benches in accordance with what I believe to be the traditions of the House. I also wish to thank our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the clarity with which she introduced the report and for the kindness and consideration she showed in chairing our often quite difficult sessions. I commend our report to your Lordships. As will be seen, we did not have an easy remit. We did not think that we had been allowed sufficient time to do justice to the subject because of the programme that was

917
imposed upon us. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has referred to that fact. Nevertheless, I do not believe that had we been able to see more witnesses and spend more time looking at evidence our conclusions would have been very much different.
To begin with we experienced a problem in relation to the terms of the three directives which seek to apply the same conditions to both temporary and part-time employees. The draft directive excludes those who work less than an average of eight hours a week but includes all other part-time and temporary staff, including seasonal workers and those on short-term contracts. That situation presented us with a difficulty.
Whereas it seemed to us quite sensible to apply pro rata the same conditions for part-time staff, who are employed on a continuous basis, as for full-time staff, we felt that problems would arise in the case of seasonal workers; for instance, people undertaking work in the holidays or in the absence of full-time staff or students doing fill-in jobs. They are in an entirely different category. The same situation applies to people on short-term contracts, although it must be said that the committee recognised that there was a need to ensure that such people are not exploited. It seems wrong, for example, that people can be employed on short-term contracts which exclude them from normal employee protection, particularly since such contracts when renewed over a period of time can result in people working continuously for the same employer over a period of years. The committee felt that it was not reasonable or helpful to lump all such types of employment together, as the directives do. For example, it would be difficult to include some temporary workers, seasonal workers or students doing fill-in work, in occupational pension schemes. That would be a result of the unamended provisions of the draft directives.
We have made it clear that those categories of employees should be separately dealt with, except in regard to health and safety where we say that the employer has a duty to ensure adequate protection for all employees, however employed. I think that the Government probably agree with that.
In relation to part-time employees we came to conclusions that are broadly in support of the directive. It has been stated that we have a higher proportion of part-time employees in the UK than in many other member states of the Community. It has been held, particularly by the Government, that that indicates that women often prefer to work part-time and would not take full-time work even if it were available. That may be true in some cases. But it cannot be overlooked that in the United Kingdom there is a much lower level of child care provision than in many other countries. The Equal Opportunities Commission believes that if better child care arrangements were available, more women might wish to work full time. As it is, the only employment available is often part-time work which all too frequently is of low status and low paid.
At the same time the flexibility offered by part-time employment is of value to many employers. In a number of industries, notably retailing, there has been
918
a large expansion of part-time employment. I spoke recently to the chief executive of a large retailing consortium. He told me that a substantial part of his workforce now consists of part-timers and that they are almost all women. Incidentally, he had no problem in arranging for his part-timers to have pro rata employee benefits.
During the examination of witnesses I asked the CBI why part-time employment was popular with many employers. Was it, I asked, because such workers were cheaper? The answer was that they could be said to be cheaper in some regard. The main reason, however, was the flexibility that such employment provided for employers.
As will be seen from our report, the Government, according to the evidence that we heard, are not in favour of the directives even if they are limited to regular part-time employees. The reason given for that view was the one advanced during discussion of the social charter: more regulation in the field of employment will result in fewer jobs, and the Government's priority is job creation. That argument did not find a great deal of favour with the committee. Some of us were prompted to ask whether the kind of job mattered. Did we wish to condone the creation of sweat shops? Should there be minimum standards to protect the exploitation of the poor and the vulnerable? We did not think that the Government had proved their case since other countries, Sweden in particular, have not found that regulations to protect employees inhibit job creation.
I remind your Lordships that the Government have no qualms about imposing burdens upon employers when it suits their purposes. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill, recently before your Lordships, which was opposed on all sides, is evidence of that fact. However, when it comes to some minimal protection for employees, it is apparently a different story.
The draft directive does not entail a great deal; it simply states that employee benefits should be provided on a pro rata basis to part-time employees. That would entail access to occupational pension schemes. However, that is virtually a requirement in any event, particularly in the light of recent European court decisions. As the Trades Union Congress stated to us in its evidence, it may be necessary for there to be some adjustment with regard to national insurance provisions and contributions. However, the regulations are not written in stone and have been amended in the past. In our view they could be amended again.
The proposals concerning training opportunities should be supported. Many women return to the workforce after a break for child caring and do so on a part-time basis. They would welcome the opportunity to train for more skilled work, thus enabling them to be appointed to skilled full-time work when circumstances permit. Many good employers are already doing what the draft directive proposes for part-time employees.
In recent years the unions have developed policies that are designed to recruit and look after members who work part time. My own union has a system of reduced contribution rates and actively pursues

919
interests on behalf of part-time members. However, there are many industries and services where there is little trade union organisation and where there are bad employers who will not take such steps unless compelled to do so by legislative requirements. There is an obligation to ensure that employees in such circumstances have minimal protection against exploitation.
For those reasons I believe that the report that we have produced is worthy of support. I hope that on reflection the Government will accept it and proceed accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that I was not present to hear her opening speech because your Lordships appear to have galloped through the earlier business of the day.
I was proud to be a member of the committee and to be responsible for the report, although I do not entirely agree with its findings. I disagree even more with some of the views that have been expressed by noble Lords.
It appears to me that the Commission's proposals are curiously angled to ignore the specific situations that exist in this country. As I have the privilege of sitting on sub-committees, it seems to me more and more that the UK interest is not adequately represented at officer level in the Commission. Perhaps the Government can consider providing more or higher grade officers who can be seconded to the Commission so that the point of view which is relevant to the economy and to the problems of this country can be better digested and discussed before proposals come into print and into public review.
The most important criticism of the proposals that I should like to put forward relates to the fact that it is essential to treat part-time and temporary employment as quite different subjects. The attitude which prevails in the report is that in some curious way full-time employment is normal, good, virtuous and moral and that part-time and temporary employment are irregular, wrong and bad. I reject that proposition. I believe that the flexibility that is given by part-time and temporary employment is essential in our labour economy today. For example, flexi-time has become more and more popular in industrial production. In paragraph A6 of its evidence the Department of Employment stated that:
"A recent survey showed that the great majority of part-time workers preferred part-time work to full-time work; and that only 7 per cent worked part-time because they could not find full-time jobs".
I should like to give a practical example. I am privileged to be a director of a company which provides short-break holidays in holiday villages. Our guests arrive on Mondays and Fridays. Therefore, on those days we have a requirement for a substantial number of cleaners. These people dress in smart tracksuits and clean the villas to a very high standard. One of the villages concerned is located in an area of very high employment and I do not believe that our
920
staff could not find full-time employment if they wanted it. Provided they are well looked after—and in this case they are—it suits people to work part-time.
I suggest that we should cast out the rather outmoded perceptions that full-time employment is somehow good and part-time employment is somehow bad. As the report emphasised, we should not equate non-standard working conditions with substandard working conditions.
I should like to suggest one or two examples of the wide variety of situations which exist in part-time work and in temporary work. I share the Government's view that these matters will become fossilised if they become the subject of legislation. In the case of part-time workers there are regular part-time workers—people like the ladies and gentlemen I described, who work every Monday and Friday but only on those days. I call those regular part-time workers. There are also casual part-time workers. This afternoon I met a bricklayer who will turn out when the weather is nice but, because he is a pensioner, will not work when it is frosty. There are other people who do not have to work if little Jimmy has measles or they want to do the shopping. They do not have to work on a particular day or in a particular week. That is casual part-time work. I mentioned a pensioner, but there are also children who do part-time work—for example, those who have newspaper rounds. They are not regular part-time workers.
In the case of temporary workers, they may be students, doctors, consultants or visiting professors. As a previous speaker mentioned, there are workers who cover for those who are on maternity or sick leave. Those are all specific situations. Any legislation which must deal with such an enormous variety of situations will have to be unduly complex and in practice will almost certainly lead to injustice.
I agree that there is a need for a minimum level of protection to ensure that people are not exploited. I agree entirely that there is a need for legislation covering matters connected with health and safety. Beyond that, I cannot help wondering whether such matters could not be better dealt with by codes of practice, guidance notes, good advice and the setting of standards which could be cited by employees who felt that they were not being properly treated. We must not fossilise the pattern of our employment when variety is what is wanted, not only by employers but also by employees.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Rochester has already said, we on these Benches support the directive in general and the modifications to the directive which have been suggested in the report.
We have long advocated the case for better pro rata conditions for part-time workers. I go along with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about the distinction that has to be drawn between temporary workers and part-time workers. They are different categories and have different needs. They should not be lumped together as if they could be dealt

921
with in one way which is appropriate for all. However, this evening I do not want to elaborate on the case that has already been made very effectively for improved protection for part-time workers and for treating them on a pro rata basis.
In this country we have developed a tradition of part-time work over a longer period of time and to a much greater extent than most other European countries, the vast majority of it being done by women workers. In the past the attitude towards part-time work—which has been shared by employers and to a considerable extent by employees—has been that it is unskilled work, that they are ghetto jobs and that they are only taken by people who do not have the opportunity to get full-time work. That is one reason why it is overwhelmingly women who are part-time workers.
It is that attitude that I want to challenge this evening, elaborating on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have got it into our heads—and there are good historical reasons why that is so—that proper work is full-time work. That is defined, or used to be in my youth, as 48 hours a week. It then came down to 40 hours a week and I see that some people are now assuming that it is 35 hours. Good luck to them if they can get away with it!That is regarded as proper work and anything else is regarded as marginal work which does not count for very much. That is part-time work. The labour market of the future is not going to be like that; indeed, it is not like that now. The sooner we wake up to the fact the better.
Professor Handy of the London Business School has repeatedly made the point—one does not have to agree with him but he has made a strong case—that the labour market of the future will consist of a relatively small core of people in any given enterprise who are permanent members of the staff. In addition, because of totally changing labour market conditions, and irrespective of the case for justice for the part-time worker, there will be a very large number of people who will work part-time. They will be peripatetic and, as has been said by previous speakers, they may do more than one job or even more than two jobs using the special skills in which they have been trained. Those will be skills which are in very great demand and which they will be able to market with great success to the highest bidder because they are in very great demand.
That will be the economic labour market of the future. We need a large number of well-trained part-time workers who will be as flexible as possible and in a position to command very good pay and conditions because they will be very much in demand in the market.
Leaving aside for one moment the needs and rights of the part-time workers, in our own economic interest we want to develop that kind of labour force. Therefore, I put very special emphasis on the importance of providing good training opportunities for people who do not work standard hours. We ought to be going out of our way to encourage that. It ought
922
to be given high priority among the TECs to encourage such people. Not all of them will be women. If Professor Handy is right, it is bound to be the case that a great many people who work on that basis will be men. They will be men with very high levels of skills.
We need to get rid of the ridiculous idea that part-time jobs are inferior jobs and part-time workers are inferior people who are not worth training and investing in; that they will come and go and, in some cases, the sooner they go the better.
We need to have a policy for the development of highly skilled, highly supported part-time workers. If the result of our debate is that we can get rid of the extremely out-of-date ideas concerning part-time workers and what part-time work is all about, it will have done a great deal of good. In the process we accept what is required, in terms of protection, by the directive with the modifications that the committee put forward. However, by far the most important issue to get clear in the future is that the separation of full-time from part-time work is an anachronism and that we ought to be training to meet that kind of labour market in the future.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first let me say that we welcome the report of the Select Committee on the EC draft directive on non-standard employment. In particular we support the way in which the committee addressed its remit. It has done an excellent job. With other noble Lords who have spoken, I join in paying tribute to the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, as chairperson, introduced the debate and explained the report so lucidly. I am sure that I have the support of other noble Lords when I offer her our congratulations on that exercise.
The committee concluded that in United Kingdom conditions it is appropriate to deal with part-time and temporary employment as separate categories. What seems equitable and right for people employed continually in part-time employment may not be appropriate for employees on temporary or short-time contracts. The committee clearly believes that all such employees should have protection against exploitation and various noble Lords who have spoken indicated their support for protection on a pro rata basis.
In the United Kingdom a high number of people are employed in part-time work, more than in many other member countries of the EC. As stated by previous speakers, many part-time employees are women. It was maintained by some of the committee's witnesses that that shows that women prefer part-time employment. My noble friend Lady Turner referred to that fact. However, the Equal Opportunities Commission in its evidence averred that that could well be because the United Kingdom does not have a very high standard of childcare.
According to a recent survey, only 2 per cent. of children under the age of two and less than half of all three and four year-olds have publicly funded pre-school provision. Only Luxembourg and Ireland

923
have worse provision for the under-twos and only Portugal rates worse for the younger than three and four year-olds. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that in the United Kingdom women look to part-time employment. It is quite possible that if arrangments for childcare and support services were generally improved, more women would seek full-time employment.
The Select Committee supports the directive that is proposed to extend employment protection to part-time workers. The committee believes that such employees should have access to pension schemes and pro rata entitlement to other employee benefits such as allowances, redundancy pay and so on. More than one speaker has referred to that matter tonight.
There seems to be no reason at all why employees who for whatever reason need to work part-time should be in a position in which they may be exploited and given less good conditions than if they worked the standard hours required. The committee rightly makes the point that non-standard workers are not substandard workers and should not be treated in a substandard way. It is noteworthy that a number of good employers already act in line with the proposals for part-time workers and some unions have succeeded in negotiating access to pension schemes and pro rata conditions in a number of companies. That is a continuing tendency.
However, the Government oppose the directive on the grounds that more regulation will inhibit employment opportunities. That is a strange conclusion to draw, bearing in mind that this Government have introduced more legislation to deal with employment conditions than probably any other government in history. They have done so on the basis that it helps to keep people in work and by reducing the power of the unions will make more jobs available. It seems strange that that has happened, and yet despite those measures once again we appear to be heading for record unemployment. There is little evidence to support their claim.
As I said, we now face increasing unemployment. That cannot possibly be attributed to too much regulation and employment protection. I do not believe that argument for one moment. There is now less statutory protection for employees than ever. Successive employment Acts that have passed through this House have eroded the protection that existed. However we still have increasing unemployment. Indeed, the committee makes the point that Sweden and France have already extended employment protection legislation to part-time employees with no apparent effect whatsoever on employment.
Both the CBI and the Government believe that the additional cost involved in affording pro rata terms and conditions will make part-timers less attractive to some employers. I do not believe that that possibility warrants any great measure of support at all. It is noted from the evidence that representatives of the employers allege that the main reason for the growth in part-time work is that many employers like the flexibility of employing such staff. It suits them and in many cases the employees also. Therefore costs appear
924
to be a subsidiary factor. On the other hand, the TUC feels that with the exception of people earning less than £46 a week and working more than eight hours the cost implications seem relatively slight.
The committee recognised that some increasing cost would be involved but was sceptical about the estimates supplied by the Government and companies. It recognised that in order to give effect to the proposals some changes in the system of national insurance contributions might be required. But the system has been changed before, and there seems no reason why it could not be changed again to suit the different situation. In any event, surely it is desirable that the large numbers of employees who for whatever reason work part-time or undertake temporary work should be protected from exploitation. As I said, some good employers already do that. However, we maintain that regulations are required to raise the number and make the provisions obligatory on those whom one would deem to be bad employers.
There is reference in the report to the need for vocational training to be provided for part-time workers on the same basis as for full-time employees. That is particularly important in the case of women who may be rejoining the workforce after a break for maternity leave. It will assist them to secure equal opportunities with male colleagues who have not had such a career break. In any event there is agreement on all sides on the need to develop a training culture in this country. Therefore it makes sense to ensure that training opportunities are made available to employees who work part-time and who may wish to take advantage of vacancies on the full-time staff but can do so only if they are appropriately trained to fill those jobs. It goes without saying that all employees should have the same health and safety protection and training. We know from our discussions in this House on the social charter that the Commission believes that the benefit of the single market should be spread among all its citizens. Hence we have a series of directives designed to ensure that minimum standards are observed throughout the Community.
I believe that the Select Committee has performed a useful and important task in analysing the latest draft directives and in presenting a report that is reasonable and sensible. I hope that the Government will accept the recommendations that the Select Committee has made.
I should like to take on board the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, about the disabled. With the number of unemployed people escalating, it is usually disabled people whose opportunities diminish. The noble Lady made a strong case on behalf of the disabled.
My noble friend and colleague Lady Turner referred to sweatshops. I recall discussion in this Chamber two or three years ago on trade union legislation. We spoke of the conditions under which people worked in those sweatshops. I quoted an example within living memory when seven young women were burnt to death in a factory in the centre of Manchester because of the conditions in which they

925
worked. That is one facet that we must keep under observation to ensure that such an event becomes a relic of the past.
We support the report placed before us by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on behalf of the committee. I hope that the Government will accept the report on the EC draft directives.
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Motion invites us to take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on part-time and temporary work. The report gives the view of the Select Committee on three draft directives which the European Commission published last year as part of its action programme to implement the social charter.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for introducing the report to us today. As she told us, the Government replied formally to the Select Committee on 14th January of this year. As I announced in a Written Reply to the noble Baroness on 23rd January, I have arranged with her agreement for a copy of the Government's response to the committee's report to be placed in the Library for the information of Members of the House.
At the outset, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for withdrawing her criticism of the department in the report for the delay in submitting the explanatory memorandum. I am happy to accept the apology in the words that she used. Of course I shall pass her remarks on to my department.
The three draft directives which were the subject of the committee's report amount to a package of measures covering part-time and temporary work—what the European Commission, rather unhappily in my view, calls "atypical" or "non-standard" work.
I think that we can deal with one of the draft directives quite quickly. It is the one concerned with the health and safety of temporary workers, the so called Article 118a directive. The reason is that progress has been made on this directive. It reached common position at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 18th December last. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, will be pleased that we have been able to move so quickly on the matter.
The Government have always supported the principle behind the Article 118a directive and agreed with the comments made on it by the committee. However, the Government were concerned that two of its provisions, on written information and a ban on temporary workers working in certain jobs, were unnecessarily inflexible. Successful negotiation led to those worries being taken into account in drawing up the common position. That common position will now be considered by the European Parliament. If it approves the common position or fails to report on it within three months the directive will automatically be adopted.
926
However, the other two draft directives pose great problems. We believe them to be misguided. These are the directives which deal with working conditions, the so-called Article 100 directive, and with distortions of competition, the "Article 100a" directive.
With much of what the committee says about the directives we agree. We certainly agree, for example, with the committee's final recommendation that the directives raise important questions to which the attention of this House should be drawn. It is obviously right that we should have this debate.
We also agree with some of the specific points made by the committee. For example, we agree with the committee's view that the directives do not sufficiently distinguish between regular part-time employees and temporary employees. We agree with the committee that it is unnecessary for temporary employment contracts to specify the reason for their temporary nature and that oral explanations are in many circumstances sufficient. We agree also with the committee's view that the legal base chosen by the European Commission for the Article 100a directive is incorrect.
All those are positive points on which we have found the committee's analysis and views helpful. But there are some points on which we find ourselves in disagreement with the committee. Our chief point of disagreement concerns the assessment of the likely effect of the directives on jobs and employers' costs. The committee supports the Commission's proposals to extend the employment protection afforded to part-time workers and its report says that the directives are a step in the right direction towards creating equal opportunities for women. The committee recognises that the directives would involve some increase in cost to employers, but it was unconvinced of the accuracy of some of the estimates supplied by both the Government and by companies.
On that point the Government's view differs from that of the committee, as our formal response to the report made clear. Our view is that the Commission's proposals would greatly increase the costs of employing part-time and temporary workers. They would significantly reduce the number of jobs and thereby damage not only our own industrial competitiveness but also that of the European Community as a whole. In doing so, the directives offend against one of the most important criteria unanimously agreed for action in the social area at the Madrid summit of June 1989—that directives in the social area should give top priority to job creation and development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, queried whether that is the prime concern of government. My Lords, yes. I confirm that it is still an overriding principle.
The committee draws attention in its report to the relatively high proportion of part-time workers in the employed workforce in the United Kingdom. It also notes the great expansion in part-time work since 1983. We believe that the Commission's approach to part-time and temporary work, which it seems to see

927
as somehow second-best to full-time work—and some Members of this House have agreed with that—would put at risk all those desirable developments.
The effect of the Commission's proposals would, in our view, clearly make part-time and temporary work more expensive for employers and more difficult for them to organise. There can be only one result of this—fewer opportunities for part-time work. Since so many part-time workers are women, the proposals would have a disproportionate effect on the employment of women. That would certainly not improve equality of opportunity.
Despite the committee's comments in its report about the accuracy of our cost estimates, I have to say that the Government stick by those estimates. The committee concedes that small and medium-sized companies and individual employers may be affected by increased costs. But the committee goes on to say that many large companies have already incorporated the extended benefits envisaged in the directives into their system so that such companies will not be involved in any extra cost as a result of the directives.
The department's estimates already take account of that factor as far as it is possible to do so. Our economists have looked at the available information about the actual benefits provided by employers in the field covered by the draft directives. They have calculated how much it would cost employers to raise their benefits from those existing levels of provision to the levels which would be required by the directives. For example, where employers are already providing benefits equivalent to those envisaged in the directives our estimates assume no extra cost to such employers of complying with the directives. Wherever possible the department's estimates measure the cost of moving from existing benefits to the level of benefits required by the directives.
It should also be noted that the department's estimates assume only that companies increase their provision to the new minimum required by the directives. As we pointed out in our response to the committee's report, it may be that some companies which currently provide more than the statutory requirement will continue to do so after implementation of the directives, perhaps in order to attract more skilled workers. In that case the cost of complying with the directives could well be higher. Furthermore, the departmental cost estimates take no account of restructuring the national insurance system, which has been mentioned more than once, which may well be necessary if the directives are agreed.
We are not alone in our views. We consulted widely on the Commission's proposals. Almost every response from UK employers saw the potential in the proposals for costs to increase and the inevitable consequences for their ability to create jobs. Perhaps I may quote what the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said when we consulted it. It stated:
"We have very serious concerns about these initiatives and fully support the stance taken by the UK Government in opposing the current drafts".
Nor are we on our own in Europe, as is sometimes suggested. It was clear, for example, from the meeting
928
of the Social Affairs Council on 26th November last that other member states shared the UK's doubts and reservations about some of the Commission's proposals. The directives have made no progress since then.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, welcomed the fact that part-timers should be positively encouraged. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will agree with that. The Government thoroughly concur with the view that part-time work suits many people who do not want full-time work. Among others the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke of vocational training and the requirement that part-time workers should also receive such training. The Government's aim is to facilitate access to relevant training and education throughout working life for every member of the workforce. But burdening employers with legal requirements would not achieve that. Therefore, the Government believe that access to training is generally best dealt with on a voluntary basis between employers and individual employees or their representatives. That will be the strength of the TECs because they will be best placed to meet the local needs of full-time, part-time and temporary workers.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about promotion. As they stand the directives do not contain any requirements concerning the rights to promotion for part-time or temporary workers. Again she made a useful point. The noble Baroness was also anxious about equal opportunities for women. As I said earlier, and it is worth repeating, the Government consider that because employers' costs would increase as a result of the directives their likely response would be to reduce the number of part-time and temporary workers. Women make up the vast majority of such employees and therefore would suffer most as a result of the directives. The Government believe that the principle of equal opportunities is already guaranteed by the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the European equal pay and equal treatment directives which provide protection against unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of sex.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, stressed the importance of part-time employment for disabled people and for those who care for disabled people. That is an important issue. She mentioned the quota system which is at present being reviewed. It is a complex subject, not least because many people prefer not to register as being disabled. However, the noble Lady is right in saying that part-time work is important for that sector of the workforce.
The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Turner, commented on the requirements for the provision of child care. The Government's view is that it is a matter for employers to deal with on a voluntary basis and not a matter for the law. The enormous growth in part-time work since 1983 does not suggest that child care is a serious problem. There is nothing specific about child care in the directives.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out many difficulties in describing the various categories

929
of part-time and temporary workers. The Government agree that the legislation required to cope with such complexities and differences would be complex and too restricting.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave an interesting view of her concept of future employment patterns and stressed the requirement of training. I have already stressed the importance that the Government attach to the training of full-time, part-time and temporary employees but on a voluntary basis rather than on a statutory basis.
I wish to conclude by commenting on our commitment to the European Community. Contrary to what is sometimes suggested there can be no doubt about that commitment. I suggest that the true criterion for commitment is the extent to which countries have implemented and put into effect measures to which the Community has already agreed.
On that criterion, our record of commitment is outstanding. In fact, we have the best record.
According to a report presented to the Social Affairs Council on 26th November by Commissioner Papandreou, we are the only country to have implemented all 18 existing social affairs directives. We are ahead of Germany and France, which have implemented only nine. That record must surely show that the UK is not half-hearted about these matters, as is sometimes suggested; quite the reverse, in fact. Our approach is to take a full part in discussions, weighing up the costs and the benefits before deciding whether or not we can vote in favour of a proposal.
Clear thinking is vital if the Community is to adopt a constructive role in social affairs. We believe strongly that the Community should be very clear about the areas where harmonisation and common Community standards are really essential. If we burden Europe's businesses with new and unnecessary regulation in the name of the social dimension, we shall negate the single market and undermine the jobs and living standards of all citizens of the Community.
We take the Commission's proposals seriously because the decisions which the Community will take will affect employment practices, employers' costs, competitiveness and jobs throughout the Community. We shall continue to play a constructive role, judging each proposal on its merits according to the three criteria agreed at the Madrid summit of June 1989 and reaffirmed at the Rome summit last December: first, will the proposal encourage the creation of jobs for the people of Europe; secondly, if it passes that test, is action necessary at Community level; and finally, if such action is shown to be necessary, does the proposal respect the different national traditions and practices which exist in the Community? I believe that that is a constructive and realistic approach. I commend it to the House.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. A number of different points have been raised which are covered in the report before us. I am
930
grateful also to the Minister for his reply to the debate, given in his usual courteous manner. I do not believe that it has added any new information on the subject. However, we did not expect that because we had the full report earlier from the Government.
There are one or two points which I should like to raise. First, the Minister said—and I believe that this is also in the Government's response—that equal opportunities are guaranteed by the equal pay and sex discrimination legislation and by European directives. I believe that that is rather exaggerating the situation, given the fact that the United Kingdom has already had to change some of its laws as a consequence of equal pay and sex discrimination cases taken to the European Court. A number of such cases are still pending. In addition, the Equal Opportunities Commission—a statutory body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the equal pay and sex discrimination legislation—is seeking a judicial review on whether or not that legislation complies with European requirements. Therefore, I believe that the Minister was rather exaggerating.
Secondly, I was rather surprised—and this is not in the response—when the Minister said that he did not believe that child care had posed any specific problems between 1983 and the present because part-time employment had increased at such a pace. Most women who still want to give their children special care, whether they be small children or grown-up teenagers, would agree that child care is still a real problem which deters many women from going out to work.
Thirdly, I wish to make it absolutely clear—I hoped that I had done so in my introduction—that the report does not in any way indicate that the committee felt that part-time employment was second best. The committee recognised the importance of flexibility in that area. However, the committee wanted to establish that part-time and temporary employment are not sub-standard employments. I believe that one of the best answers to the concept which many people have that part-time work is sub-standard is to ensure that part-time workers have the same terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers. I am sorry that the Government do not accept that argument but we cannot pursue that further this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Dalai Lama
7.26 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the growing recognition of people's right to peaceful self-determination, they will be receiving His Holiness The Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to London.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 14 months ago my noble friend Lord Mersey raised the matter of Tibet in this House asking whether, in view of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Her Majesty's Government would ask the People's

931
Republic of China to modify its behaviour towards the people of Tibet. I note that a number of noble Lords who spoke on that occasion are here this evening. I believe that they will agree with me that the Government's answer was rather disappointing, falling back on the tired old formula that any meeting between a Minister of Her Majesty's Government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "would be open to misinterpretation".
The Dalai Lama is coming to this country in March Therefore, I make no apology for asking whether the Government have reconsidered their position in the light of events since the last debate. The world has changed remarkably since that time. For the first time for half a century, the countries of Central Europe are electing their own democratic governments. Germany has united in accordance with its people's wishes. Even in Albania—the last totalitarian regime in Europe—the communist regime is crumbling; while the people of the Baltic states are struggling to gain the right to determine their own destiny A small nation, Kuwait, has been invaded by its much larger neighbour. The Government's reaction to that invasion has been prompt and decisive.
Meanwhile, what of Tibet? Six months after our last debate martial law, which had been imposed in March 1989, was lifted. We hoped that that would lead to some real relaxation of the oppressive regime in Tibet. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The lifting of martial law was a cosmetic and politically opportune exercise. I wonder whether it was mere coincidence that martial law was lifted shortly before the United States Government were due to make their decision on whether to renew China's most favoured nation status.
The Gulf war, almost too neat a parallel with China's invasion of Tibet, has naturally taken what limelight there was off the activities of the Chinese governing forces in Tibet. The lifting of martial law has been a sham. The army marched out of one door to be replaced through another door by the paramilitary armed police units. Religious persecution continues unabated. Dissident monks are expelled from their monasteries and made to work on the land—shades of Pol Pot. Possession of the Tibetan flag can be a capital offence and new laws have been passed making it yet more difficult for Tibetans to demonstrate peacefully against Chinese oppression in their own land.
The example of one young Tibetan, an 18 year old schoolboy, Lhakpa Tsering, may alert your Lordships to what is now happening inside Tibet. This boy was arrested in November 1989 for the major crime of putting up posters in his school asserting Tibet's right to independence. In December his body was returned to his family; his death was caused by torture and beating. A letter dated 20th February and signed by 30 US Senators has been sent to the premier of China, Li Peng, asking for a full and impartial investigation into the circumstances of his death. I hope that our Government also will inquire into the matter. The Government must not be misled into swallowing the
932
Chinese line that stability has returned to Tibet. Stability in this context simply means a very effective crackdown on the freedom of expression.
While the Tibetans' right to protest against the religious and political stranglehold of the Chinese is cruelly limited, the absorption of Tibet into the People's Republic of China continues unabated. As late as 1950 there were a mere handful of Chinese in Tibet, probably under 100 in the whole country. While China's alteration of Tibet's borders has made it difficult to deal exactly with numbers, by best estimates there are at least 7 million Han Chinese in Greater Tibet today. In Lhasa, the sacred city and home of the Dalai Lama, Tibetans are now in the minority of the population.
Educationally Tibetans are at a disadvantage. Most secondary education is in Chinese, as are all university examinations. Tibetans are held back by the requirement to learn Chinese at the secondary level. The Chinese solution is to cream off the most promising students and send them to China for the whole of their secondary education, which lasts for seven years and has the necessary consequence of these people losing their Tibetan identity.
If that situation continues there will soon not be any Tibet for us to help. The Dalai Lama who is to visit in March could well be the last Dalai Lama. The fear of becoming a disregarded and disenfranchised minority in their own country has been forcefully expressed by Tibetans inside Tibet and by the many Tibetans in exile. I believe that China has a long history of absorbing independent peoples. The Tibetans are determined not to become yet another historical statistic swamped by Han Chinese.
The principal point we should bear in mind is that, prior to the Chinese invasion of 1950, Tibet was an independent country. It was a fully functional state. It had its own religion, race, language, army and mint and issued its own passports. Successive British Governments recognised Tibet's de facto independence. We have had treaty relations with Tibet going back to the Simla Convention of 1914, and from 1910 the British Government treated Tibet as an independent state with which they have had treaty and diplomatic relations.
In a note to the Chinese Foreign Minister in 1943 Sir Anthony Eden put the British Government's position perfectly clearly—that Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence since 1910 and that Britain was in treaty relations with Tibet. Britain was nonetheless ready to accept that China had suzerainty over Tibet —and this is important—conditional on China's acceptance of Tibetan autonomy. This makes it crystal clear that Britain equated autonomy with de facto independence. This was repeated in November 1950 by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr. Ernest Davies, who in reply to a Question in another place on China and Tibet stated:
"For many years this Chinese suzerainty has been no more than nominal, and indeed, since 1911 Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/50: col. 602.]
Further, when Tibet was invaded by China in 1950 and appealed to the United Nations, the Foreign Office told its representative at the United Nations that Tibet had the necessary qualifications as a state under the UN Charter to make such an appeal. However, tragically for Tibet, political expediency dictated that we should not help Tibet in its hour of need. On the spurious grounds that Tibet's legal position was in doubt, the Government declined to support the Tibetan appeal, which was then dropped, allowing China to proceed in its rape of Tibet unchecked by any international restraints.
We sold Tibet short then. I am convinced that the present Government, with their clear commitment to supporting victims of aggression, will not allow history to repeat itself. By way of encouragement, if any is needed, I remind your Lordships that both Conservative and Labour Governments have backed United Nations resolutions in 1961 and 1965 which clearly supported Tibet's right to self-determination.
The Government must stand firm on those commitments and above all not allow themselves to be coerced into conceding that what the Tibetans have now is in any sense autonomy as we understand it. The power of government in the so-called autonomous region of Tibet is entirely in the hands of the Chinese or of their nominees, with only token Tibetan representation to rubber-stamp decisions taken on their behalf.
I hope that the Government will make it clear that they recognise the right of Tibetans to determine their own future, particularly as we have so clearly nailed our colours to the mast of freedom elsewhere. The Government strongly condemned the use of force in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. They have repeatedly insisted that the people of the Baltic States should be able freely to decide their own destiny, while we are now fighting for the second time in eight years to liberate a small territory invaded by a larger, greedy and ambitious neighbour.
Of course we all recognise the wish of the British Government to remain on good terms with China, particularly in view of the hand-over of power in Hong Kong in 1997. Who can argue with that? However, those good relations should be based on mutual respect and not bought at the expense of concessions elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said in our last debate on Tibet in regard to appeasement,
"It never works. It has never worked in history and it will not work now". [Official Report, 13/12/89; col. 1377.]
Standing up for Tibetans and their legitimate aims will send the right signals to the people of Hong Kong who have consistently wished for us to back them up rather than back down. "Linkage" is not a word that has found favour recently with world statesmen; the Tibetan issue should be decided on its own merits.
I am encouraged therefore to note that the Dalai Lama on his visit here next month will be received by the Speaker, by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. It would surely be the ideal opportunity
934
for my noble friend Lord Caithness to meet the Dalai Lama in his capacity as a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I hope that my noble friend Lord Reay will be able to tell us whether consideration will be given to arranging such a meeting. Were he to agree to the meeting he would be in good company, as during the past two years the Dalai Lama has been received by the King of Norway and the Norwegian Prime Minister on the occasion of his Nobel Prize award; he was received by President Havel of Czechoslovakia; he had a private meeting with President Weizsäcker of the newly united Germany, as well as official meetings with Ministers in France, Belgium, Holland and Sweden.
Your Lordships may be interested to hear that in December the Australian Senate expressed unanimous support for the right of Tibetans to self-determination. I need hardly add that China protested about that,
"brutal interference in China's internal affairs".
The message is that the Tibet issue will not go away. It is firmly on the international agenda and will remain so. It is surely right that we regain the courage of our convictions over Tibet and give due regard to the legitimate claim of the Tibetans to determine their own future and that of their country.
Tibet alone among dispossessed nations has never resorted to violence. The Tibetans heeded the advice and example of their leader, the Dalai Lama, to pursue the path of peaceful persuasion rather than that of the bullet and the bomb. But I wonder how long this can go on. Anger and frustration are building up both inside Tibet and among Tibetans in exile at the deaf ear turned worldwide to their peaceful arguments. Radical Tibetans are aware that bloodshed makes news and that violence gets headlines. It must make sense to tackle this issue now before another explosion that will cost yet more lives and more misery. The British Government, with their historic link with Tibet and their record of commitment to freedom and self-determination, are ideally placed to be the catalyst for such a move.
Finally, I ask the Government to look afresh at Tibet, perhaps from a different perspective. Who would have forecast only two years ago that the Berlin Wall would crumble, that we would have a united Germany, that Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania would have their own democratically elected governments and that the Baltic states would become independent? The only certainty is that there are no certainties. The political ideologies and boundaries which we have come to know no longer seem so secure either in Europe or in Asia. The winds of change are blowing even in the Himalayas.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the whole House will want to thank the noble Lord for introducing this debate today and to say how encouraging it is to see so many noble Lords on both sides of the House taking part. I believe that what the noble Lord has said in his outstanding speech will be heard in many countries by

935
Tibetans who are themselves yearning for freedom. I believe that this message will be read by many in Tibet itself. I congratulate the noble Lord.
Some might have said that this is perhaps not the best time to hold such a debate. All eyes are turned on the Gulf. All of us are hoping and praying that the conflict will soon be over and that after six or seven months the people of Kuwait will be able to rebuild their own country. Tibet has survived, not six or seven months of occupation and brutality, but 41 years of cruel occupation. It is a remarkable tribute to the spirit of the people themselves that the concept of Tibet, its language, culture, religion, history and self-esteem, is still alive. The tribute which we pay to those in the Gulf who stood up for their own country is equally a tribute to those brave Tibetans who stood up for their own cause and have suffered as a consequence. It is also a tribute to the leadership of his Holiness the Dalai Lama, whom this country will have the great privilege of receiving. It is the first time that he has been here since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the unchallenged leader of his people, recognised not only overseas but by China itself. He will arrive in Britain at a time of growing support not only for his cause, but for that of the United Nations, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has said, has on three occasions condemned the Chinese occupation and denial of human rights. Two of those occasions established quite clearly by big majorities Tibet's right to self-determination. Now it is a right enshrined in international law.
One would have thought that the red carpet would have been put out for this great man, as it has been put out for him in other parts of the world. I have been to some of those countries where presidents have received his Holiness the Dalai Lama and thousands of people have flocked into the streets because they see him as a symbol not just of freedom, liberty and justice, but of compassion, gentleness and many of the qualities which the world most desperately needs.
But there will be no red carpet. Regrettably, the Prime Minister concluded that it would not be right for him to meet the Dalai Lama. To be fair to the Prime Minister, a very courteous letter was sent, which was also sent to me. The Prime Minister is new in his office and he has many other preoccupations at the present time. I believe too that the decision was not taken by the Prime Minister but by the Foreign Office. It is a decision which is deeply to be deplored and it is one taken by the Foreign Office largely as a result of a policy of appeasement of China. We never appeased the Soviet Union during those long years of Soviet oppression. We always said that our attitude towards the Soviet Union would be based on the extent to which it respected the human rights of its own people. Why do we not say the same to the people of China? I believe that it would cut far more ice and carry far more weight in Hong Kong and around the world were we to treat China in the same way.
Those who have studied the history of Tibet over the past 1300 years—and I do not include myself among them—will know that there have been times
936
when Tibet has conquered and occupied large areas of China itself. There have been times when it has repulsed invasion not only from China but from Nepal and from Britain itself at the time of the Younghusband expedition. But at no time has Tibet ever conceded the right of any nation to control its territory or to usurp its right to self-determination and independence. As was said by the noble Lord, the tragedy is that since 1950 Britain has connived in accepting China's occupation of Tibet.
There is no question but that before the invasion Britain regarded Tibet as having all the rights of a fully independent state. By agreements made in 1914, 1921 and 1943, Britain accepted Tibet's right to absolute internal freedom to conduct its own external relations with other states, to conclude treaties and trade agreements and to receive diplomatic representation. The last British representative in Lhasa, Mr. Hugh Richardson, is still alive today. He was in the Foreign Service and he has stated:
"The Government of Lhasa with which I dealt"—
That was for the nine years between 1936 and 1950—
"was beyond question in complete control of its own affairs, dealing directly with the Government of India in such matters as frontier disputes, trade questions, supply of arms and ammunition and so on. There was no Chinese participation whatever in such matters and no reference to them, nor were they informed. In all practical matters the Tibetans were independent".
It is a sad thing that it is now being pretended, not just by China but by people in this country, that somehow or other Tibet has never had complete independence. There were statements by Ernest Davies, a dear friend of mine when he was alive, who was at the Foreign Office, and by Anthony Eden. The Dalai Lama was also received by the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Clement Attlee, who received a trade delegation which arrived with its own passports as representatives of an independent state.
After all that has happened since the Chinese invasion in 1950 on the orders of Chairman Mao, a programme of brutal annihilation of life, property, monasteries, shrines and schools during the cultural revolution, a continued cruel denial of human rights, documented clearly by Amnesty International, and a calculated form of cultural genocide have been undertaken in an attempt to destroy the Tibetan language and traditions and to make them a minority in their own country. After all that one might have imagined that the powers that be in Britain would have wanted to give support and encouragement to the forces of good in Tibet. Unhappily, no, it is the forces of totalitarianism which seem to command the support of those who make policy.
It is not only a rewriting of history which seems to prevail—the Chinese themselves are very good at that—but an extraordinary distortion of the concept of self-determination and independence. I point out to the Minister who is to reply to the debate that during our earlier debate, speaking from the Government Front Bench, he said:
"We believe that all peoples have the right to self-determination".

937
So far so good. But he then said:
"We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal".—[Official Report, 13/12/89; col. 1384.]
There may be others here who think just the same. But what is self-determination if it means no more than, "You can have self-determination but only on the basis that I want"? If the one single thing you want is independence, self-determination is an absolutely meaningless phrase.
Is it suggested that there is some self-determination and autonomy for the Tibetan people in Tibet today? I can state from my own experience that they live the lives of slaves. Would those who deny this apply the same principle to South Africa: the right to self-determination but not the right to choose, with one man one vote? Would they concede to the Baltic States the right to self-determination, but not if they chose to break away from the Soviet Union? I suppose that it it might have been argued by the Iraqis that Kuwait could have the right to self-determination provided that it chose to be the 19th region of Iraq. Thank heavens that story is now almost ended.
It is really distasteful to hear British Ministers speaking up in this unprincipled way. Self-determination is a right under international law. It means the right of Tibet as a separate people, with its own history of centuries of freedom, to determine its own future. No one chooses slavery. No one chooses subjugation or the denial of human rights.
The Prime Minister, in his very courteous letter to me of 13th February, said:
"The Dalai Lama's aspirations for self-determination for Tibet have not been endorsed by any other government".
It was a most extraordinary statement. As the noble Viscount has said, 56 countries, including Britain, the United States and all our colleagues in Western Europe, voted for a resolution which, in 1961 and again in 1965, stated quite specifically that Tibet had the right to self-determination. So we are one of the countries representing exactly that right.
In the Gulf men and women are laying down their lives in support of UN resolutions relating to Iraq's unacceptable occupation of Kuwait. What about China's unacceptable occupation of Tibet, already condemned by UN resolutions? We cannot pick and choose what self-determination means. I do not believe that we can say, "Right, we will go to war. We will risk our lives for those UN resolutions because they relate to the Gulf. But we will do nothing at all about those similar resolutions which say that Tibet has a right to its own self-determination". Do the Government accept Tibet's right to self-determination? I hope they will say that they do.
Perhaps I may make one other point before sitting down. In his letter to me the Prime Minister said:
"I do not want to lose sight in all this of our main concern—a better deal for the Tibetan people. We have been talking to the Chinese regularly about Tibet".
It is a very powerful statement that, regularly, Britain has been talking to China about Tibet. What have we been saying? I do not know. I hope the Minister will say. What information do the Government have
938
about the Tibetans' view about the future of Tibet? If they are not in consultation with Tibetans about how Tibet can have a better future, then the moment is coming next month. Of course the noble Lord is right that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, should take the opportunity. Who better and what better moment to have a discussion with the Dalai Lama in order that he can find out? We are dealing, as the noble Lord said, with an issue which is arousing increasing interest in your Lordships' House, elsewhere and around the world. It is an issue that will not go away. It is well timed. Between now and 17th March, when his Holiness arrives in London, there is time for the Prime Minister—perhaps the war will be over and he will have a little more time—to receive his Holiness and do him the honour he deserves, and for the Foreign Secretary and his Foreign Office colleague to do him the honour he deserves. If we decide what should be the future of Tibet without consulting the people of Tibet, what have we learnt in all our long history? This is the moment for consultation with a man of peace. With a man of such a reputation coming here, we should seize the moment with both hands, as we will in your Lordships' House. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will preside at that meeting, but let the Government, politically, treat this as a serious visit.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, we have heard two powerful speeches. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on bringing forward this subject. It is a subject which we should discuss. I do not pretend to have been to Tibet. I have been as far as Nepal, and when one is there one sees a lot of Tibetans. One can tell them very easily because people who live at 18,000 feet have their faces covered in a certain way which distinguishes them sharply from those who are born and brought up at a rather lower altitude.
As I said, this is an important subject with which we must deal. Tibet is an interesting country which, in its day, had its kings. Not only that, it defeated the Chinese and captured their capital. That is quite an interesting point. They were not small people at all. They took over their religion from the other side of their land, from India. They developed this religion in a very remarkable way. This is an extremely interesting body of people, difficult as they are to get to. They are not an easy people to get to.
One question is to my mind very important. I shall put it rather bluntly. How does one re-educate the Chinese? The Chinese have had a most unhappy history. Nowhere have violence and vigour been more widely exercised than in China. This was probably going on during the life time of the noble Lord. Until the beginning of this century medieval practices went on. They have had about three revolutions since that time which have brought about change, but they still have a long way to go. It is the quality of their style which makes the difference.
How do we deal with this matter? I am not sure. I think it is perfectly fair for the Prime Minister to meet the Dalai Lama. He is a unique man. There is no-one

939
like him in the world. He is both a political and religious leader of his people and stands quite alone in his dedication to either subject. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not suppose that he has studied politics as closely as the Dalai Lama has studied religion. This is unique: a man who is not striving for power or anything of that kind; he is merely a standard of conduct.
What I am coming to is this. We are going through a changing world. We in this country and people elsewhere have to adapt to a changing world. It is our duty—and other noble Lords may say this too—to help the Chinese to come into a new world. It is all very well to live at the top of the Himalayas. The Tibetans were all alone, but now we can talk to them on the telephone. They can fly out of their country. Aeroplanes can go all round it. This is a new world to which all of us will have to adapt ourselves bit by bit. I think that we can help the Chinese. It will take a long time for them to bring themselves into the modern world. It is important that we should help them to do so and I believe we are doing that.
The Chinese are very powerful people. I am very fond of them. I lived with Chinese people for three or four years and I think they are wonderful. But they are very dogmatic. They have very strong views of themselves and of the world. The legacy remains that they are the centre of the world and that all of us here and elsewhere are no more than visitors coming to see the major country. That idea dies hard in the Chinese. All I can say is that, on the whole, we have made fairly good friends with them and we can help them. Although they might complain if the Prime Minister shook hands with the Dalai Lama, I do not think they would go very far with it.
I believe that the noble Lord made a worthwhile point: we must teach the Chinese that this is a new world in which we have to work hard and which we must try to understand. I think that they will understand because they are a very intelligent people. Of course, as I said, they are pretty dogmatic in their views but in time they will learn.
The people of Tibet should not be allowed to suffer. Indeed, it would be quite wrong if that were to continue to happen. Of course, this is a matter which should be referred to the United Nations. The essential job of that organisation is to look after us—that is, everyone—during the 21st century so that we have no more dictators. We do not want any more dictators; indeed, we have had quite enough of them already this century. That should be our cry to the united Nations. I can count at least a dozen of them and it is possible that there may have been more. I hope that this has been a valuable debate.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am moat grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for having raised the matter again and for doing it so eloquently. After hearing his speech and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, it may seem extraordinary that anything more should need to be said, bearing in mind that we went over this ground
940
not so long ago. Moreover, as the noble Lord so rightly reminded us, the only answer that the Government gave previously was that they thought that if they did the right thing it might be misunderstood.
We have learnt from previous speakers that the Chinese are engaged in exterminating the ancient civilisation of which the Dalai Lama is the head. Indeed, the atrocities and oppression continue to take place in the area. It seems quite amazing that the British Government should appear to connive in such actions. Of course we know why that is so. It is appeasement.
The noble Earl said that we are living in a changing world. That is indeed the case. A new spirit of self-determination is rising in the world. That is one way in which the world is changing. However, in some ways the world does not seem to have changed enough. Everything that has been said by the Government about their refusal to meet the Dalai Lama has been said before. Indeed, it was said before the last war. I well remember people saying, "We must be nice to Ribbentrop because the Germans are changing their nature. It is not our business that he is persecuting the Jews and is about to invade Europe. We must be nice to him. British interests and trade demand it". Many people were taken in by that view. Now we have appeasement again. It is of course nothing but appeasement, as I said previously and as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, pointed out.
If it were not for Hong Kong, there is no question but that the British Government would have received the Dalai Lama and ceased to make placatory noises about the extraordinary invasion of Tibet and the treatment of its people. As I said, it is appeasement.
In my view appeasement will not work. It has not worked in the past and it will not work now. Further, it does this country a great deal of harm not only so far as concerns our moral standing but also in practical ways. Let us take, for example, the position of the IRA. We hope to combat the IRA by weaning people away from the idea of violence being the only way of righting grievances. The Tibetan people have far greater grievances than the IRA, but as yet they have shown no violence. They are indeed a non-violent people. However, what thanks do they get for that? All that happens is that nations such as ourselves keep them at arm's length, despite the fact that other nations have received the Dalai Lama.
Let us take also the example of the Middle East. If at the end of the war over Kuwait we come to agree on any sort of peace, it is essential that we do so with clean hands and do not appear to act differently when our own interests are involved than when international matters of freedom and self-determination are involved. It will do us no good whatever to attempt to appease now, any more than it did before the war.
Of course the Dalai Lama has no votes in this country. He has no concessions to offer and he represents a civilisation which is far removed in certain respects from that of our own country. But the principles he stands for mean something to the world. Britain should stand for what is best in the values of the world and not simply for material short-term

941
advantage. I do not believe that we should receive any short-term advantage. It is probably quite wrong to think that the Chinese will be in the least influenced by the fact that we have not received the Dalai Lama. Therefore, at the end of the day, if we still refuse to receive him and discuss with him the troubles experienced by his civilisation and his country, Britain will be the loser. The Dalai Lama's reputation will not suffer as a result but Britain's reputation will. Moreover, I believe that our material interests will also suffer.
8.15 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this subject and congratulate him on the eloquence and care with which he delivered his speech. I wish to intervene in the debate by expressing the rather unpopular view that I believe the Prime Minister was right in the line he took in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
We have an old historical association with Tibet. The personal interests of many people, of scholars and more latterly of many tourists, have continued our interest in Tibet since we left India. It has a fascination for us. I know the allure of Central Asia. I visited the Panchen Lama when he was a boy of only eight in a lamasery which had 5,000 lamas. It was like going back to the Middle Ages. Indeed, the smell of rancid butter still makes me nostalgic. I realise the unattractiveness of being prudently political or "protocolaire" about anything Tibetan. Somehow or other, Tibet seems slightly out of this world; but of course it is not so, as certain noble Lords have already said.
His Holiness is universally respected for what he has done and for what he is. In any event, he will be meeting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of another place and His Highness the Duke of Gloucester in his personal and religious capacity. Why, therefore, should he not also meet the Prime Minister?
Before dismissing that point as being petty protocol, I suggest that we reconsider what happens in other countries to which reference has been made. Such references were, if I may say so, somewhat selective. It seems to me that other governments receive the Dalai Lama in a reverse level to their practical interests in Asia. I believe I am right in saying that he is not received by Ministers in the United States, in Japan, in India or in Nepal. However, he has been received at Foreign Minister level by some of our European partners, as has already been said this evening. The question is whether we should realign with, say, France and Germany in that practice. I hope that we do not do so. I believe that any change in policy would be regarded by China and by the Tibetans—I am especially concerned about the Tibetan people—as an act of state.
I do not wish to pursue the historical analyses which have been made this evening about Britain's recognition or non-recognition of Tibet as an independent country. We all know that there were odd
942
factors which no longer exist about the relationship which arose because of our responsibility for India. However, the fact remains that Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent. But if the Dalai Lama were to be received by the Prime Minister, it would be regarded by China as a small but gratuitous move in the encouragement of independence. Moreover, in Tibet its practical implications could well be exaggerated and misunderstood.
Of course there is enormous sympathy for the dalais and people of Tibet over the terrible things that have happened to them. However, I do not believe that the reception of the Dalai by the Prime Minister would assist the greater observance of human rights by China in Tibet or anywhere else. Those rights are best pursued by us bilaterally with China, as they have been, and as the Prime Minister said in his reply to the noble Lord. I was fascinated by what the noble Lord said about China in a changing world, and I should like to reply were it not for the fact that this would then be a completely different speech.
I shall confine myself to the argument that, unless the United Kingdom stands up to Chinese activities in Tibet and disregards Chinese sensitivities over reception of the Dalai in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would not stand up to China over any of its activities in Hong Kong. The noble Lord implied that, and the same point has been made by other noble Lords this evening. They are completely different cases.
Our position over Hong Kong, what happens in Hong Kong now and what will happen after 1997, are defined in considerable detail in a bilateral agreement. The United Kingdom has a special obligation to ensure that the provisions of that agreement are kept. The implementation of that joint declaration is the most important element in present Sino-British relations. In the case of Tibet we have no such standing. If we were to take any form of political action in respect of it or do something that could be understood to be political action, we should be open to misunderstanding and resentment, to no one's benefit.
The future of Tibet, difficult as it now seems, is best pursued in talks among the Tibetans, the Dalai and the Chinese Government. They have been proposed in the past but have never been realised latterly. I hope that the Dalai's visit here will be a success and that he will receive the attention that he so clearly merits. I suggest that it is neither necessary nor prudent to inject a political element into it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether his attention has been drawn to last week's leader in the Asian Wall Street Journal published in Hong Kong in which it is said:
"It would be a reassuring sign for oppressed people anywhere and for Hong Kong's people as they look to their future, were Mr. Major to meet with the Dalai Lama—with the full acknowledgment that Tibet's spiritual leader also happens to represent the kind of freedom that has always been denied to anyone unfortunate enough to fall under the rule of China's Communists".

943
I have no doubt that the noble Lord will agree that there are two views in relation to the effect on and attitude of Hong Kong.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lord, I did not see that article. I agree that there could be two views, but the prudent one, and the one held by the people there I respect most, is the one that I have put forward this evening.
8.24 p m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, spoke with his great authority derived from wide experience. I listened with great respect, as I am sure did other noble Lords, to what he had to say. I agreed with much of it, although I too will take an independent line in the debate. My view is that we should distinguish between calls for Tibetan independence and for the showing of the respect which is due to the Dalai Lama. I do not necessarily say that the two have a single objective. I am grateful, as are other noble Lords, to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for giving us the opportunity to consider these important matters, for such I believe them to be.
Anyone who has even cursorily studied the history of Tibet will recognise its incredible complexity. Through most of its history it has been under some form of hierarchical monastic or aristocratic rule. The people of Tibet have been kept down. There is little which represents democracy to be found in Tibetan history. I do not see Tibet's past through rose-tinted spectacles as representing a period of beauty, tranquillity, calm or liberality, because it certainly was not.
One feature stands out from that history: almost throughout its entire period, there has been some form of link with China—be it with Mongol or Han; Kuomintan or the Communists in Beijing. That link has been described as similar to the relationship of nephew to uncle. Whatever terms are used, today the relationship is much more that of the walnut being brutally crushed under the heel of the aggressor.
In the past, China has invariably taken the view that it should leave alone and undisturbed the political, social and religious practices of Tibet. However, more recently it has taken the opposite view. It has been pursuing a policy, which, far from leaving the people of Tibet to carry on according to their own customs unmolested, is clearly intended to exterminate the very identity of Tibet itself. It has been, and still is, a horrendously brutal exercise of naked power.
I hope that if no other message goes out from the debate today, it will at least be clear that all of us deeply regret, and take the strongest exception to, the policy and brutality of Communist China. China has recently been promoting the introduction of Chinese people into Tibet to make it clear to all concerned that Tibet is part of the greater China. I do not want to press the case for independence; I want to press the case for proper regional autonomy within China. I do that, not because I wish to interfere in matters which are properly the concern of the Chinese authorities,
944
but because I have a great interest, as do other noble Lords, in the future of Hong Kong after 1997. What China does in Tibet matters because it could indicate the sort of attitude that it will bring to bear in Hong Kong. I hope that what China has been doing in Tibet in no way implies that that is likely to be its attitude towards Hong Kong after 1997. I have confidence enough to believe that that will not be the case for in any event that would be strongly against Chinese interests. More than that, China has signed an agreement with the United Kingdom Government, and I would expect it to abide by the terms of that agreement. It is important for confidence in Hong Kong between now and 1997 that China shows a more human face to Tibet, for that will be noticed in Hong Kong, and it will be reassuring. China has nothing to fear from Tibet. It has everything to gain from being reasonable and responsible in its conduct in the affairs of the autonomous region of Tibet.
The Dalai Lama is a man of quite exceptional merit. I have not had the honour of meeting him but, like others, I have seen him on television. I have read what he has been saying, and I have come to hold him in the greatest possible esteem. He personifies all that is good. He is in every sense the ambassador for peace, and more than anyone I know, he points the way to proper civilised conduct in the relationship between nations. It is in that capacity that he should be received by Her Majesty's Government.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, whatever the answer from Her Majesty's Government this evening, we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke not only for putting down the Question but also for painting a graphic and descriptive picture of the situation in Tibet today and as it has been in the past. As to the facts about Tibet, there is little that any of us can add. The picture has been graphically described and forms the basis of our discussion.
Many historical parallels have been raised. We think of the aspirations of the Tibetan people for self-determination. We see in other parts of the world the enormous problems that have arisen precisely because self-determination has not been allowed to certain sectors of the population. The Tibetans have the right to decide how they shall be governed and the internal laws that will govern them.
I should like to refer to a speech that his Holiness the Dalai Lama made when I had the honour, with a fellow MEP, to invite him to the European Parliament. He made the speech before a press conference of 300 people. I was told that there had never been a press conference like it. Never had there been so many journalists, and never had so much attention been given to one man. Yet here was a simple monk in his robes addressing the people of Europe. The atmosphere in the Parliament that day—and this was the view of everyone; the secretaries, interpreters and indeed people at all levels—was totally changed by the presence of that one man. It was remarkable how his goodness, his beliefs, his simplicity and his humility shone through.

945
Incidentally, the speech was printed in the reports of the United States Congress. It was textually repeated. The Dalai Lama made a great offer saying "I do not claim that we should demand to have the right to decide our own defence and foreign policy". He said he would be prepared to leave that to the People's Republic of China and its government. But what he would demand was the autonomy of the Tibetans to look after their own internal affairs, very much along the lines of what my noble friend Lord Eden has been adumbrating —the idea that there should be autonomous regions but that the peoples of those regions would decide for themselves the kind of government that they would have.
Another point that must be made is that when the Dalai Lama was asked, "Are you intending to go back to Tibet?", he said, "No, I do not want to go back as a great leader of people". I am quoting him verbatim. He said, "I am a simple monk. I have no wife and I have no children. What happens to me is nobody's concern. It does not matter. My concern is the suffering of my people and the treatment of my people in Tibet, and for this I will give my life".
That is his attitude. He is not a great political leader expecting red carpets wherever he goes; quite the reverse. That is why I think the Prime Minister should receive him, not because he sets himself up as a great world leader but because of the fact that he does not. That is a very strong argument for his being received at any level in this country.
Following his visit to the European Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, mentioned, although not in that particular context, China offered to have talks with the Dalai Lama because it thought there was something in his speech that could have been a basis for future negotiation. But it made the conditions so totally unacceptable and impossible that the talks have not taken place so far.
The letter that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to, which he received from the Prime Minister—a perfectly proper letter, if I may put it like that—said that no government has recognised this government in exile. But who recognised the Baltic states five years ago? Let us remember that history changes matters. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk pointed out so graphically, many areas of the world are changing dramatically. There may well be a change in China. We should not disregard events today; there is a possibility for the future.
I should like to raise the question of relations between the United Kingdom and China. I do not wish to go into the question of Hong Kong because that is a very special point —the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, is a real expert in that field—but I suggest that it is in the universal interest that the economic and social development of China should be encouraged and helped by the nations of the world. It does not help to deny economic or technological aid. When China shows that it has modified its treatment of people, whether they be Tibetans or its own people —let us remember that the brutal treatment of its own people is as bad as the treatment that we have seen in
946
Tibet—and when its government is not so centralised and so dominated by the military, I believe we should give more aid. Throughout the history of the world we have seen that there is a guarantee of the observance of human rights only in societies where there is no poverty and where there is economic and social development and a democratic system of government. That is an area where the United Kingdom could make a contribution —I do not say alone. But certainly, these are the lines along which the Western industrial world should go in relation to China. I do not believe that denying aid to China is of any help whatever.
There are other issues of mutual concern which are of universal interest to which I do not believe noble Lords have referred. There is the question of the environment. As many of us know, terrible things are happening in Tibet such as the denudation of forests and the dumping of nuclear waste, causing massive water pollution in the great rivers that flow from Tibet through the Yangtze and the Ganges, and there is air pollution from nuclear waste. In his remarkably modest and humble autobiography called Freedom in Exile, the Dalai Lama says:
"If we unbalance Nature, humankind will suffer. Furthermore, as people alive today, we must consider future generations: a clean environment is a human right like any other".
This kind of thinking of the Dalai Lama is fundamental to the continuity of a safe and free world. As his Holiness prepares his visit to this country, I wish to express my thanks to the Speaker in another place and to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for meeting him and receiving him in the great spirit of welcome of which I know they are capable. Remarkably enough, they are both deeply religious and when they meet the Dalai Lama they cannot fail to feel his deep religious presence. The only people who will lose are those who do not meet him.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I wish to express my strongest gratitude and support to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for raising this subject. Before turning to the main part of my speech perhaps I may take up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. He referred to rancid butter and nostalgia. I too remember rancid butter, but nostalgia is not the only thing that comes to mind when I think of it.
The noble Lord's point about Chinese resentment must be overridden and dealt with. The cause of the Dalai Lama in Tibet is greater than the mere matter of Chinese resentment. The noble Lord, Lord Eden, referred to democracy in Tibet: no doubt there has not been much democracy in Tibet, but there has not been much democracy in Asia until recently, and in the Middle Ages we were not particularly democratic. I am not sure who is talking about democracy in Tibet's history. A further point made by the noble Lord concerned linkage with China. The first linkage was in 1761 when China invaded Tibet—some linkage. That linkage is not popular nowadays, quite rightly.

947
Therefore I still believe that there are no better causes than that of this holy, spiritual and temporal leader of an ill-treated people—the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans. Furthermore, unlike the previous subject on which I spoke in this House, the environment, where the broader the sentiments expressed and the more disastrous the apparent consequences of not doing this, that or the other, the more powerless one felt, here the Government can, simply by acknowledging the Dalai Lama, by officially receiving him, do both good and a right deed. There seem to be so few opportunities these days for the Government to do both good and right deeds which cost nothing that it is surprising that on those grounds alone they do not seize the God-given opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama
I was somewhat puzzled by the mysterious ways of government. I am perfectly aware, and emphasise, that this Administration had nothing to do with the matter, but I recollect that some years ago our Sovereign had imposed on her as a guest at Buckingham Palace the Romanian dictator, Ceaucescu, and his horrible wife. Therefore, who is and who is not welcome is an extremely interesting subject.
The point was dealt with by some other noble Lords but I wondered about our attitude to the EC and its governments receiving the Dalai Lama. I wondered whether our Government were anxious about stepping out of line—but not a bit of it. I believe that many resolutions of the United Nations have supported the Dalai Lama and his cause and now that the United Nations has come back into fashion in this country following the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, its views must surely at last carry weight.
Perhaps the Government feel that the Dalai Lama is in spine way unworthy of us—not a fine enough person, with no temporal power—or perhaps he is too controversial in his views on, for example, monetarism; too wet or too dry, according to the movable fashions in Downing Street. He has no financial resources, merely spiritual ones. He is a good and holy man, an example of non-violent forbearance. He is the saintly leader of 4 million Buddhists. The most he has said of his struggle against the brutal Chinese aggression is:
"Our struggle is not anti-communist, not anti-Chinese. It is not anti-revolution. It has nothing to do with race or ideology. It is for the happiness of 6 million Tibetans."
Is it that the acceptance of the Dalai Lama might not be thought to be popular or that there are no votes in it? Surely there are always votes in good deeds in the long run, probably more even than in the re-jigging of the poll tax. Could it be thought that no one bothers about Tibet now? From noble Lords' speeches it is obvious that we are all greatly concerned. I believe that we feel for the country, its history and its tragic destruction. Many of our families have been there recently and seen its casually crushed culture and mangled monasteries.
As to the popular perception of the Dalai Lama, your Lordships may know the story of the British sergeant who was on duty at the Tibetan border. He
948
had instructions to look out for the fleeing 13th Dalai Lama who was escaping from the pursuing Chinese and was approaching the frontier with a wild group of people. The sergeant addressed the group in a parade ground voice, saying, "Which of you blighters is the Dalai Lama?" He then gave up his bed to the exhausted holy man who offered 1,000 troops to the British Government in the First World War.
The many brilliant men who have served Tibet's cause have been referred to by other noble Lords: Younghusband, Bell, Richardson and Sherriff. When the last was British Resident, with his wife, in Lhasa, he taught the lamas to play croquet in their garden. In their long robes they were soon good at concealing the croquet balls and craftily transferring them in front of the hoops.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, mentioned the former Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, and his support for the Tibetan cause. He went on record as saying, on hearing of the Chinese invasion of Tibet,
"Chinese pressure on India will continue. The Chinese Communists did not capture Tibet for the scenery".
He went on to add,
"Their purpose was the same as Mussolini's when he seized Albania".
We all know his feelings on Mussolini.
As concerns the false claims of the Chinese Government to suzerainty in Tibet, I believe that the Tibetans know it all to have been said at the time of the signing of the treaty in 821 AD between the Tibetan king and the Chinese representative of the T'ang dynasty. The treaty delineated the border stating, "Chinese are happy in China and Tibetans are happy in Tibet".
I therefore urge the Minister, who is such a distinguished member of the Government, to agree to meet the Dalai Lama when he comes to Britain in March. He will well know that the present courageous Administration have fought two wars in the cause of self-determination in the Falklands and over Kuwait. The Dalai Lama's case should not be treated in any less sympathetic manner by the Government.
8.49 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking this Question. I feel that Her Majesty's Government will answer it as did the deputy editor of the Daily Beast in Evelyn Waugh's novel Scoop. They will reply, "Well, up to a point, Lord Willoughby". It is with modified rapture that I learn that other countries have been meeting his Holiness the Dalai Lama "up to a point" since he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. In Italy the Dalai Lama met only the all-party Tibet Group. In Spain he met only the parliament of Navarra. In Belgium he met only the heads of both Houses of Parliament, and that is what he will do here: he will meet the Speaker and he will meet my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, for which I am very grateful. It is good that 10 more countries have received his Holiness since our last Unstarred Question in this House in 1989. Slowly, we progress.

949
Having said that, I am sad that our Prime Minister is not planning to meet the Dalai Lama. That is evidently because we still do not recognise the Dalai Lama as the secular head of Tibet. There is no difficulty about him being the spiritual head. Difficulties arise over the secular aspect because as we enter this territory we enter a minefield of semantics. Do we wish Tibet to exercise its right of independence or its right of self-determination? We deny the Chinese sovereignty but do we allow them suzerainty—and what is suzerainty? The meaning is clear to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; on the other hand I think that it means something different to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. Its meaning is unclear to me. It is a vague word and, worse, I believe that it has 17 meanings in Mandarin.
There is the word "autonomy". In 1943 Sir Anthony Eden described Tibet as autonomous, as de facto but not de jure independent and under Chinese suzerainty. He was repeating what Lord Curzon had said 20 years earlier; that Britain has recognised Tibet as de facto independent since 1910. Britain is ready to recognise China's suzerainty provided that China recognises Tibet's autonomy. China replies by agreeing that Tibet has autonomy. Therefore, they call half of it the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The other half they claim as part of China.
The key to understanding that attitude to Tibet lies more in race than in territory. The Han Chinese regard themselves as superior to all other races. They live in the Middle Kingdom, or the centre of civilisation, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has stated. They call everyone who is not Han a barbarian, which includes the British. It applies with much more force to the ethnic minorities within the People's Republic of China: the Manchus, the Kazakhs and the Uighurs. The Chinese regard them as backward people with quaint customs and picturesque costumes who probably welcome the civilising influence of the Hans. The interesting exception is the Mongols, who are now independent, at least in the north. I find the Mongols even more interesting because it was under the rule of Kublai Khan that both China and Tibet were part of the Mongol empire. It is on that fact that the Chinese base their claim that Tibet is part of China. It is a thin claim as, by extension, it would make Afghanistan a part of India, because both countries were once part of the Moghul Empire. It would also give Great Britain suzerainty over France, whatever that might mean.
Therefore, the Chinese claim Tibet for a weak reason. Much of what they are doing there can be explained by their instinctive feeling of superiority, but to explain is not to condone. The destruction of the monasteries, the torture of the monks and the executions are scandals so often recited that I shall not go into them tonight.
However, I should like to mention education, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, where the Tibetans are put at a natural disadvantage. Should a Tibetan wish to learn English, he has to do so in Chinese. Therefore, he will not get a good job. Even in
950
Lhasa it is unlikely that he will get a job as, for example, a bank clerk. He is more likely to be at the bottom of the heap, very dispirited and, I daresay, drunk. That is hardly the picture of a superior civilisation helping an ethnic minority to overcome its backwardness: rather it is keeping it down.
In 1989 the Chinese broadcast an educational message on radio Lhasa:
"We must settle the issue of what kind of people must be trained. We must train qualified personnel who love the motherland and maintain national unity. By no means should we train people who seek to practise splittism. We must see whether the students we train are politically qualified".
A general Chinese criticism of Tibet is that before 1950 it was not so much a Buddhist haven of calm and balance as a cruel feudal slave society. However, even if that is true, it does not justify intervention. Indeed it contravenes the United Nations declaration on the right to self-determination, Article 3, which states:
"Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence."
The Chinese exploitation of Tibet's forests and minerals contravenes the UN General Assembly resolution of 14th December 1962, Article 1:
"The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interests of national development and of the wellbeing of the state concerned".
In general, I believe that there is an important difference between Western and Chinese attitudes to Tibet: the West is a little bit woolly; China is hard and precise. The West sees a degree of independence but also a degree of Chinese suzerainty. There are differing views even within countries. In the United States, Congress backed an independent Tibet but the Reagan Administration did not. The waters are a little muddied. Contrast that situation with the crystal clear waters of China. I read from the magazine Outlook:
"Tibet is an inalienable part of Chinese territory. Any splittist action is not allowed by state law. Independence, semi-independence or independence in a disguised form will never be tolerated. The riots in Lhasa were engineered and instigated by a handful of splittist elements inside and outside Tibet. They tried to split Tibet from the big family of the motherland. They will never be allowed by law or tolerated by the Tibetan people".
That statement is clear. However, I believe that the issue can be resolved. It is not a question of whether Tibet be independent or a colony; the situation is not so basic. The Dalai Lama wants a middle road. In his address to the European Parliament on 15th June 1988 he suggested that Tibet be demilitarised but he does not advocate total independence. Tibet should be responsible for its internal policy, but China could manage its foreign policy. The Dalai Lama thus sacrifices a considerable measure of independence in return for the creation of a zone of peace, a sanctuary. His Holiness has proposed a sensible compromise. It is for that reason that I am a little sad that our Prime Minister will not meet him.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for initiating the debate on Tibet, or what the Chinese call

951
the fifth nation of China, and the Dalai Lama, although our hearts and minds are full of anxiety and hope for what is happening to our forces and those of our allies in Kuwait, or what Saddam Hussein once described as the 19th state of Iraq.
In its wisdom the Government Whips' Office has managed to arrange the debate on an unwhipped Tuesday, late at night, after the television cameras have long departed and all next-day newspapers have gone to bed, as indeed have all but the most intrepid of your Lordships. However, the right of free speech in this country is an inalienable and precious one even when it is largely inaudible.
For years Tibet has been a hidden land, a country the size of Europe, beyond the veil of ice among the Himalayas. It is a country bordered by China and India, by Bhutan, Sikkim and Burma, but due to its difficulty of access it has long been isolated and able peaceably to pursue its destiny. The people are Tartars, akin to Mongolians, but racially and in every other way different to the Chinese, Indians and Burmese. As long ago as the seventh century they were a warlike people, extending their boundaries into Kashmir, Nepal, North Burma and even into China. The conquering Tibetan King, Tsuk-Tsen, married two princesses; the Princess of China and the Princess of Nepal, who were both Buddhists. After his conversion the whole of Tibet became Buddhist and, as it has remained ever since, a monastic, theistic society. Subsequently there was some contact between the courts of China and Tibet. Lamas travelled to Peking and in theory Tibet enjoyed the protection of China. The relationship was loose and, in the nature of things, never defined because it took three months to travel from one country to the other.
By the early 18th century the Chinese were interfering more frequently in the internal affairs of Tibet as they did not like the religious influence of the Dalai Lama over the peoples of Mongolia and Manchuria. They appointed an Amban in Lhasa. At the end of the 19th century the British were increasingly worried about Russian interventions in the sub-continent: what Kipling had called the "great game" had started. It occurred to the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, that if Tibet could be isolated from Russia there would be a protected frontier over nearly all the north of India. In 1904 an expedition under Colonel Younghusband penetrated Tibet and reached Lhasa where, after protracted negotiations with various lamas, but not the Dalai Lama who had conveniently disappeared, a treaty was signed between Britain and Tibet providing that the Tibetans should have no dealings with any foreign governments, which effectively ruled out the Russians.
In 1906 and 1907 conventions were signed with the Chinese and the Russians placing Tibet as a buffer state under the protection of the Chinese. The Chinese then organised a military expedition of their own which reached Lhasa in 1910, whereupon the Dalai Lama and his government fled to take refuge under the protection of the British at Darjeeling. Luckily for the Tibetans the Chinese revolution broke out in 1911, their troops were recalled and the Dalai Lama and his
952
government returned to take possession of Tibet in 1912. For the next 40 years Tibet remained an entirely independent country. In 1917 the Chinese again attacked Tibet. This time they were repulsed.
After the First World War a British mission was sent to Tibet under Sir Charles Bell, who had befriended the Dalai Lama on his flight to India. Other British missions followed under Frederick Bailey, Sheriff, Leslie Weir, Frederick Williamson and, in 1936, Sir Basil Gould, who had in his entourage the young Hugh Richardson, trade secretary at Gyangtse.
On Friday of last week my husband and I spent the afternoon with Hugh Richardson in his house at St. Andrews on the Kinnesswood Burn. It was sheeting down with heavy sleet, and as he came down the steps of his house to shelter us, with old world courtesy, under his huge black umbrella I felt as if I were being transported back in time half a century to the Dekyi-Lingka in Lhasa, the Garden of Happiness, where he had represented the British from 1936 until 1947 and then for three years had represented Pandit Nehru until he left in 1950 just before the Chinese invasion.
"The Tibetans are a marvellous people", he told us, "gentle and peaceable. Life there was very primitive, but it was a very happy life. Of course, latterly, we had some electricity to work the radio". As we sipped coffee we talked of the Tibet which had gone. We talked of their monasteries, libraries and temples—3,500 of them, now all blown up or destroyed except for 13 which partially remain. Hugh Richardson also talked of China's destruction of the forests, which are not being replanted. Above all, we talked of the old days; of Tibet before 1950 when the temples still existed, the gardens were full of flowers and the little Dalai Lama—only 3½ years old—already radiated some special quality of goodness.
Since Hugh Richardson left Tibet the Chinese have blown up and destroyed the monasteries, they have taken the gold and silver objects to China and melted them down. Many Chinese have moved in to colonise Tibet. There have been forced marriages and sterilisation of Tibetan women. Pot plants and flowers have been pulled up and smashed. Dogs and pets have been killed. Women's hair has been cut off. Girls have been marched naked in the streets. There were beatings, tortures and killings. Books and sacred papers were used as lavatory paper. It was a brutal, systematic destruction of a whole people and a way of life. By the mid-1970s there was a new mood in China and things became marginally better. Besides, there were fewer Tibetans to kill, or monasteries to destroy or despoil.
However, since 1987 Chinese oppression has started again. More troops have arrived; people are still being killed and tortured. Only last year a 20 year-old student, Lhakpa Tsering, was tortured and killed. His case has been taken up by Amnesty International and by Senator Edward Kennedy. Some of the details were given by the Dalai Lama to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who passed them on to me.

953
Though it hurts me to relate them to your Lordships as much as I am sure it will upset noble Lords to hear them, I think that they should be known.
Lhakpa Tsering, a Tibetan nationalist was imprisoned in November 1989 in Drapchi prison in Lhasa for distributing leaflets. He was born in Lhasa and lived in Kyere, with his father, his grandmother and his younger sister and brother. They were a very poor family. He was known for his gentle behaviour. Some foreign journalists were coming to inspect the conditions in Drapchi prison and the prisoners were briefed to say that Tibet was not independent but part of China. The prisoners, including Lhakpa Tsering, replied bravely that they were imprisoned because of their belief in the independence of Tibet which they would carry through to the end.
As soon as the prisoners said that the Chinese authorities started beating them. Because Lhakpa Tsering was the most quick witted he was singled out to be beaten mercilessly. Even those outside the prison walls heard the cries of pain of Lhakpa Tsering when he was beaten to death. When they saw that Lhakpa Tsering was badly beaten the other prisoners pleaded with the Chinese prison authorities to take him to the hospital for medical treatment. The prison warden ignored the request and so, unattended, Lhakpa Tsering died of his injuries on 15th December 1990.
Next day the Chinese authorities handed his body over to his family, who could not bear to look at it because he was so badly beaten. His body was blue, and blood had come out of his ears. Because his body was blue his family accused the prison authorities of giving him poison. They countered by saying that they had not done so and that his body could be thoroughly examined in the crematorium. The body examiners came from the Tibetan Medical Institute, members of the judiciary, members of the Health Institute and the topden (the regular body carrier). They discovered large clots of blood under the skin, which the topden said was because of the frequent use of electrical cattle prods on Lhakpa Tsering.
That horrifying story is only one among many. It makes us grieve for the poor boy so tragically and brutally murdered, for his family, for the Tibetan people, and for the Chinese who have to live with the consequences of their actions.
We in Britain have a long history of friendship with China. We admire its art and love of beauty. We love Chinese flower arrangements and Chinese cooking. Above all, we love China's people. They are our friends. It is because they are our friends that we have to speak out. We cannot bear to see our friends behaving badly in the eyes of other people and of the world. We should like to see Tibet restored to the complete independence that it enjoyed between 1912 and 1950 with its own people and its own religion and way of life so that, as an independent nation, it may once more regain the friendly relationship which it had with China in the distant past.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I could not possibly emulate the very powerful speeches made by many noble Lords who have spoken this evening. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, my knowledge of Tibet is by no means immense. However, I can explain to my noble friend Lord Mersey that suzerainty is something that England used to claim over Scotland and possibly still does.
Along with other noble Lords I urge Her Majesty's Government to take a broader view than governments are usually accustomed to take in matters of this kind. In doing so I add, as other noble Lords have said, that the past two years should have taught us that things are not always quite what they seem in countries where there is autocratic or tyrannical rule. Not so very long ago in Europe we were faced with a seemingly immovable and monolithic communist bloc. It was easy to believe that that situation would not change in the foreseeable future. Indeed, up to about two years ago many people, including myself, thought that.
The result was that the Foreign Office and the authorities in this country tended to ignore foreign oppositions because to do otherwise was to offend the government in office. One can understand the reasoning behind that attitude but if the past few years have taught us anything they have taught us that we live in a turbulent world where almost anything can happen and usually does. My personal experience tells me that, as a result of that attitude, we have not earned the overwhelming gratitude of the present rulers of the former communist states in Eastern Europe or of their peoples. I shall not say any more about that matter.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government, in the person of the Prime Minister, ought to receive the Dalai Lama. He stands for something unique and precious in this world. At his trial King Charles I said, "Sir, I am no ordinary prisoner" and, to paraphrase him, the Dalai Lama could say, "Sir, I am no ordinary dissident". Indeed, he is not a dissident at all but the rightful ruler of Tibet and its people.
So far, I side with those noble Lords who have said tonight that China has no more right to rule Tibet than Iraq has to rule Kuwait. Indeed, from what I have seen, it has possibly rather less right. The culture and religion of Tibet make it one of the most interesting civilisations in the world. That civilisation has been all but destroyed in the past 40 years. The Dalai Lama alone remains a beacon of hope, spiritual and temporal, to his people. His country and religion were and are an inspiration to many and a threat to none. Who can say that of the murderous followers of Mao Tse Tung and his successors? Thanks to television, we were all observers of the events in Tiananmen Square. Hope flared briefly there, not only for China but also for Tibet and indeed for Hong Kong, only to be brutally stamped out by the vicious gerontocracy that now rules China. But the old men will die, things will change and what seems impossible today will, I believe, not always be impossible. I

955
believe that Tibet will be free again and when that happens we may ask ourselves where Britain has stood during Tibet's agony.
Up to now our government have refused even to receive the Dalai Lama because of fears of upsetting China over Hong Kong. I do not want to say much about Hong Kong except that, in my humble opinion, when China takes Hong Kong in 1997 she will do exactly as she pleases. That is my opinion.
Talking or not talking to the Dalai Lama will not make a hair's breadth of difference except to the honour and standing of this country. We shall have refused to receive a just, holy and good man in order to placate the aged tyrants who for the moment happen to be ruling China. I do not believe that this country ought to lick the boots of tyrants. We are still, against all the evidence, the hope of much of the world that longs to be free.
Finally, I understood that the last time the Dalai Lama was in Britain he was restricted in what he was allowed to say in this country and undertook not to talk politics. Indeed I asked a Question in your Lordships' House on the subject. I was told that his Holiness had volunteered that undertaking to the Foreign Office. That is what I would call a likely story, but I suppose that we have to accept it. Will the Minister assure me that, should his Holiness offer such an undertaking this time, Her Majesty's Government will assure him that speech is free in this country?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for initiating the debate, for the powerful advocacy with which he put the case for receiving his Holiness the Dalai Lama, and for his advocacy on behalf of the Tibetan people that more attention be paid to their rights by Her Majesty's Government. There is little that one can add to the description which he has given of the horrendous situation faced by the Tibetan people. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, called it cultural genocide. A word coined by Leo Kuper to describe what is happening in Tibet is ethnocide. What we witness today is the extinction of the culture, the religion and whole ethos of a people by an oppressor. That underlies the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
We are not merely speaking of the reception by Her Majesty's Government of the Dalai Lama but of what that means in terms of the British Government's attitude to the sufferings which have been endured by the Tibetan people over the past 40 years. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the work that he has done, in particular in the leadership of the parliamentary group on Tibet, and the immense energy that he put into the organisation of the conference last year at which we discussed the aspirations of the Tibetan people. Much of the attention now paid to the cause of Tibet is due to the work that he did and to the impact that it made on public opinion within this country.
It is not long since we last debated this issue. We asked the Government then why they declined to welcome his Holiness the Dalai Lama. Several noble
956
Lords have pointed out that while many things have been changing in the world in the intervening months, the Foreign Office policy on Tibet appears to be set in concrete. Nothing has changed in the way in which we approach the question of Tibet or the reception of the Dalai Lama in spite of everything that has occurred in the outside world. Those matters have been mentioned. The independence of Namibia is another example. It has been held in subjection by its powerful neighbour, South Africa. It has now obtained freedom with the aid of the international community. It is an interesting example where the force of international public opinion has in the end carried the day and forced the oppressor to give up the domination of the smaller and less powerful neighbour.
Mention has been made of the Baltic States. Not only the Baltic States but all the other republics in the Soviet Union are now claiming their independence, including the Ukraine and Georgia. Even the Russian Republic has declared in favour of transforming the USSR into a loose confederation of sovereign states.
In the Horn of Africa, Eritrea has almost won its 30 year struggle for independence from Amhara colonialism. In Kashmir the people are engaged in a life and death struggle against Indian imperialism. In Acheh, East Timor and West Papua, there is a new spirit of hope in the freedom struggles. In the Gulf, the Kurds are determined that when Saddam Hussein finally topples their claims will receive, as they should, at least as high a priority as those of the Palestinians. In short, everywhere in the world peoples are demanding the fulfilment of the promise of Article 1 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
It goes without saying that the Tibetans are a people. They have a long history of statehood. However, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that does not in any way deny the fact that there existed close links of a unique kind between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Emperor which we now describe as suzerainty but which in fact is nothing of the kind. As students of Tibetan history will be aware, what was known as the Cho Yon relationship provided for an exchange between equal sovereigns where the Dalai Lama gave spiritual benefit to the Chinese Emperor and in return the Chinese Emperor conferred military benefits on the people of Tibet. That was not suzerainty. It is a form of ethnocentricity that we apply a term that is appropriate in relation to Western history to a situation which had nothing in common with what happened in Europe when suzerainty meant something here.
The people of Tibet have their own institutions, religion, language and culture. The brutal annexation of Tibet by China was comparable to the annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR in 1940. That is an instructive parallel because the United Kingdom never recognised the Soviet occupation. While the Government received visiting dignitaries such as Mrs. Casimiera Prunskiene, who was then Prime Minister

957
of Lithuania, or Mr. Lennart Meri, who was the Foreign Minister of Estonia, we meekly accepted the Tibetan anschluss and snubbed the only legitimate representative of the Tibetan people.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was a little dismissive of the other leaders who have received the Dalai Lama. He said that their propensity to receive him was in inverse proportion to their interest in the problems of that region. I suggest to him that their preparedness to meet him and to receive him in their countries bears a relationship to their view of the question of self-determination. The reason why President Havel received the Dalai Lama was because the self-determination of the people of Czechoslovakia was of some importance in that country. Might not the situation alter a little as the various nations of Eastern Europe stand on their own feet and realise the strength of their own independence? As the republics of the USSR do the same, what attitude might be taken by a future independent Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania, or by an independent Ukraine or Georgia, to the aspirations of other subject peoples who have not yet been liberated by the empires that still exist? The era of European colonialism came to an end and we now face the dismantling of other empires which, unfortunately, still exist but have been ignored by the United Nations.
However, at present we are fighting to uphold an important principle of international law—that sovereignty cannot be acquired by forcible occupation. I fully support the war against Saddam Hussein but at the same time I must point out that we apply multiple standards in such matters. We stood aside when Suharto brutally invaded East Timor in 1975. We did nothing to prevent him massacring 150,000 of the territory's inhabitants. In fact we continued to try to sell him weapons, as we did to Saddam Hussein provided that the only people he killed were Iraqis and Kurds rather than Kuwaitis. We have nothing to say about the atrocities now being committed by the Indians in their occupation of Kashmir.
Mrs. Lynda Chalker goes to the Horn of Africa and hobnobs with the butcher Mangistu who has murdered his political opponents and caused the deaths of thousands of his countrymen. The Government were quick to reingratiate themselves with the perpetrators of the 4th June massacre in Beijing. As soon as they thought that decency would allow they sent representatives from the Foreign Office to Beijing and to Lhasa. The representative who went to Lhasa found out little. He arrived two days after a large demonstration by the Tibetan people against their occupation. A Chinese general was subsequently decorated for the repression of the demonstration but the Foreign Office representative was unaware of those events. He only made inquiries of some European residents in Lhasa and did not bother even to speak to any representatives of the Tibetan people.
However, it does not matter to the Government that dissidents were tried and sentenced under procedures which do not conform to any principles of natural justice. It did not matter, as has been
958
mentioned, that Tibetans continued to be arrested and tortured; that huge forces of the police and army of the Chinese occupiers intimidated the population; that monks and nuns have been singled out for particularly vicious ill-treatment, and that a systematic campaign of ethnocide is being waged against Tibet. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bellhaven, our policy has been to lick the boots of the dictators in Beijing.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was good enough to send me a copy of his letter from the Prime Minister which stated:
"The Dalai Lama's aspirations for self-determination have not been endorsed by any other government".
I make no apologies for returning to that statement because self-determination is not a right to be claimed by an individual, however distinguished he may be. It is unique among the rights which are laid down in the United Nations covenant on political rights in that it belongs to a people:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
The Tibetans are incontrovertibly a people, as I have already said. However, when he winds up perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is also his view; namely, that the Tibetans are a people and that therefore they possess the right enshrined in Article 1.
One noble Lord mentioned that there was not much democracy in Tibet before the Chinese occupation in 1950, but, as has also been said, neither was there anywhere else in Asia. Nowadays the position is different. I point out to your Lordships that recently an election has been held of all the Tibetan peoples in exile for a new assembly. The results are due to be announced within the next week.
Therefore, whatever may have been the history of Tibet prior to Chinese occupation, if the Tibetans regained control of their own affairs they would assuredly have a democratic system. Indeed, his Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that he has no particular political aspirations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, reminded us, he likes to call himself a humble monk. Once the Tibetans obtain the right to self-determination, it is entirely a matter for them as to how they should be governed.
Returning to the Prime Minister's letter, he implies that we cannot begin to consider the claim to self-determination unless it has first been endorsed by other governments. I should like to press the Minister as to whether that is really the view of the Government. If it is, and if other signatories to the covenant take a similar view, Article 1 is a dead letter. The only way in which a territory would ever be able to make good a claim would be through the use of superior military force, as in the most obvious case since the war, that of Bangladesh, and, quite shortly I hope, in Western Sahara and Eritrea.
Once a people has expelled its oppressors and established its own administration, governments recognise the right to self-determination. However, the obvious consequence of that is that it encourages peoples to use military rather than political means of asserting their rights as one can see from the conflicts

959
in Western Sahara, Eritrea, Kashmir, the Punjab, Acheh, West Papua, East Timor, East Turkestan and even Tibet. In spite of the Buddhist tradition of non-violence, which has already been mentioned, and the firm insistence by the Dalai Lama that only peaceful means should be used to secure Tibetan rights, the Chinese authorities have not hesitated to use extreme violence against the civilian population and some young Tibetans are now advocating armed struggle.
Comparison has been made between the peaceful way in which the Tibetans pursue their aspirations and the horrible atrocities committed by the IRA in Ireland. It was an Irishman who said in 1880 that violence is sometimes the only way of securing a hearing for moderation. I hope that that will not be the lesson given out by either the British Government or any other state which has to deal with the People's Republic of China. Shall we say to the Dalai Lama and his people that because they continue to pursue their case by peaceful means they will not receive a hearing in the outside world whereas others, such as the Palestinians, who are quite prepared to use violent means, are entertained in the councils of the United Nations and given a proper hearing by the leaders of import ant states?
I am sure that it would be infinitely preferable for the United Nations to establish procedures for evaluating and processing claims for self-determination so that the outcome would not be arbitrarily decided on political grounds. I hope that in the Gulf, when Kuwait has been finally liberated from Iraqi occupation, consideration will be given to finding better procedures for evaluating those claims other than the arbitrary one of deciding whether or not a specific people has been successful by force of arms in carrying through the claims that it was denied through political means. After all, the Tibetans have a far longer history of statehood in national institutions and a better claim than the Kuwaitis to the support of the international community. The reason why they continue to get the brush-off is because we are all terrifies of offending the Chinese. That has always been the case. We do not want to upset them not only because of Hong Kong, but also because China is an important power in the world. We think of it as an essential trading and political partner in matters such as the Gulf, where the Chinese have been specifically singled out for praise for the help that they have been giving to the Allies in terms of moral support.
I hope that the new order which has been mentioned as occurring after the Gulf War in the Middle East will not be limited to that region. Although no clue has been given to its components, I hope that it will provide for some international impartial authority which I may call—as I did at the conference on the rights of Tibet which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I attended in Tokyo—a United Nations High Commission for Self-determination. Its function would be to receive claims, to have the power to disallow those which were manifestly ill-founded and to refer those which were judged admissible to an appropriate committee of the United Nations.
960
By what criteria would the High Commissioner decide on admissibility? The governing instrument might require him to have regard to the factors I mentioned earlier—previous history of statehood, ethnicity, language, religion, culture, existence of national institutions and any evidence of the wishes of the people. All point clearly in the direction of giving Tibetans the right of admission.
The committee to which the High Commissioner would report might be a reconstituted Decolonisation Committee, with the members appointed as experts in their own right, like the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, rather than as representatives of their government, as the Committee of 24 now is.
It may be objected—and was by Ministers when I made the point in correspondence with them—that states would never agree to procedures which would be likely to breach the principle of so-called territorial integrity. But the purpose of this procedure would be only to implement the United Nations' own principles which are set out in the Universal Declaration and in both Covenants. Those should surely take precedence over lines arbitrarily drawn on maps. When Britain was an imperial power we voluntarily granted independence to all the territories that we governed when after the war the economic and political disadvantages of maintaining control of the empire became clear. Why should not the same arguments now apply to the Chinese and to the other empires which still exist? Is it not up to us to point out to China that it could enjoy amicable and profitable relationships with a free Tibet and at the same time eliminate the enormous burden of military occupation of an increasingly hostile people? Might not China also accept, if the subject could be discussed with it at all, that legally there is no difference between local and salt sea imperialism? As a UN rapporteur expressed it:
"If, beneath the guise of ostensible national unity, colonial and alien domination does in fact exist, whatever legal formula may be used in an attempt to conceal it, the right of the subject people concerned cannot be denied without international law being violated".
The Government have not said that making claims to self-determination justiciable would be undesirable, merely that the Charter gave member states protection against external interference directed at their national unity and territorial integrity, and that they would oppose any new mechanism which undermined this protection. What I have proposed is that the initiative has to come from a people inside the existing territory, that frivolous claims can be discarded, and that those found to have some merit be considered by a UN committee, not by individual member states. With those provisos, why not at least test the water and see whether there is any support for such a proposal internationally?
Whatever the Government may say, let them be in no doubt that the cause of Tibet is backed in this country and in the West generally by the great majority of those who know anything about the issue. I think that that has been exemplified by this evening's debate. The vast majority of people also admire enormously the dignified and peaceful way in which the case has been presented by his Holiness the Dalai

961
Lama. I hope that his visit will convince the Government of the need to take a stand, as has been said, on moral considerations and not on those of expediency which have determined their policy hitherto.
As the Government consider what has been said this evening in this debate I commend to their attention words spoken by President Woodrow Wilson in an address to Congress towards the end of another great conflict. He said:
"National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their consent. Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril".
9.38 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, gave a very forceful and effective introduction to the debate on what is a very emotive subject, that of Tibet. From what was said by a long list of speakers it is apparent that it is a matter which concerns many in this House and elsewhere. As the noble Lord said, it is a concern that will not go away. The central point to the noble Lord's Question is whether the Government will meet his Holiness the Dalai Lama on his forthcoming visit to London. The Government may have received a great deal of encouragement from what noble Lords have said this evening. It was only the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who urged caution and spoke of the harm that such recognition might give to relations with China over Hong Kong. As other noble Lords have said, our responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong should not disqualify us from making our views about Tibet known to China.
Many noble Lords have stressed the Tibetan people's right to self-determination as called for by the UN resolution of 1961. Many have also praised the admirable non-violent methods used by Tibetans, led by the Dalai Lama, to achieve that. Her Majesty's Government should support Tibet by urging the Chinese Government to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Tibetans.
I join my noble friend Lord Ennals in asking whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans at present to meet representatives from the Chinese Government to discuss the situation in Tibet.
In the few minutes I have to speak I wish to draw attention to the present suffering of the people of Tibet. I have in mind human rights violations and also the deprivation suffered by the majority of Tibetan people. When one is debating whether the Tibetan people have a right to self-determination one should look rather carefully at the results of Chinese occupation. There have already been many references to the violation of human rights: Amnesty International has reported the violations perpetrated by the Chinese army and the security forces. For many years we have read troubling press accounts about the imprisonment and arbitrary execution of prisoners of conscience. Have the Government made representations to the Chinese Government with respect to
962
human rights violations in Tibet? Does the Minister know how many political prisoners are currently held in Drapchi prison, and are any held in other prisons and labour camps in Tibet? On these Benches we believe that it is of the utmost importance that China should be confronted over its treatment of the Tibetan people.
We remember that there seemed to be an improvement when before Christmas a delegation of Scandinavian diplomats was allowed to visit Tibet and to report on conditions there. This followed the call of the US Congress for the cancellation of economic concessions to China in view of its human rights abuses in Tibet. The Scandinavian delegation complained to the Chinese authorities about the treatment of the estimated 50 or more prisoners held at the prison and called for more humane treatment of and possible release for those held. This effort, however, sadly suffered a setback soon after the delegation's departure, with the torture and the murder of Lhakpa Tsering, which was described in a very heartbreaking and graphic way by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.
I too remind the House that this murder drew a stern response from 30 US Senators, led by Senator Edward Kennedy himself, who wrote to the Premier of China expressing their concern over the death of this political prisoner and the violent repression of Tibetans peacefully seeking to express their political views. Senator Kennedy called Tsering's death:
"Yet another human rights tragedy in Tibet, all too typical of the cruel Chinese repression of the Tibetan people".
Perhaps the Minister can give the Government's assessment of the human rights situation in Tibet and say whether it has improved since the visit of the Scandinavian delegation before Christmas.
The undeniable fact of these human rights violations is there for all to see. Unfortunately, evidence coming from one source—the UNICEF reports—stresses the inequalities within China, with enormous gains in child health, nutrition and economic security for the urban, coastal and river-basin regions, in contrast to the high poverty and poor health in the remote, rural, mountainous and minority inhabited areas which include Tibet. Yet the Chinese Government claim to have a policy of giving priority to its deprived areas. It is crucial for all donor countries to stress to the Chinese Government that they must keep their word in this regard and prioritise the poorest regions. The special studies indicate some very wide disparities. For instance, while average child mortality in China is 36 per thousand, which is not a bad level, it is thought to be as high as 122 per thousand in Lhasa; and with adult illiteracy at only 31 per cent. in China, it stands as high as 73 per cent. in Tibet, which is over double the figure. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, spoke about the educational disadvantage of the Tibetans. I believe that that is a very important point.
However, I should point out that those inequalities in health care are also of concern to the UK Committee of UNICEF, which has just renewed its long-standing commitment to China's expanded programme of immunisation, for which the sum of

963
£250,000 spread over a period of three years has been pledged. UNICEF's supporters and volunteers all over the country striving to raise money would like to see that money evenly distributed among the Tibetans where there is the greatest need. That is why the inequalities to which I have referred are so worrying. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government are supporting any NGO activity in Tibet.
In conclusion, perhaps I may stress the fact that everything points to the urgency for the Tibetan people's rights to be recognised and for them to be allowed to return to the standard of living, to the culture and to the way of life which they enjoyed prior to the Chinese occupation in 1950. Those rights have in effect been conceded by many countries where his Holiness the Dalai Lama has been received. Further, I believe that it is important for Her Majesty's Government to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, that the United Kingdom was one of the 59 countries which voted for the UN resolution calling for the restoration of Tibet's right to self-determination in 1961. Moreover, since that time his Holiness and his non-violent warriors, if I may so call them, pave earned the respect and admiration of many people throughout the world. These people are dedicated to the peaceful resolution of conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, and many other noble Lords said, this subject will not go away.
9.47 p m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for raising the question of the Dalai Lama and the situation in Tibet and for providing the opportunity for us to debate the matter and for me to set out the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
The Government have made clear their attitude to the Dalai Lama on many occasions. We have always recognised his role as a distinguished spiritual leader who has won widespread international respect for his admirable dedication to the cause of peace. That was confirmed by the award to him in 1989 of the Nobel Peace Prize. He is welcome to visit the United Kingdom at any time and there has never been any question of our seeking to dissuade him from coming to Britain or of restricting his activities while he is here. He has indeed visited this country on several occasions and was here briefly last September to promote the launch of his autobiography.
Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama remains a political figure as well as a spiritual leader, regarded by many of his followers as the leader of a government-in-exile. It is important for everyone to be clear that no government recognises this political body and we like others have no dealings with them. Often meetings with the Dalai Lama organised in his spiritual capacity have later been portrayed by his supporters in a political manner. In these circumstances we have concluded that it would not be right for the Prime Minister or Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to meet the Dalai Lama during his visit.
As the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said, any change in our policies would be interpreted as an act
964
of state. I agree with him. It would be an act open to misinterpretation and would be to no one's benefit. Nevertheless, his Holiness will be received at a high level and a full and varied programme has been arranged for him. As well as meeting such prominent figures as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Hume, he will spend time in another place where he will meet the Speaker. Furthermore, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will meet the Dalai Lama at a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tibet which he will chair in his capacity as Speaker of this House and which his Holiness will address. There can therefore be no question of discourtesy to a widely respected spiritual figure.
So far as the status of Tibet is concerned, successive British Governments have consistently regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese there. That continues to be the Government's view. Tibet was declared an autonomous region of China in 1965. The Dalai Lama has made various proposals for the future of Tibet. Those are matters for him to discuss with the Chinese Government, and we have encouraged the Chinese authorities in that direction.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is there any respect in which the Minister feels that the Tibetan people in Tibet have any degree of autonomy today? If so, will he tell us?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is our view that Tibet has autonomy. I shall say more about that in due course.
We believe that all peoples have a right to self-determination, but that right can be exercised in several different ways. We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal and consider that it would be no service to the Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence. We continue to believe that the most promising solution to the problem of Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama. The Chinese authorities have recently reiterated their willingness to open such a dialogue and we welcome this commitment.
Our prime concern in all of this must be to achieve a better deal for the Tibetan people and Her Majesty's Government share the concerns of many Members of your Lordships' House over reports of human rights abuses in Tibet. It is a sad fact, however, that there have been reports of severe human rights abuses throughout China, not only in Tibet. We deplore such abuses wherever they occur and have made our concern clear to the Chinese authorities both in public and private on many occasions. My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, specifically referred to Tibet when speaking of that concern to the Chinese leaders on his visit to Peking in July last year, and my noble friend Lord Caithness had a long exchange on that topic with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Tian Zengpei, who visited the UK in November.
The EC Presidency made two statements to last year's session of the UN Commission on Human

965
Rights, on behalf of the Twelve, calling upon the Chinese authorities to guarantee full respect for human rights throughout China, including Tibet, in keeping with their international obligations. The second statement called for the release of all political prisoners and respect for the rights of all Chinese citizens to free expression and peaceful assembly. The UK was also a co-sponsor of a UN resolution on human rights in China, which unfortunately was narrowly defeated in the UN Commission.
We should not see every action of the Chinese in Tibet in a purely negative light. Since 1980 China has shown a more positive attitude in the region. The Chinese themselves have acknowledged that serious mistakes were made in Tibet, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, and have admitted that the Tibetan people's interests have been harmed by those mistakes. They appear to have been making an effort to show some respect for Tibetan beliefs and way of life. The Government have commissioned the restoration of more than 500 monasteries and temples destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. The authorities also give substantial aid to Tibet, some of it jointly with international organisations. They have, for example, set up three health centres for women and children in conjunction with UNICEF and have allowed the Red Cross and Save the Children Fund to work in Tibet. They set up a Tibet Development Fund which collects money from overseas donors for development projects in the education, health and welfare spheres. They are committed to making Tibet self-sufficient. After the demonstrations in March 1989, the Chinese authorities reaffirmed that they would not change their policies of promoting economic and cultural development in Tibet, while preserving freedom of religion and respect for local customs.
The member of the British Embassy in Peking who accompanied three members of another place on their visit to Tibet in October 1989—at a time when Tibet was still under martial law—reported that, despite the heavy military presence, the economy of Lhasa and the surrounding area appeared to be thriving and the general atmosphere seemed relaxed. I am aware that some noble Lords have queried that description, but in our view it reflects the situation at the time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister any comment to make on the official's ignorance of the event that occurred two days before his visit—that is, the large demonstration which I mentioned, for having repressed which a Chinese general was afterwards decorated?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we stand by the report our our delegate. I have no reason to suppose that he was in ignorance of the situation which he was describing.
It is also a fact that those disturbances which have taken place in Lhasa from time to time between 1987 and 1989 were relatively limited in time and extent, even if, regrettably, deaths and injuries undoubtedly occurred. As has been mentioned, after the lifting of martial law on 1st May 1990, four Scandinavian ambassadors were able to visit Tibet in November
966
1990. They reported that security was relatively muted although there were large numbers of plain clothes police in evidence. They said that conditions in the prison they visited appeared reasonable by Asian standards. More generally, they observed of their visit to Tibet that significant technological and economic development had been taking place. I am aware that there are many different views of China's efforts to modernise and develop Tibet. But I believe there has been a genuine attempt to improve conditions in that region which should be recognised.
I shall attempt to deal with some of the points that were raised by noble Lords taking part in the debate and which I have not entirely covered. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and perhaps others, observed that Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence after 1911, but Tibet never enjoyed de jure independence. Tibet was never internationally recognised as independent. That is why there is no parallel with Kuwait. Kuwait is a sovereign independent state recognised internationally as such, and is a member of the United Nations.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Would he agree that the British Government signed a treaty with Tibet at one stage between 1911 and 1950? If Tibet was not a sovereign independency how could it sign a treaty?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it remains the case that successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while always recognising the special position of China. That continues to be our view. Similarly, we do not regard the situation of the Baltic States as a comparable parallel. Her Majesty's Government never recognised the legality of the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union, whereas we have always recognised the special position of the Chinese in Tibet.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Grimond, spoke of appeasement. There is no question of our appeasing China. Human rights abuses in Tibet concern us as they do when they occur anywhere in the world. We have never hesitated to make clear to the Chinese our views on this issue. We wish to improve our relations with China, but this does not prevent us from stating clearly to them our position on abuses of human rights.
Several noble Lords referred to the fact that Ministers from other countries had met the Dalai Lama, although the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, pointed out that the countries with the greatest interests in China had not done so, and he cited the United States, Japan and Germany. Of those countries whose Ministers have visited the Dalai Lama—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? On the first day of German reunification the President of Germany received the Dalai Lama. He was the first foreign visitor to be received.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I stand corrected. I accept the noble Lord's correction, but those Ministers who have met the Dalai Lama stressed that they had done so in his private and religious capacity, and at the

967
same time most have reiterated to the Chinese authorities their recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.
My noble friends Lord Willoughby and Lady Strange raised the case of Mr. Lhakpa Tsering and we are concerned about the report of Amnesty International about his death under torture. We are trying to establish further details.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Avebury, referred to the letter which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the former. The letter was intended to convey the point that a Tibetan claim to independence had not achieved support from member states of the United Nations. My noble friend Lord Selkirk said that we should take the matter to the United Nations. We see it as essentially a problem which must be solved by the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people. We do not think that United Nations involvement would lead to a solution, but we are of course prepared to raise human rights issues at the United Nations; indeed, we have done so on several occasions.
I agree with the concern of my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton about human rights in Tibet. We have told the Chinese repeatedly of our concern. He raised the matter of Hong Kong, as did the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. We see no parallel and consider it misleading to make too close a comparison. There are fundamental, historical, ethnic, economic and constitutional differences between Hong Kong and Tibet and between Chinese policies towards those two places.
We consider it to be wrong to draw a direct parallel also between the 17-point agreement that China signed with the Tibetans in 1951 and the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. The latter is a binding international agreement registered at the United Nations. It provides as secure a guarantee for Hong Kong as possible. We believe that it is very much in Chinese interests to honour that Sino-British Joint Declaration.
My noble friend Lady Elles was concerned about damage to the environment. We are aware of the allegations that the Chinese are damaging the environment in Tibet. However, an eminent American anthropologist who has spent over a year travelling around Tibet's northern plateau recently reported that the flora and fauna were flourishing. He had found no ecological degradation.
The noble Earl, Lord Buchan, mentioned linkage. Chinese links with Tibet go back seven hundred years. The Chinese do not regard themselves as having suzerainty; they claim sovereignty based on this relationship. My noble friend Lady Elles referred to negotiations between the Chinese and the Dalai Lama. As we understand it, the position is that the Chinese have offered to talk to him about Tibet but they set certain conditions. The Dalai Lama responded positively to the principle of talks but was not happy
968
with some of the conditions. The impasse has still to be resolved. We believe that dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people offers the best hope for a solution to the problem of Tibet. We shall continue to encourage the Chinese authorities in this.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we saw the Tibetans as a people with a right to self-determination. The United Nations has not determined the criteria for establishing who are a people. We are not in a position to make a definite decision on that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I asked whether the Government saw the Tibetans as a people, not whether the United Nations did.
Lord Reay: My Lords, this is in the context of the United Nations resolution. There are problems over the question and the criteria have not been determined by the United Nations. In the absence of such a determination, we cannot make a definite decision.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton spoke about the freedom of the Dalai Lama to say what he wishes. When he visited here in April 1988 or when his visit to this country was proposed, assurances were offered on his behalf that his visit would principally be pastoral and he would not make political statements while he was here. We accepted those assurances. They were not a pre-condition of his being allowed to enter the United Kingdom. No such assurances were offered or sought during his last brief visit in September 1990, nor have any been offered or sought in respect of his forthcoming visit next month. He was not gagged last time; he will not be gagged this time. He is entirely free to say what he wants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked me some questions. I am not in a position to give her an answer to all of them. We make our views about Tibet known to the Chinese authorities. We urge them to talk to the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama.
With regard to the question of political prisoners, the Chinese told the Scandinavian ambassadors that there were 56 political prisoners in Tibet and 63 in re-education camps for labour offences.
I was also asked about NGOs. There is no HMG support for NGO activity in Tibet and none has been requested; but if it was it would be given sympathetic consideration.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that, while we advocate dialogue and improved relations between the Chinese and the Tibetans and we would like to see the Tibetans play a greater role in Tibet, we do not believe that independence is a realistic option. We do not think that people who promote the idea are doing the Tibetans a service. Let us see greater support here for dialogue between the Tibetans and the Chinese, which is something that the Dalai Lama has been trying to promote.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

  THE BIRMINGHAM SIX
  THE BIRMINGHAM SIX
  COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  KUWAIT: FUTURE CONSTITUTION AND RECONSTRUCTION
  KUWAIT: FUTURE CONSTITUTION AND RECONSTRUCTION
  KUWAIT: RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
  KUWAIT: RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
  KUWAIT INVESTMENT OFFICE: LOCATION
  KUWAIT INVESTMENT OFFICE: LOCATION
  "BRITANNIA": OPERATING COSTS
  "BRITANNIA": OPERATING COSTS
  THE GULF WAR: AVAILABILITY OF NAPALM
  THE GULF WAR: AVAILABILITY OF NAPALM
  THE GULF WAR: ATTACKS ON NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL PLANTS
  THE GULF WAR: ATTACKS ON NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL PLANTS
  THE GULF WAR: CS GAS AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  THE GULF WAR: CS GAS AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
  BRITISH RAIL CANCELLATIONS AND THE GDP
  BRITISH RAIL CANCELLATIONS AND THE GDP
  INLAND REVENUE: THEFT OF CHEQUES
  INLAND REVENUE: THEFT OF CHEQUES
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  PRIVATE BILLS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
  PRIVATE BILLS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS