Sitting of 22 January 1991

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

    Gulf Crisis
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant ships the Government have requisitioned for the purposes of transportation during the present Gulf crisis.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total strength of United Kingdom service men currently stationed in the middle east; and what forces have been sent by the Community member states.
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about developments in the Gulf.
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the deployment of British forces in the Gulf.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): We have now deployed to the Gulf the 1st Armoured Division, Royal Air Force Tornado, Jaguar and other aircraft, four destroyers and frigates, mine counter-measures ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels. That totals some 35,000 service personnel. Deployment of those forces has involved the chartering of more than 100 vessels but not the requisitioning of any merchant shipping.
    In addition to the substantial United States forces and those of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt, many European countries are involved. France has committed naval, land and air forces. Italy has committed naval and air forces. Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain have sent navel vessels and Portugal is providing naval transport for the United Kingdom.
    Since the conflict commenced, the Royal Air Force has carried out more than 400 operational sorties as part of the allied campaign to liberate Kuwait. I regret to inform the House that a further Tornado aircraft based in Saudi Arabia was reported missing this morning, and the families of the crew have been notified. Four Tornado aircraft have been lost in enemy action since the campaign began. The air campaign is continuing today. As a further illustration of the level of co-operation between the allies, I am pleased to announce that a party of New Zealand defence force medical personnel will be attached to British forces in the Gulf. That contribution is to be greatly welcomed.
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the whole House will echo my regret that the crew of a Tornado have been reported missing. I am sure that hon. Members hope that they will be safe. Why is such a tiny proportion of chartered transport shipping registered under the British flag? If those men, wherever they be from, are brave enough to sail into a war zone in the Gulf, they should be able to enjoy the conditions of work offered by registration under the British flag. It is a disgrace that they are not. If they are prepared to die for this country, they should enjoy the albeit too few benefits that go with the job.
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may know that the president of the General Council of British Shipping has made that point. British shipping is not unwilling to be involved but is simply busily engaged on other contracts. It has been possible to requisition ships to meet our needs without asking British companies to break their other contracts. This has been a successful deployment, in which a significant number of ships have been involved. We arc grateful for the co-operation of all those involved.
    Mr. Hardy: As many in Europe oppose the Hussein regime in Iraq, deplore the aggression in Kuwait and voted for the removal of the aggressor from Kuwait, and given the disproportionate and significant contribution made by British service men in the Gulf, does not the Minister believe that it would now be appropriate for him and his colleagues to suggest to our European partners that they must reconsider their position, perhaps in response to their votes at the United Nations and the contribution that their nationals, as well as ours, made in building up the military capacity of Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. King: I confirm that we have encouraged the maximum contribution from our European allies. I have attended two meetings of the Western European Union at which we emphasised that it was important in the present position that Europe be seen to make an effective contribution and to support not merely with its votes but in a real way the efforts that have been made by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and, pre-eminently, the United States. Europe should be present, too. In addition to the contributions of forces that I have described, we have been grateful for a significant number of contributions of hardware, vehicles and ammunition from some of our NATO allies.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling and inhumane treatment of our prisoners of war in Iraq demonstrates yet again exactly what sort of cruel and brutal dictator we are up against? Should not the message that goes from here to Saddam Hussein today be that his actions will make us not less but more determined to see him off? Can my right hon. Friend report any progress in making contact with our prisoners of war by the Red Cross or the Red Crescent or one of the other voluntary humanitarian organisations?
    Mr. King: I very much agree with the comments of my hon. Friend. As I advised the House last night, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross were here yesterday. As they requested, they were given access to the Iraqis in detention. They then intended to return to Geneva and seek to make immediate contact with Baghdad. I have not yet had a report today on what success they have had. I advise the House—it endorses what my hon. Friend said—that I was speaking this

    149
    morning to General Sir Peter de la Billiére, our commander in the middle east, who this afternoon was to receive the first visitors from Denmark, Norway and Sweden. They are the advance party for the medical facilities that we are preparing in order to honour our obligations under the Geneva convention to make sure that any Iraqi prisoners of war receive proper medical treatment if they need it. I confirm that the representatives of the ICRC have visited Saudi Arabia and inspected the arrangements that we propose to make for any prisoners of war we take. The committee said that it was very satisfied and impressed with the arrangements that we are making. That further underlines the fact that we are absolutely entitled to expect that treatment for our prisoners of war too.
    Mr. Trotter: I refer my right hon. Friend to the case of Flight Lieutenant Adrian Nichol, whose parents come from my constituency. Our thoughts are with the families of all those who are prisoners at this time. The bravery shown by Adrian and his colleagues is matched by the bravery shown by his parents. Their relief that he survived being shot down has been replaced by their anxiety about his treatment as a prisoner. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that there can be no qualification whatever of the obligation to apply the Geneva convention? Is he aware that the Iraqi ambassador said to me this morning that there was a way of not applying the convention? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is not true and that Iraq must apply the convention?
    Mr. King: That is absolutely right. I know that my hon. Friend has taken the closest interest in the case on behalf of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Nichol, and that he has seen the Iraqi ambassador. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He is absolutely right to say that Iraq is a party to the Geneva convention and it cannot pick and choose which bits of the convention it applies. We demand without qualification that, just as we shall extend to any Iraqi prisoners of war the rights to which they are entitled under the convention, because we are a party to it, those rights must be extended to our prisoners of war. I hope that the message has got through to Baghdad that, far from being helpful in the remotest way to the Iraqi cause or undermining the allied resolve, showing the films has only added to the determination of the population of Italy, the United States and Britain to back up our forces at this dangerous time.
    Mr. O'Neill: I echo the Secretary of State's sentiments on that point. The House is united in our detestation of the manner in which our prisoners have been treated. I also put on record our respect for the bravery of all the men, including those who got back, and our appreciation of the work of those who have enabled them to get into the air and to make sorties at the fantastic rate that they have achieved.
    Will the Secretary of State give the House an assessment of what the cost of deploying our troops has been? We have had a number of figures—some gross, some net. What success has he had in securing support from other countries, in particular Germany, which by treaty is incapable of participating in the exercise, and from Japan, which, by dint of its wealth and its interest in oil, has more than a right to make contributions, not only to the United States but to the support of our forces?
    Mr. King: The hon. Member knows these subjects very well and is right to emphasise the difference between the gross and net costs. We are certainly seeking the maximum contributions from those who, for one reason or another, have not felt able to make military contributions to the allied effort, to ensure that they at least make the maximum financial contribution. We have already received in different ways such contributions from Japan and Germany and we shall see how we can maximise those. We have had host nation support from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As for the overall figure, we have already had authority in the House for a further £450 million. I have told the House that we think that there is a daily cost of £3·6 million. I am examining those figures. I shall write in greater detail to the hon. Member and place that letter in the Library of the House.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about standing together on such matters. There is a need for us, as a country, to stand together. I regretted having to inform the House about the loss of a further Tornado. I told the House that the families had been advised that the air crew are missing. Where we can, we propose to adopt a policy of releasing the names of the air crew as soon as possible, but only with the family's consent. In the latest case, we have not yet had the agreement of the families involved; although I know that the media will be most concerned to have access to the names, it is precisely because of the families' fear of harassment from the media that they are nervous about allowing the names to go forward. Therefore, I stress, as I did last night, that we should stand together as a country at a dangerous time. I am sure that the media will understand the point that I am making.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of members of the armed forces in the Gulf are women; and what duties they undertake.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): More than 800 service women are serving with their units in the Gulf. They perform a range of duties.
    Mr. Burns: In paying tribute both to the men and to the women of our armed forces in the Gulf, may I ask my hon. Friend whether, if a land war developed, there would be any conceivable circumstances in which women serving officers in the armed forces would be fighting in the front line?
    Mr. Hamilton: There are no women employed in combat units in the ground forces, but there might well be women employed further back from the front line; they would have weapons for their own self defence and expect to use them.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware of complaints by women as well as men serving in the Gulf about the great delays in receiving post from the United Kingdom? One of my constituents tells me that post offices accept parcels for delivery only at first-class rates. Will the Minister undertake to look at that problem?
    Mr. Hamilton: We have already considered the question of parcels and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if parcels are sent by the inland rate they will reach the Gulf in about 10 days. There are a number of post offices where staff still do not seem to understand the position and thus talk in terms of charging people an air mail rate,

    151
    which can be high if there are many goods in the parcel. We are concentrating hard on the letter post and doing all that we can to maintain a swift service.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Following complaints by the Kent Gulf Forces Support Group, we have been in touch with the Post Office, whose representatives have assured us that they are issuing instructions to all counter staff today so that they give the right help to the wives of our service men. Will the Department ensure that, whether it is a departmental or Post Office matter, the "blueys"—the special forms that can be sent forces mail—are available because, unfortunately, supplies ran out a day or so ago? I know that my right hon. Friend will accept that the families have enough anxiety without little things like this to niggle them.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her advice in relation to the instruction given by the Post Office. Several hon. Members have remarked to me that post offices have run out of blueys and the matter is being investigated. I suspect that the difficulty arises from maldistribution, as about 6 million were issued to the Post Office. We suspect that there may be quite large quantities at some offices, but none at others.

    British Force Reductions (Germany)
    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about reductions in British forces in Germany.
    Mr. King: As I said in the House last night, we are continuing to study with our allies the proposals for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces—proposals that have emerged from the work on "Options for Change".
    We intend to proceed with the implementation of rationalisation proposals and other support changes in areas that do not affect our efforts in the Gulf. We shall make further announcements about our proposals in due course.
    Mr. Redmond: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Does he agree that, in the light of Government statements that it is the British nuclear deterrent which has maintained the peace in Europe, it would make economic sense to bring the British forces home, in view of the escalating cost of keeping them in the Gulf?
    Mr. King: I am not sure that I entirely follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. Our defence policy is well balanced, as set out in our proposals in "Options for Change". Of course, there is a very grave situation in the Gulf and the very uncertain developments in the Soviet Union may also pose problems, but I believe that the approach that we have adopted is the right one to ensure that, whatever changes are made, a strong defence capability for this country will be ensured at a time of great uncertainty in the world.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend's answer concerning the work done under "Options for Change" will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House. We recall that in announcing the exercise he warned us that the situation in Europe, as well as that in the middle east, should be taken fully into account. Can he
    152
    reassure the House today that work on "Options for Change" will not be resumed until the lessons of the Gulf have been fully absorbed?
    Mr. King: On that matter I can give a partial assurance. Certainly, I am very concerned to see that in areas where our capability in the Gulf could be affected, in the sense of a need to ensure the provision of adequate resources, the situation is not affected by our work. My hon. Friend will understand, however, that there are other areas involving the infrastructure of the services. There would be absolutely no point, for instance, in keeping redundant airfields. There are also other activities that need to be addressed. I am thinking, for instance, of the scale of some of our infrastructure in Germany. We have to make sure that we can sustain what is, without question, a very expensive commitment in playing our full part in the liberation of Kuwait. To that end, we must ensure that we do not waste money in areas in which expenditure simply cannot be justified.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the aspiration of all parties in the House to reduce expenditure on defence needs to be tempered with realism, especially at this time? Would not it be irresponsible to make long-term judgments about force levels before the operations in the Gulf had been completed and the current uncertainties in the Soviet Union had reached a stage at which a considered judgment might be made as to the consequences? Does he agree that this is a moment at which a very considerable degree of caution is to be found in the steps being taken within the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. King: We have approached this whole exercise with a very considerable degree of caution. When I made my statement on 25 July I said, in relation to developments in the Warsaw pact—which many people might have felt at that time were moving in an entirely hopeful direction—that, while it was clear that there were opportunities, there were also risks in Europe and, elsewhere, some worrying trends with regard to the proliferation of missiles. I think that now, with the impact of Scud missiles in the Gulf, people understand why I warned about the risks of the unexpected and about the need to ensure the maintenance of an adequate defence capability.
    There are major lessons to be learnt from the Gulf situation, particularly about the strength of the Army units and the amount of reinforcements that may be necessary to ensure that they have the required fighting capability. We are having to draw on reserves as well. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall learn those lessons.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the amount and safety of low-flying activity over Northumberland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): My Department's aim is to distribute military low flying over the widest practicable area of the United Kingdom, including Northumberland. The amount is, however, kept to the minimum necessary to meet our requirements and all aspects of flight safety are kept under continuous review.
    Mr. Amos: As one who has always accepted the necessity for low-flying activity, but who has made representations about it on behalf of constituents, may I ask my hon. Friend to pass on to the RAF the whole-hearted support of the people of Northumberland for the skill, courage and professionalism shown by RAF pilots? One of the prisoners of war comes from the north-east, so will my hon. Friend confirm that, unless Iraq strictly adheres to the Geneva convention in all circumstances and at all times, Saddam Hussein will be tried as a war criminal and executed with no ifs and buts?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has always argued for his constituents. Low flying can be a nuisance, but it is the key to success in many of our operations in the Gulf. Had they not practised this difficult skill, our men and planes would be at greater risk. I join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the courage and dedication of the RAF, whose feats merit our admiration. On my hon. Friend's last point, I can confirm that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the sternest warning that those who violate the Geneva convention will be held responsible.
    Mr. Beith: Now that the operational value of low flying has been clearly demonstrated, and the skills involved so courageously used, does the Minister share my hope that other areas of the country will be keen to share the burden of low-flying training that Northumberland now carries?
    Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we aim to spread low flying as wide as possible, so that there is as little disturbance as possible. I know that the House has immense admiration for the feats of the RAF in the Gulf and the skills that the pilots need have been learnt over many hours of practice over the hon. Gentleman's constituency and those of other hon. Members representing such areas. We are grateful for the tolerance of the public, who I believe now understand why that training is so vital. Those skills are essential if we are to press home attacks in the face of fierce opposition.
    Mr. John Greenway: Low-flying Tornados over Northumberland on training exercises quickly arrive over North Yorkshire and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) said, they have been the cause of some nuisance and inconvenience. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware, however, that the people of North Yorkshire salute the courage and bravery of our air crews and their valiant efforts in the past few days in the Gulf, and are convinced that everything that the Ministry of Defence has said about the tactical value of low flying has been proved and vindicated?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I repeat that we are grateful to the public for their tolerance of low-flying practice. As I said, the skills involved are crucial in the Gulf war and we should remember that lesson in the future.

    HMS Warspite
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reason for his decision to decommission HMS Warspite.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend announced to the House last year, we envisage a future
    154
    submarine force of about 16 boats, around three quarters of which will be nuclear powered. As there were 17 nuclear submarines in the fleet on 25 July, a number of older boats, including HMS Warspite, are being decommissioned.
    Mr. McCartney: Have not the Government have already wasted £100 million in a refit for this submarine, despite the fact that they knew in their private reports of the likelihood of the need to decommission because of problems with its reactor? Will the Minister advise the House what will be the cost of decommissioning Warspite, and are there any other submarines of a similar type which in the next few years will have to be decommissioned because of problems with their nuclear reactors?
    Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on the material state of nuclear submarines. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are decommissioning the oldest submarines that we have, which seems to be a very sensible thing to do in terms of taking out those that are least capable.
    Dame Janet Fookes: While there may be a case for decommissioning this particular nuclear submarine, may I invite my hon. Friend to reconsider the wisdom of reducing the nuclear submarine fleet in the light of the uncertainties in the world at present and the fleet's undoubted flexibility?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I fully accept what my hon. Friend says about the flexibility of nuclear submarines. However, under "Options for Change" we have given serious consideration to the United Kingdom's requirements in the light of changed circumstances in Europe. In this context we believe that 12 nuclear submarines is about the right number.

    Reservists
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the call-up of reservists and his policy on conscription.
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can give details of the Royal Air Force reservists who have been invited to enlist for the Gulf.
    Mr. Tom King: Some 1,200 reservists are already making an important contribution to Operation Granby and I have been impressed by the excellent way in which they have responded. The largest category are Army medical reservists needed for hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Gulf; an aeromedical evacuation squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force, has specialist skills in moving injured by air. Members of No. 4624 movements squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force, were called out recently to help with the huge logistical task. We will shortly be calling out about 450 members of the Royal Fleet Reserve who have expressed a willingness to serve. We have no plans whatsoever to introduce conscription.
    Mr. Cohen: Were not we told that this war would be over in days rather than weeks and then weeks rather than months? Now the Prime Minister says that we are not to expect a quick victory. Were not we told of the success of the high-tech war machine, only for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to tell us that the Scud launchers were plywood? Similarly, after a Somme-in-the-sand land

    155
    battle, will not we be introducing conscription whatever the Minister says today? This Government cannot offer our boys a job, but they can arrange their deaths.
    Mr. King: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, since I have already answered it precisely, is no, Sir.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who thus far have been requested to serve have been delighted to do so? Is he also aware that other members of both these organisations would quite gladly give up their time for this service? This is the result of their having been volunteers in every sense, but there are occasions when some employers may not understand their enthusiasm. I hope that the Minister and his Department will handle this matter so as to make it easy for these volunteer attitudes not to give offence to employers.
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I did have worries as to how easy it would be to recruit volunteer reserves and for the reservists to go. I have been deeply impressed by the tremendous willingness of those concerned. I have given the figures to the House. We now have 1,200 reservists coming out of their previous occupations and giving their help in critical areas where it is needed. It has been most impressive and encouraging support to receive.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the reservists who are about to be called up, to the public and to Parliament whether the reservists will be engaged in what is technically an armed conflict or whether 13ritain will declare war officially? Will he assure the House that before war is officially declared, Parliament will be able to ratify and endorse that decision?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. We are talking about medical personnel—the aeromedical evacuation squadron, which will accompany casualties back to Cyprus and Britain and which will certainly not be involved in conflict, and the movements squadron, which will be involved in helping to ensure that supplies move smoothly through British airfields and along the logistic chain to the Gulf, which will also clearly not be involved in conflict.
    Mr. Allen: In view of the inadequacy of that answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the question on the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Gentleman cannot do that because he did not ask the original question.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our reservists and forces serving in the Gulf will be heartened by the almost unanimous vote in the House last night? Does he further agree that it is sad that it could not be a unanimous vote as 34 Opposition Members could not find it in their hearts to vote in support of our forces? Is it not interesting that they are exactly the same people who will not pay their community charge, and is it not a fact that they do not respect international law—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is miles wide of the main question.
    Mr. King: Those who were unable to support the motion and the amendment last night must speak for themselves. I am concerned about what my hon. Friend says and I would simply say that when I spoke to General de la Billiére this morning and assured him of the tremendous vote of the majority of the House in support of the task that we have asked him and the forces under him to undertake, he said that that would be the most enormous encouragement to them in the challenging time that they face. I express my appreciation to all those who voted in that majority.
    Mr. Reid: Does the Secretary of State accept that the uncertainty faced by the reservists and, perhaps more importantly, by their families and the families of those deployed in the Gulf must give us cause for consideration? Does he accept that a key element of the morale of reservists and troops already deployed is the security of knowing that their families here in Britain are well and sensitively cared for by the rest of the community and by the Government? Will he acknowledge the tribute that we have paid to those families and the magnificent role that is played in caring for them by the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association? Finally, what do the Government intend to do and what have they already done to assist the SSAFA in caring for those service families? Will he join me in urging members of the public to do everything possible to assist the SSAFA in the important and magnificent role that it is playing?
    Mr. King: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he has made in his supplementary question. I join him in paying a warm tribute to the SSAFA. I repeat what I said yesterday about the setting up of the Gulf trust. That will go through to the service benevolent funds and will indirectly help the SSAFA to help the organisations to do the best that they can for the families involved. I also join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our greatest admiration for the families of all those in the Gulf. Our thoughts are with them.

    EH101 Helicopters
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will confirm his order for 25 utility EH101 helicopters.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Decisions on support helicopters have been delayed by the need to take into account the implications of changes in Europe. I hope that the position will be clearer in some months' time.
    Mr. Colvin: Is not it a pity that the Government cannot re-endorse the order for 25 support helicopters and authorise Westland to proceed with phase 2 of the project definition? I do not believe that "Options for Change" should be used as an excuse for further delay, particularly as experience in the Gulf and in Northern Ireland shows that our support helicopter force is seriously extended. In the Gulf in particular it has had to call upon the Royal Navy to help it out.
    Mr. Clark: I note that my hon. Friend has played a very conspicuous and distinguished part in advocating the choice of this aircraft. However, he very well knows that project definition work is examining in detail the Royal Air

    157
    Force's foreseen requirements and it has to do so against a whole range of options and to establish more firmly the costs and the risks involved. The analysis of these findings is taking longer than was expected.

    Gulf Crisis
    Mr. Batisteasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the performance of Vickers plc in supporting the British forces in the Gulf.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Yes. Vickers has made considerable effort to support the British forces in the Gulf both in providing spare parts and modification kits. It has sent a team of its own technical advisers to the theatre. Both my Department and the forces on the spot are very satisfied with its performance.
    Mr. Batiste: Is not it a fact that one of the lessons that can be learnt from what my right hon. Friend has just said is that there is and will remain a continuing need for a strong and flexible United Kingdom defence industry that is capable of supporting United Kingdom forces wherever in the world they may be deployed?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Certainly, the support that we have received from Vickers is of the greatest importance and has impressed not only our forces but those of our allies.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that recently I visited Vickers in Newcastle and saw both the excellent Challenger tank and the repair and recovery vehicles? I also saw on video the successful operations in the desert. If, unfortunately, ground forces are to be used in major action the Challenger tank will ably support British forces. Will the Minister join me in sending a message of confidence to the management and skilled work force in Newcastle?
    Mr. Clark: Yes, very gladly. I particularly welcome the hon. Member mentioning the armoured recovery vehicles which are being sent out to the Gulf as fast as possible. They are in full production at that factory. We have the heaviest and most powerful of all the armoured recovery vehicles available to the allied forces and these have been the subject of very favourable comment on all sides.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend pay a particular tribute to those civilians who have remained in the Gulf to adapt and maintain the main battle tanks, particularly those who are associated with the engines that Vickers use, which are made in Shrewsbury and which make the British-made battle tank far superior to any alternative? They are doing a superb job and will not let our forces down.
    Mr. Clark: Yes, indeed. Their specialist knowledge is invaluable and I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to their steadfastness in staying on in the Gulf.

    Polaris
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current repair and maintenance programme of the Polaris fleet.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: It is not our practice to publish details of nuclear submarine refit, repair or maintenance programmes.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister therefore quite sanguine about the press reports relating to the technological failures in the reactors of the Polaris PWR? Will he comment on the vexatious problems that we are having at Rosyth in relation to the disposal of nuclear waste? Will he take it from me that it is quite unacceptable that Rosyth should be the sole base for the disposal of nuclear waste and that the Plymouth and Devonport waste should be redistributed to Scotland? Will he comment on these observations?
    Mr. Hamilton: We do not comment on the material state of our nuclear submarines. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of operating any of our submarines unless we are convinced that they can be operated safely. The issue of the nuclear waste sites has still to be decided and in the meantime we are quite happy with the provision that has been made for the disposal of waste from nuclear submarines.
    Mr. Franks: May I take the opportunity provided by the hon. Member's question to remind the Minister that the Polaris fleet was designed and built in Barrow? If there is to be a change of policy and location for the repair and maintenance of that fleet will he bear in mind the ability and skills that are readily available in Barrow?
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House that Barrow is very interested in the future refitting of nuclear submarines.

    Submarines
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning improvements to the technology available to Royal Navy submarines to enable them to identify fishing vessels and their nets in the vicinity of their operations.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: A large number of firms have submitted proposals for pinger devices that will make fishing nets more easily detectable to dived submarines. Trials carried out with such a device last month were a success, and a further series of trials will take place in the near future.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the tragic accident off the Scottish coast not so long ago, and following a series of accidents in the Irish sea involving Welsh fishing vessels, will the Minister ensure that all the resources necessary will be provided to ensure that such devices are made available as soon as possible, to avoid any further loss of life?
    Mr. Hamilton: I give that undertaking and assure the hon. Gentleman that a competitive evaluation of a range of commercially produced devices will take place early this year.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q.1. Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    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 be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can all share an understanding of the appalling strain to which the families of service men and women serving in the Gulf are subject at this time? I refer in particular to the family of Flight-Lieutenant Peters in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). We have all seen the outrageous photograph of Flight-Lieutenant Peters, which has been used so cruelly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made reference to the inspirational courage of the men doing the fighting. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the steadfast courage of their families at home, who have to wait for the warriors to return, is also deserving of all our support?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, whose views will be shared throughout the House. The families of those serving in our forces, and most especially of those who have been captured, are suffering a special agony at this time. We send them all our sympathy and we appreciate the courage that they, too, are showing.
    Mr. Kinnock: I associate myself with the Prime Minister's remarks. Does he agree that the relatives of airmen missing in the Gulf conflict have enough to put up with without having to contend with a prying press? Does he share my view that uninvited intrusions into the lives of very anxious people cannot serve any public interest whatsoever? Will he take this opportunity to appeal to editors to desist from any invasions of privacy?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is standard practice not to disclose the names of those killed without the consent of their families, and I hope and expect that convention to be observed throughout the conflict. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that people are entitled to privacy at a time of grief and I hope that their privacy will be respected by everyone.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those industrial nations that are not committing forces to the Gulf can assist by making increased financial contributions to those bearing the expense of upholding the United Nations rule of authority?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Some of the countries concerned have constitutional restrictions against committing forces and some are already contributing substantial funds. However, as the costs mount, I hope that we may look to them to contribute further to the communal costs.
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Trimble: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us admire the way in which he and his Government have handled the middle east crisis? In particular, we like the vigour of the Government's response, their clarity of purpose and their refusal to allow themselves to chase after the mirages of diplomatic and political initiatives. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we see a sad contrast in the Government's response to Irish republican terrorism, which claimed yet another innocent victim in Ulster yesterday? The Government have allowed themselves to be mired down in political action that has inhibited the response that should be made. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to Ulster the same clarity and vigour with which he has pursued the Gulf crisis?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. We have the same opposition to terrorism in northern Ireland as we have to terrorism in the Gulf, and we shall continue to keep that view firmly in mind.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while our attention is rightly focused upon the allied forces in the Gulf today, it would also be right at this time to pay tribute to the late King Olav of Norway who, in times of war and peace, did so much to cement the strong links of friendship between Norway and the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. King Olav was enormously popular in this country and there is a real affection in the hearts of many people here who came to know him. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in sending our sincere condolences to Her Majesty the Queen on the death of her cousin, and on the death of a very good friend to this country.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he plans to have with representatives of the homeless in London.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present. Ministers at the Department of the Environment regularly meet voluntary agencies that deal with the problem of homelessness. The most recent such meeting was on 17 January.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that tonight more than 3,000 people will be sleeping on the streets of London, that 20,000 families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London and that last year there was an 11 per cent. increase in the number of people declared homeless in the capital city? In the midst of this homelessness crisis in London, will the Prime Minister make resources available for local authorities to build and to buy homes for rent, rather than creating bed-andbreakfast millionaires and paying money to companies for leasing properties? Does the Prime Minister agree that growing up in overcrowded bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or in shared housing, casts a blight over children's whole lives and that they should be allowed to grow up in the same decency that we would want for ourselves?
    The Prime Minister: I wish to see people, and most especially children, properly housed. There is no dispute between the hon. Gentleman and me on that matter. Perhaps the first and the most helpful thing that can be done is for a large number of London authorities, including Islington, to bring into use the large number of empty properties that they own. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced a substantial increase in resources to deal with the problem of homelessness in London.
    Mr. Tracey: Further to what my right hon. Friend has just said, could he also look into the millions of pounds in uncollected rents which Labour councils in London are failing to collect? That money could also be channelled to help the homeless in a most constructive way.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point.

    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the Prime Minister accept that a concern for the well-being of British troops and a concern for the well-being of Iraqi citizens are not incompatible and in fact reinforce each other? Will he tell us the number of casualties in Basra, in southern Iraq, which is a prime target because of its docks, railway marshalling yards and other facilities, including massed Iraqi troops?
    The Prime Minister: There are no means by which I could know those figures, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows, for it has been repeatedly stated from this Dispatch Box in the past few days, that allied pilots—all of them—have a firm instruction to attempt to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible.
    Sir George Gardiner: In view of Saddam Hussein's despicable treatment of prisoners of war, on top of other crimes against humanity, does my right hon. Friend agree that the destruction of Saddam Hussein is now a legitimate war aim?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly suspect that Saddam Hussein may yet become a target for his own people. It is perfectly clear that this man is amoral: he takes hostages, attacks population centres and threatens prisoners. He is a man without pity and, whatever his fate may be, I for one will not weep for him.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official enagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: In view of yesterday's newspaper reports that Department of Health press officers are likely to mislead the country seriously about the ability of the national health service to cope with the Gulf war casualties, will the Prime Minister assure the House that accurate information will be given to ensure that truth does not become one of the first casualties of the war?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may certainly have that assurance. There is no question of the national health service or any of its spokesmen, in the Department of Health or elsewhere, misleading either the House or the public.
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Viggers: After much talk of political union in Europe, is not it disappointing that our European allies, given a clear chance of political unity over United Nations resolutions and their imposition, have failed to match their actions to their rhetoric?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. There is undoubtedly a considerable disparity in the extent to which individual European countries have committed themselves to the problems of the Gulf. Political union and a common foreign and security policy in Europe would have to go beyond statements and extend to actions. Clearly Europe is not ready for that and we should not be too ambitious when it comes to the intergovernmental conference on political union.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if this morning's reports that Saddam Hussein has started to destroy oil installations in Kuwait are correct, that may suggest two possibilities—first, that Saddam Hussein has given up any chance of holding on to Kuwait and, secondly, that his claim to be defending the interests of Palestinians is manifest nonsense, as 150,000 of them are still trapped in Kuwait, their livelihoods wrecked by his pillage of that country?
    The Prime Minister: Saddam Hussein's claim on the latter point is nonsense in any event, whatever may be happening to the oilfields. I am, of course, aware of the media reports of damage to the oilfields and I have made a number of inquiries up to and including the last few minutes to find out the present position. As yet, I have no independent evidence to confirm those reports; I assure the House that, if and when such evidence becomes available later in the day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make it public.
    Mr. Rathbone: Much has been made of the way in which the Iraqi authorities have broken the Geneva conventions. Will my right hon. Friend now assure the House categorically that British forces, British authority and our allies will stand by both the spirit and the letter of the conventions?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute and complete assurance. It is, I think, an assurance that no one anywhere in the world, even in Iraq, would doubt.
    Mr. Rowlands: Given the almost unanimous feeling about the prying press, will the Prime Minister go a little further and make a personal approach to all the major national editors to ensure that they respect people's feelings and wishes?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that everyone, including the national editors, will respect the privacy of

    163
    people in grief. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that those remarks will have been heard.
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he visited the Gulf recently, he met troops from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, formerly the Lancashire Fusiliers? That regiment has a strong link with my constituency and recruits extensively in Greater Manchester. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to send a message of thanks and appreciation not just to the troops themselves, but to their families, who anxiously wait at home for news?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. I enjoyed my meeting with them in the desert very much and was able to bring them up to date with Manchester United's results which, in many cases, were in the forefront of their minds.
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: Although it is difficult to contemplate the future while we are seeing the horrendous scenes from the Gulf today, while the Prime Minister is contemplating winning the peace will he consider the final arbiters of stability in the Gulf are the Iraqi and Kuwaiti masses? If he accepts that long perspective, how does he think these people will have reacted to the news that tens of thousands of people have been killed, something which seems to contradict the briefing that we have been given that only economic and military targets have been affected?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat that I have no confirmation of the figures of casualties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. He will know from the debates
    164
    here in the past few days the important issues of principle at stake. I think that those issues of principle a re understood both in the House and across the whole world.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning recent events in Latvia? Does he share my belief that it would be very sad if the Soviet Union were to lurch back into repression? Will he assure the Soviet Union that economic aid from the European Community will depend on the maintenance of civil rights throughout the Soviet Union and its satellite states?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also tell him that at present we are in regular contact with the elected Baltic leaders. I hope to see the Latvian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jurkans, tomorrow. I understood earlier today that President Gorbunovs of Latvia has had a meeting with President Gorbachev and that he stated at the conclusion of the meeting that he does not expect direct rule to be imposed. I very much hope that that proves to be correct.

    Scotland
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister when he will next be visiting Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: I had a very enjoyable visit to Scotland recently and I look forward to returning there shortly.
    Mr. McAllion: The Prime Minister is for ever telling us that he is prepared to listen. If he did so on his recent visit to Scotland, he will know by now that the people of Scotland want the poll tax abolished, they want a Scottish Parliament established in Edinburgh and they want the Tories kicked out of office at Westminster. When will he call a general election to allow them to achieve these three things?
    The Prime Minister: How very curious. That is not precisely what they said to me.

Oilfields (Kuwait)
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: In view of the answer that the Prime Minister has just given covering the application under Standing Order No. 20 of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does he wish to proceed?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before 9 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice that I wished to raise under Standing Order No. 20, the subject of
"the detonation and ignition by Iraq of the oilfields in Kuwait."
In answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the Prime Minister said that he would make information public. May I put it to the Prime Minister—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The application is to me. The hon. Member is asking for an emergency debate on this matter.
Mr. Dalyell: The matter is definite, urgent and important. Under "definite" I ask that we just see the visual images, that are like Flixborough or Piper Alpha, of the fires in the Kuwaiti oilfields. The truthful answer is that we do not yet know the causes. It depends on oxygen, on the amounts of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and on the problems of photochemical smog, but I argue that this an important matter and that it ought to take precedence over the business later tonight or tomorrow.
What is at issue is the injury to the planet: the soot could make agriculture, both animal husbandry and crop-growing, impossible and could effect the lives of millions of people if, as has been argued on the best scientific grounds, the monsoons were to be altered by this sort of fire.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, with the good will that the Prime Minister showed in his answer and with his undertaking, that there would be constant reporting of events in the Gulf, and that, through the usual channels, you give precedence, either later tonight or tomorrow, to the ecological and human results of these disastrous fires. Unless there is a ceasefire, who will put them out?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the detonation and ignition by Iraq of oilfields in Kuwait."
I have no doubt that, if what the hon. Member has outlined were to occur, that would be a very serious matter. I have listened carefully to what he has said about it today. I have to say that, in this case, the matter which he has raised does not meet the criteria of Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have yet received any representations on your new regulation that hon. Members must wear passes when they are in the House. No one, I am sure, would wish to quibble with any regulation which you might deem necessary for the duration of the emergency, but a number of us have considerable reservations about this as a long-term security measure and believe that it might even be counter-productive. May I, therefore, express the hope that there is no unexpressed intention that the new regulation should be perpetuated after the emergency, and that, if there were such an intention, we would have a full opportunity to debate the matter?
Mr. Speaker: The wearing of passes in the precincts has been introduced, on advice, in connection with the current situation. Any decision to continue the practice indefinitely would be a matter for further consideration.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary of a desire to come to the House to make a statement concerning a substantial number of people of Iraqi and Palestinian background, who have been taken into custody under immigration regulations in the past few days, despite the fact that the Home Secretary gave an undertaking last week that internment would not be introduced? This is an important matter, and I hope that the Home Secretary will come to the House to report on it.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such intimation. What the hon. Member said will have been heard by the Patronage Secretary on the Front Bench.
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you waive formalities to ensure that a delegation from the Iraqi National Assembly may visit this place? It wants to send members here to meet us. [Interruption.] Even in this period, when we are at war, it makes sense if we speak about peace and about negotiation rather than confrontation. It makes sense to the people outside and to the people that I represent; perhaps it does not make sense on the Government Benches. Clearly something has to be done, hopefully, to resolve the horrible conflict. The National Assembly of Iraq has a political and moral right to send members here to speak to us. [Interruption.] I am willing to listen to them, even if that lot are not.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not one of my many responsibilities. I have no power to waive any formalities in that regard.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed from the Order Paper that one and a half hours are permitted for the discussion of motion No. 3, a highly complex matter, and also for motion No. 4, which is equally complex? Can you clarify for the House whether the effect will be that, if we do not complete the discussion of motion No. 3 and its amendments in one and a half hours, there will be no discussion of motion No. 4?
Mr. Speaker: What I can say to the hon. Member relates to points of order. The quicker we get to the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill and complete it—exceptionally, there is not a great demand to take part in that debate—the quicker we can get on to the motions which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It will last one and a half hours, or until 11.30 pm if we get to that business before 10 o'clock.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the letter which you sent to each of us yesterday—the contents of which I agree with and which I thought were eminently sensible—are you satisfied with the security arrangements concerning the well-being of the staff of the House of Commons, as well as the more vocal Members?
Mr. Speaker: "Satisfied", I think, would be a large claim to make, but I hope that we have taken adequate measures which will ensure the safety of not only the staff but hon. Members.
Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The staff of the Admission Order Office, the Serjeant at Arms and his staff and the Chair are very helpful in enabling those constituents who have travelled far and have waited nine hours, to witness this House live from the side galleries. While we fully understand why those galleries have had to be closed as a result of the demonstration, is that not seen as a way of giving in to the sort of harpies who do that sort of thing?
Those of us who represent innocent visitors, such as the Shropshire Women's Institute, who do not go around throwing paint on hon. Members even if they are peace seekers, think that it is a great sadness that we are giving in to those who behave like that, while the right sort of
168
visitors, who pay their taxes that we may sit here, are banned from watching us because of the restriction on the number of seats. Can this policy be a very brief one indeed?
Mr. Speaker: I hope the whole House will agree that it is right that we should take what measures seem necessary in order to protect hon. Members in the Chamber. The incident the other day could have been much more serious.

BILL PRESENTED
  PUBLIC SERVICE CONTRACT
  Mr. David Porter, supported by Mr. Simon Burns, M r. Paul Marlow, Mr. David Martin, Mr. James Cran and M r. Alan Amos, presented a Bill to establish a public service contract, with compensation for failure to supply, between community charge and ratepayers and local authorities, and between consumers and public services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (England) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 6) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 20) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (Wales) Order 1991, (S.I. 1991, No. 5) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing)
3.41 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 to provide for additional powers for the police to carry out random breath tests at the road side.
My purpose this afternoon is to highlight the need for further action aimed at deterring the drinking driver, to draw attention to the need for additional police powers to breath-test drivers and to present the case for random breath testing within the prescribed context of a roadside checkpoint.
Public demand for action to reduce drinking and driving has never been greater. A survey by the Harris research centre last March revealed that drinking and driving was among the three offences which people rated as deserving priority attention by the police. That concern is borne out by the facts. Drink-drive deaths are more frequent than deaths arising from violent crime. Around 10 per cent. of all accidents are caused by drinking and driving. The most recent figures show that over 22,000 casualties result from alcohol-related accidents each year, and half of these will not have been drinking drivers but the innocent victims of the selfishness of drinking drivers. At an economic cost to the community of over £600 million, the cost is great. The human cost is impossible to calculate.
As we become increasingly aware of these grim facts and the terrible and unnecessary waste of life, of youth and of childhood our duty to identify and vigorously implement effective counter-measures becomes that much more pressing. While publicity programmes and appropriate penalties have a part to play, there is agreement worldwide that increasing driver perception of the risk of being caught is the real key to any successful programme aimed at reducing alcohol-related accidents.
The most recent figures show that around 500,000 breath tests are conducted each year. Surveys have shown that the chances of detection are quite low, ranging from one in 250 trips in some areas to one in 4,000 trips in others. Drivers' perception of the chances of being caught is also low. A recent study by the Government's transport and road research laboratory showed that 42 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving believed that their chances of being stopped if over the limit were very small. Drivers will only believe the chances of being caught are high if they have evidence that those chances are high. That means being tested themselves, seeing others being tested, or hearing reports from friends or contacts that they have been tested recently. In any event, it means high-profile breath testing activity.
Caution must be exercised in interpreting the mixed results of the Christmas campaign, but it is clear that the police effort is visibly shifting from detection to deterrent. There must be a balance between the two. There is more awareness among the police that the function of the breath test is not merely to detect but to deter drinking and driving. That means more breath tests, fewer positive breath tests and more negative breath tests.
Many people believe that the current debate is not about the principle of carrying out more breath tests or stopping at random but about the best method of
170
conducting more breath tests to achieve a reduction in road accidents. It is about the best methods of policing the best deterrent effect.
There is widespread opinion that the best way of achieving that is a highly visible police presence at roadside checkpoints, selecting a series of vehicles at random and carrying out breath tests on those passing through. Countries that have introduced that procedure believe that it has been most effective. In New South Wales, Australia, it has brought about a reduction of 35 per cent. in alcohol-related deaths and serious injuries, with cost savings to the health service of 20 times the cost of implementation. It is therefore a cost-effective method.
The police recognise the deterrent effect of those procedures. Mr. Peter Joslin, who is chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said in a recent address to a road safety conference:
"The New South Wales experience had demonstrated that a deterrent based enforcement system was far more effective in reducing drink drive fatalities than was the traditional enforcement model."
Some argue that, more or less, that can be achieved under the present legislation, but it is clear that existing law is not well designed for deterrence. The current powers on random stopping and breath testing, following reasonable cause or suspicion, are more suitable to apprehension than deterrent. If used for high-profile breath testing at a roadside checkpoint, the procedure is a poor man's random breath testing.
Having first stopped a driver at random, the police officer must make up his mind, within the first minute of contact with the driver, whether he can justify requesting a breath test. Immediately there is potential for conflict between the police officer and the driver. That may contribute to a driver's suspicion, however misplaced, that he is being treated differently from the next man. It is a clumsy procedure and, although one or two police forces have proceeded valiantly with that approach, it is questionable whether all police officers would feel confident or comfortable using it widely. If we are to ask the police to do more, let us not ask them to use what many perceive to be a sideways approach.
The Bill does not go as far as providing unfettered discretion for the police to breath-test at any time, anywhere or in any place. It will provide for additional police power to conduct random breath tests at well signposted roadside checkpoints that have been authorised by a senior police officer. That will provide the element of deterrence, which is difficult to achieve under current procedures, and will allow the police to bring about a significant reduction in accidents. I cannot think of a better use of police time. Removal of police discretion will also remove the potential for conflict and ensure that even the most experienced drinker cannot rely on his driving performance to escape detection.
It necessarily follows, therefore, that random screening impinges numerically more on the innocent rather than on the guilty, but as the purpose of screening is to deter the guilty from committing the offence, it functions to safeguard the interests of the innocent majority. The principle is practised everywhere—in security checks in this House and baggage checks at airports. The need for random breath testing is well understood by the public and has received consistently high support. They appreciate that there will be a minor inconvenience.

171
In the past three years, six surveys of public opinion have resulted in more than 70 per cent. support for the introduction of random breath testing in Britain. Only last November, a poll carried out by NOP for the transport and road research laboratory and a further poll carried out by the Consumers Association, which was published in December, indicated 77 per cent. support. Some 3,000 out of 3,400 responses to the latest Government consultation on breath-testing powers argued for additional powers.
The list of organisations in support of random breath testing is long and impressive. It includes the Association of Police Surgeons, Action on Drinking and Driving, Alcohol Concern, the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the County Road Safety Officers Association, the Guild of Experienced Motorists, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—of which I am a member—and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Like the amendments to the Road Traffic Bill which will be discussed soon, my Bill will put deterrent policing on a proper footing. In so doing, it will allow a significant contribution to be made to reducing road accidents and casualties.
3.50 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. I seek to oppose the Bill. I hope that, having heard my speech, the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) will not push the matter to a Division.
First, we all agree that we are dealing with a serious problem. Every year, 800 to 900 people die because a driver or motor cycle rider drives above the legal limit. That is a serious issue. I shall not draw a comparison with the present conflict in the Gulf, because the position is different there. Deaths on the road caused by alcohol are wholly unnecessary. There is agreement across the House on that issue.
The second question to be addressed is whether countries can learn from each other. The answer is that clearly each can. What happens in New South Wales matters. What happens in Sweden matters. I shall argue that what happens in Britain matters too. My third point is that the test is what works best in this country.
We should re-emphasise what a ghastlly business drink-related crashes are. Only when people understand how terrible such crashes are can they realise that what matters is not necessarily what is popular but what will work and will continue to work. By tradition, I quote the words of Auberon Waugh in The Spectator of 15 February 1986, in an article which affected me when I took over responsibility for a time for cutting road casualties. He wrote:
"Every day people lose husbands, wives, parents, children and friends they have loved, whose loss reduces every perspective to dullness, misery and pain. In many cases they carry the pain around with them for the rest of their lives. At moments like this one realises that under the surface of polite society there is a great well of sadness and bereavement, an aspect of the human condition which is as inescapable as it is seldom remarked, yet looming larger in many people's lives than any of the things they pretend to think important."
172
That was written after the death of his sister. He continued:
"The only excuse for allowing my own howl of anguish to be heard is to give those as yet unbereaved a glimpse into the hellish blackness lying under the surface".
Those words help to emphasise that we must consider whether the procedure offered by the hon. Gentleman is likely to be more effective than the present procedure.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in considering the comparison with New South Wales and the figures that he presented. It is an occasional habit in this country to say that, if something is invented here, it cannot be as good as what we can learn from research overseas. There is a British tradition of saying, "What shall we do?" and then asking, "I wonder whether it will achieve anything?" Instead, people should focus on what we want to achieve and how to do so.
In New South Wales, the proportion of dead drivers above the legal limit in the year before the introduction of random breath testing was 40 per cent. Within two years, with the help of the most enormous publicity campaign and intensive general policing, the figure was reduced from 40 per cent. to 33 per cent. That was a significant and welcome improvement.
The comparative figures for Great Britain from 1982 to 1984—the same years—show that we reduced our proportion of dead drivers above the legal limit from 33 per cent. to 26 per cent.
We have achieved a reduction by the same number of percentage points with no change in the law, no change in sentencing and no change in enforcement. I could argue that changes in the law or in enforcement could make a difference, but the figures show that what was claimed for New South Wales in the years bridging the introduction of random breath testing, happened here anyway.
We want a strategy that continues to reduce the avoidable deaths and anguish caused by drink driving. The figures tend not to be quoted. The figures in New South Wales show that, in 1984, 33 per cent. of dead drivers had alcohol levels above the legal limit, while in 1989, 33 per cent. of the drivers were above the legal limit.
In Great Britain, the figures for the last year a re provisional, the others are not. In 1984, 26 per cent. of our dead drivers were above the legal limit. The figure is now down to 19 per cent. We have had the same degree of improvement since 1984 as New South Wales had when it brought in random breath testing up to 1984.
I cannot use a range of statistics in this debate, because it is too short. Any objective observer commenting on what has worked most effectively would agree that we have seen the greatest improvement here whereas, sadly, in New South Wales, a lower plateau was reached in 1984 and the figure has not changed significantly since then.
The country often quoted when discussing drink driving and random breath testing is Sweden, where 40 per cent. of those caught above the legal limit have no licence. In this country, that figure is 20 per cent. Therefore, the level of habitual drink drivers—those who continue to drink and drive even after they have been disqualified—is running at twice the level in Sweden that it is here. That, together with other evidence—[Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Members shaking their heads: those are the facts from Sweden.

173
The figures show that, if we want to find a strategy that reduces drink-driving among those who are most likely to do so heavily, we may do best to continue and increase what we are doing, rather than switch to a different system.
In the past seven years in this country, we have reduced heavy drink-driving by as much as we have reduced the lighter, but still objectionable, drink-driving. Our approach has been working all the way across the board, from the alcoholic, the habitual reoffender who is caught, to those who might be called the sick and social, who are still part of the problem.
I make two recommendations to the House. First, if we were ever to introduce random breath testing, we should not do it in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—by telling chief police officers precisely how to do part of their job—
Mr. David Bellotti: The law is confused, and chief constables want to know what they can do.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) says that the police are confused, which shows why we should have a bigger debate rather than simply piling in about what appears to be fashionable.
At present, the police are not using their existing powers consistently across the country. In Merseyside, half the drivers stopped and tested are above the legal limit—clearly, there is not enough testing in Merseyside. We can make the same argument for parts of London. Police chiefs should decide that, unless it is impossible, drivers involved in traffic crashes—they are not accidents, but crashes—especially where injuries are involved, should have their breath or blood alcohol concentrations tested. That would detect and deter more people.
The argument against random breath testing is that it produces only one in four of the people who are caught in New South Wales or Sweden—three out of four are caught in targeted testing. Before people get carried away with the fashion, they should look at the figures, because the reduction in deaths matters more than anything else.
Some people can explain what it is like to receive a phone call in the middle of the night, rush to the hospital not knowing whether loved ones are still alive. They know what it is like to explain a death to younger siblings and children left behind, and what it is like to raise children, nurture them with love and care, and have them taken away before they have lived a full life. Such suffering demands that we do not go for fashion or partial research, but continue what we have been doing in this country—reduce our drink-driving rate to a lower level than in any other country where research has been done.
I ask the House to resist the ten-Minute Bill and join in continuing to tackle this immensely serious problem in ways that will continue to be effective.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 49.

Division No. 42]

[3.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Alton, David

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

Amos, Alan

Adley, Robert

Anderson, Donald

Allen, Graham

Armstrong, Hilary

174

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Barron, Kevin

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Battle, John

Kennedy, Charles

Beggs, Roy

Kilfedder, James

Beith, A. J.

Kirkwood, Archy

Bell, Stuart

Lamond, James

Bellotti, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lewis, Terry

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

Livingstone, Ken

Benton, Joseph

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Blair, Tony

Loyden, Eddie

Blunkett, David

McAllion, John

Boyes, Roland

McAvoy, Thomas

Caborn, Richard

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McKelvey, William

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McMaster, Gordon

Cohen, Harry

McNamara, Kevin

Corbett, Robin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marek, Dr John

Cousins, Jim

Marland, Paul

Cryer, Bob

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dalyell, Tam

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Darling, Alistair

Martlew, Eric

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Maxton, John

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

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Day, Stephen

Michael, Alun

Dewar, Donald

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dixon, Don

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Doran, Frank

Morgan, Rhodri

Douglas, Dick

Morley, Elliot

Dover, Den

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dunn, Bob

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mudd, David

Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mullin, Chris

Dykes, Hugh

Murphy, Paul

Eadie, Alexander

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Eastham, Ken

O'Neill, Martin

Fatchett, Derek

Pawsey, James

Faulds, Andrew

Pike, Peter L.

Fearn, Ronald

Prescott, John

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

Primarolo, Dawn

Fisher, Mark

Quin, Ms Joyce

Flynn, Paul

Radice, Giles

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Redmond, Martin

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Foster, Derek

Richardson, Jo

Foulkes, George

Robertson, George

Fyfe, Maria

Rooker, Jeff

Galloway, George

Rooney, Terence

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Ruddock, Joan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Salmond, Alex

Golding, Mrs Llin

Sedgemore, Brian

Gordon, Mildred

Sheerman, Barry

Graham, Thomas

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Gregory, Conal

Short, Clare

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sillars, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Grocott, Bruce

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

Hardy, Peter

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Snape, Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Spearing, Nigel

Haynes, Frank

Steinberg, Gerry

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Straw, Jack

Henderson, Doug

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

Hinchliffe, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Hood, Jimmy

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Hordern, Sir Peter

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Howells, Geraint

Walley, Joan

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Wareing, Robert N.

Hoyle, Doug

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Winnick, David

Illsley, Eric

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ingram, Adam

Wolfson, Mark

175

Worthington, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wray, Jimmy

Mr. Ian McCartney and

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. George J. Buckley.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Ashton, Joe

Janman, Tim

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Miller, Sir Hal

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Mitchell, Sir David

Bottomley, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Patchett, Terry

Canavan, Dennis

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Skinner, Dennis

Colvin, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Conway, Derek

Speed, Keith

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Steen, Anthony

Crowther, Stan

Summerson, Hugo

Dickens, Geoffrey

Waller, Gary

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Wells, Bowen

French, Douglas

Wheeler, Sir John

Fry, Peter

Whitney, Ray

Gale, Roger

Wilkinson, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Tellers for the Noes:

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mr. Colin Shepherd and

Grylls, Michael

Mr. Peter Thurnham.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Stephen Day, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Bellotti and Mr. Terry Lewis.

Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing)

  ROAD TRAFFIC (RANDOM BREATH TESTING)
  Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to provide for additional powers for the police to carry out random breath tests at the roadside; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 February and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
  Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just come from Her Majesty's prison, Pentonville, where a constituent of mine is one of about 70 Iraqis held in conditions far worse than those in which Saddam Hussein held his hostages. He has lived in this country for nearly 10 years. He was picked up without any notice and brought to the prison in handcuffs. He is a respectable business man, who has never been involved in any political activity of any kind. He and about 70 other people are now languishing in Pentonville prison awaiting deportation to Iraq, where many of them face perhaps death.
  As I cannot get any sense out of the Home Office on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could use your influence with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask him to come to the House to make a statement. Perhaps you could remind him that we are supposed to be fighting a police state, not behaving as though we are one.
  Mr. Speaker: This patently is not a matter for me. The hon. Member has made his point, and I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.

Orders of the Day

  Export and Investment Guarantees Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.12 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill has two main purposes. The first is to update the legislation that enables the Government to provide, through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, export credit and investment insurance. The second purpose is to bring about the privatisation of the insurance services business of the ECGD.
  Before I describe how the Bill achieves these two purposes, I should like to explain the background to this legislation. For over 70 years the ECGD has been protecting United Kingdom exporters against the financial risks of selling abroad. During that time, it has supported over £250 billion of British exports. It has operated as a separate Government department reporting to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It has insured the whole spectrum of exports, from raw materials sold on cash terms to process plant for which the financial risk in some cases can spread over decades. The ECGD's operations naturally break down into two separate businesses. These have two quite distinct characteristics, which are reflected in ECGD's organisation and management.
  The insurance services group, which is based in Cardiff, handles exports sold on short-term credit. The project group, which is in London, handles capital goods exports sold on medium and long credit terms. Those groups are increasingly run as separate businesses, although their financial results are combined in the publication trading accounts of the ECGD.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I ask the Minister what may be a difficult question for him to answer on that second group of capital goods? I understand there are reports today that British construction companies were involved in the design and, in some cases, the construction of underground reinforced concrete aircraft hangars in parts of northern Iraq. I do not know whether that information was made available to Her Majesty's Government or whether those contracts had ECGD cover. Were those projects covered by export credit guarantees? In so far as I understand that the Treasury is required to approve such arrangements where they are made, was the Treasury involved, and did the Minister of Defence make any representations to the Department of Trade and Industry in so far as it also has a role?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman referred to contracts, but his remarks were vague. He did not specify any particular contract. I suspect that he will be aware that the Government, and indeed all previous Governments, have sound commercial and political reasons for riot revealing details of individual transactions with individual exporters. That would be a breach of commercial confidence. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific matters with me, perhaps he will write to me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Details have been transmitted—
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry, but I must get on.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not have got the answer that he wanted, but it is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has asked me to provide information which is already in the public domain. It has been transmitted on British television today to the homes of millions of people. The individual plants have been named and journalists have had discussions with people in the Departments concerned, and that information should be dealt with in Westminster.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman can make such points if he catches my eye later.
  Mr. Sainsbury: In August 1988 my noble Friend Lord Young, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, agreed to a review of the ECGD. That review was to identify whether any changes were needed to enable the ECGD to serve better the needs of United Kingdom exporters, particularly after 1992 and the completion of the single market. My noble Friend was particularly concerned to establish whether the existing structure of the ECGD, which has served exporters so well over many years, would remain appropriate in the future, especially after the completion of the single market.
  For the insurance services group, the major change is the increasing concentration of its business on exports within the EC and the growing competition between European insurers for that sector of the business. Those trends are certain to continue. There is also the threat to the insurance services group of a possible legal challenge to its EC and OECD business on the basis of its being a state aid incompatible with articles 92 and 93 of the treaty of Rome.
  For project business, the pressures are altogether different. There the trading environment has been dramatically changed by the world debt crisis and its aftermath. That has put the ECGD's trading accounts into substantial deficit and it has reduced significantly the level of new business opportunities in comparison with the early 1980s. For those opportunities that arise in the less risky markets, competition between British and foreign exporters is fiercer than ever.
  It was against that background that a review was published which has subsequently been known as the Kemp review. It concluded that the interests of British exporters were not best served by leaving the ECGD unchanged. Its principal recommendations were that the insurance services business should be separated from ECGD and converted into a Government-owned company with a view to eventual privatisation. The review also concluded that the remainder of ECGD's activities should continue to be provided by Government through the ECGD, which would remain a separate Government department.
  Furthermore, the review recommended that a reinsurance link should exist between the private insurance
  178
  services company and the ECGD. This would allow the new company to place certain risks with the ECGD which could not be reinsured on the private market.
  The House will also recall that, at the same time as Ministers were considering the review, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry conducted a short inquiry into the future of the ECGD. The Select Committee invited evidence from a wide range of outside bodies—exporters, trade associations, bankers and brokers. The vast majority of the memoranda submitted to the Committee supported the recommendations in the review and the need for ECGD to continue as a Government Department to support capital goods exports sold on long and medium-term export credit was particularly stressed. It was also accepted that the ECGD needed to be restructured if it were to compete in the single market. A large majority of the memoranda submitted to the Select Committee supported the privatisation of the insurance services business.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: Will the Minister tell us how many people supported the idea of immediate privatisation without waiting for the four to five-year period recommended by Mr. Kemp?
  Mr. Sainsbury: At that time, immediate privatisation was not being considered. It was not an issue that was put to those who were submitting memoranda to the Select Committee.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: I am sure that the House will welcome this privatisation. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House about the effect of privatisation on the needs of the small and medium businesses, 70 per cent. of which do not export? Many of these companies could export if they had a more flexible form of credit insurance. Will he assure the House that one of the results will be greater flexibility to help those firms to enter the export market in the national interest?
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We would like to see even more smaller businesses engaging in exporting. In practice, it is the smaller exporters who probably find the greatest advantage in having one organisation able to provide insurance on their sales, not only to the export but also to the domestic market. I shall come to this point again later.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Since I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, could I inform the House that Rolls-Royce in particular told us that the faster we got moving the better?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am very grateful for that information from my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Committee.
  I return to my theme of setting the scene for the provisions of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced on 18 December 1989 that the Government broadly accepted the Kemp review recommendations. It was decided to introduce legislation that changed the status of insurance services in Government-owned companies. Private capital would then be injected into the company as soon as practicable. In accordance with normal insurance practice, my right hon. Friend noted that the company would need to secure reinsurance in the

  179
  private market, but accepted the possible need for the Government itself to make available reinsurance for certain risks for a transitional period of up to three years.
  The Government believe that this change in the status of the insurance services group is essential, but we stress that the recommendation for change came from the review and it has the strong endorsement of exporters. The insurance services group is based in Cardiff and has nine regional offices throughout the United Kingdom. The group handles a lot of repeat business. The great majority of the exports it covers are handled on cash or short-term credit of up to a maximum of 180 days.
  Since the insurance services group moved to Cardiff in 1976, it has played an important role in expanding the financial services market in south Wales and has wisely used the wealth of talent in that area. There has been major investment in new technology, which last year resulted in more than 70 per cent. of the 180,000 applications for insurance cover received being processed within 24 hours of receipt. That compares with only 18 per cent. four years earlier. That improvement greatly helped the competitiveness of exporters of all sizes.
  Buyer information is essential to good underwriting, and further improvements have been made in obtaining it, with ECGD taking the lead in initiating exchanges of information with other credit insurers. I am sure that no exporter who has had a policy with ECGD will have failed to notice the successful efforts that have been made to improve customer service. We now need to safeguard that service, so that it can compete in the post-1992 market, and hence the Bill. Without the changes for which it provides, the present service to exporters would be at risk.
  Until recently, the insurance services group enjoyed a virtual monopoly.
  Dr. Michael Clark: I am fully aware that my hon. Friend wants to privatise the insurance services group in Cardiff and to bring about competition. However, if the only bidder for the Cardiff-based group is Trade Indemnity, which is ECGD's competitor, does my hon. Friend not agree that it would be better to keep the group in state ownership, because competition between a state and a private insurer would be better than a privately owned monopoly in that sector?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I will refer shortly to the process of sale and to the point that my hon. Friend raises.
  The need to put the group into the private sector is not associated just with competition but with the change in the trading environment consequent upon the completion of the single market in 1992 and the threat of legal challenge to the group operating as a Government aid, in breach of the treaty of Rome.
  The Government have insisted that the insurance services group should be run as a business and not as a subsidy for exporters. In any event, a subsidised service would be in breach of the treaty of Rome. Competition is welcome, but it is essential, if the business is to flourish, that the group does not find itself competing with one hand tied behind its back. The creation of a single market means that exporters and their insurers more and more regard the Community as an enlarged domestic market, and the distinction between domestic and export credit insurance is becoming blurred.
  Many private insurers are offering, and companies are taking, credit insurance policies covering both domestic
  180
  and export trade, which is both administratively convenient and cost-effective, particularly for smaller businesses. If Cardiff is unable to offer a competitive product, it risks losing its best business.
  The insurance services group is prevented by statute from offering a truly competitive product. The Government would naturally not want to legislate to widen the Secretary of State's powers to enable him, via the ECGD, to operate domestic credit insurance in competition with existing private sector insurers. If the group is to compete effectively in the market, it must be as a private sector insurance operation.
  Those compelling reasons for moving the Cardiff-based company into the private sector are reinforced by the legal threat to which I referred, which hangs over all European state-owned export credit insurance agencies. The financial backing that a national agency such as the ECG D receives from its Government could be regarded under article 92 of the treaty of Rome as state aid, which is prohibited. Almost every EC member state is working on the assumption that state-financed insurance services may be prohibited. Therefore, like us, many find themselves reorganising their official export credit insurance structure to cut out state control. The United Kingdom must take account of that, and I suggest that the Opposition also take account of it.
  The danger is that, if ECGD's insurance services are excluded from EC and OECD business by such a ruling, it would remove about 75 per cent. of better risk business at a stroke, and without such business, the insurance services group's remaining risk portfolio would not be viable. It would also be chaotic for businesses to seek export insurances from one organisation for exports to the EC and OECD and from another for exports to the remaining areas of the world. An outcome along those lines must be avoided—it is against the interests of the ECGD, its customers, staff and the taxpayer.
  Clearly, the status of the insurance services group must be changed to meet those legal and business challenges, but also to meet the huge opportunities which await it. Not only is Insurance Services a market leader in the United Kingdom: it is well placed to build up business in other countries. It will only be able to do so after the proposed changes. Then it will be able to provide the cross-border services enshrined in the EC insurance directive, although ultimately that will be a matter for the owners of Insurance Services. The chance exists for the company to develop into a major force in the European Community, bringing substantial benefits to the United Kingdom and to the South Wales economy.
  Before turning to the details of the Bill, I should like to mention two matters about which there have been some comments and misunderstanding. It has been said that the Government will not continue to provide insurance for those risks that the private insurance industry is unwilling to take. I am glad to be able to tell the House that that is not the case.
  The Government intend to transfer as much of the risk as possible to the private sector. We are confident that the vast bulk of the risk will be insured, or reinsured, in the private insurance market immediately upon privatisation. However, there are a few countries in which ECGD facilities are currently available but where adequate private market capacity does not exist at present. To avoid a sudden and sharp reduction in the facilities available to British exporters in the immediate aftermath of

  181
  privatisation, some support will be available from ECGD to enable the company to maintain facilities in those markets, and those arrangements will be kept under close review.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It is reassuring to know that facilities will continue to be available, because they will be much needed in some difficult areas. Can the Minister tell the House how long he envisages that they will remain available, as that question is in the forefront of the concerns of many companies?
  Mr. Sainsbury: As I have said, we shall keep those arrangements under close review. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, I am sure, the markets to which I refer change. A market may be acceptable to the private sector, but political events may change its marketability, and different arrangements need to be adhered to. That needs to be kept under review. It is a changing situation, and we shall keep it under review.
  The second misunderstanding that I wish to clear up relates to project exports, which ECGD will continue to cover. In recent years, ECGD support for project exports has proved an expensive business for the taxpayer, largely due to the effects of the debt crisis, which has plunged ECGD's accounts into substantial deficit, after many years of operating at a healthy surplus. It will take many more years before we can say with certainty what the cost has been.
  As an illustration, ECGD's last published accounts showed a cumulative deficit of £693 million and referred to the possible need to add £3 billion to that figure, to make further loss provisions on sovereign debt. Those are enormous amounts by any standards, and the annual cost of interest rate subsidies, incurred to allow exporters to quote the internationally agreed minimum interest rates, must be added to them, which costs about £400 million at present.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend be following the European Community rules from now on, and will the project group not provide any form of assistance to industry within the EEC? Does he agree that that would help to release assistance for projects in other parts of the world, where it is clearly more needed, especially third-world countries in, for instance, south and central America?
  Mr. Sainsbury: As my hon. Friend may know, in practice the project group's business is almost entirely in the developing world. The European Community market —and, indeed, the market in OECD countries—is either not one that British exporters of project business have been successful in penetrating, or a cash market rather than one in which ECGD cover is called for.
  Despite the cost to which I have referred, the Government remain committed to supporting this important sector of our industry. Nevertheless, it would be a dereliction of our duty to the taxpayer, and to the rest of the economy, not to take any action aimed at preventing a repreat of this experience in a few years' time. What was needed, therefore, was a decision-making framework that would better enable us to balance the national-interest case
  182
  for supporting project exports with the financial risk to the taxpayer. The ECGD has been working on the so-called portfolio management system to meet that need.
  I recognise that, while the ECGD has been doing that work, there has been some uncertainty about the cost and availability of future ECGD support; but the announcement made on 14 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ended that uncertainty, and exporters have welcomed that announcement. It guarantees insurance cover for desirable project exports—those that we are reasonably confident will be paid for—but within a pricing and risk-control structure that protects the taxpayer's interest. I confirm the Government's commitment to provide a stable and viable framework of ECGD support for project exports.
  Part I of the Bill relates to the powers that are being sought for the continuing ECGD. Its main purpose will continue, as its name implies, to be the provision of guarantees in support of British exports and overseas investment. The Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978, which is the statutory basis for those functions, has begun to show its age, and that is especially marked in the way in which the Act prevents the ECGD from taking full advantage of the latest techniques and instruments available in the financial markets. That means that it cannot manage the assets and liabilities that it has acquired in the normal course of business as well as it would like. For example, the ECGD often wishes to adopt innovative financial techniques to help minimise loss or reduce costs, only to find its hands tied by out-of-date law.
  Of course, those needs could not have been anticipated in 1978, so it is perhaps not surprising that the existing Act relies too much on the Secretary of State's inherent and implicit, rather than explicit, powers. That has on occasion given rise to uncertainty about the ECGD's authority, and has limited its field of activity.
  For those reasons, part I adopts a completely fresh approach to describing the powers of the continuing ECGD. The existing Act is to be repealed, as parts I and III are a complete replacement for the old powers. Let me emphasise again, however, that that implies no fundamental change of any kind in the role of the ECGD. Its primary function will remain the encouragement of exports and overseas investment through the provision of insurance against credit risks. It will remain subject to the objective for its trading facilities to operate over time at no net cost to the Exchequer, and the new powers should enable it to do its job better.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: As my hon. Friend knows, the existing arrangements provide so-called section 2 cover. When the ECGD is up against its country limits and therefore will not insure a project, the matter can nevertheless be referred to the Export Guarantees Committee, where what is essentially a political decision will be made to provide cover—although the country is up to its limit, and repayment may be a more dubious prospect than it is in the case of other countries. Will that provision continue, or do the Government propose to deal with such cases in a more hard-nosed and commercial fashion?
  Mr. Sainsbury: Broadly the same procedures will apply, but we believe that what is proposed and is now being introduced under the portfolio management system will

  183
  provide a more viable and practical framework to balance the mutual objectives of helping the exporter and having proper regard to the interests of the tax payer.
  Clause 1 retains the existing but rarely used powers for rendering economic assistance overseas, powers which have lain dormant since the creation of the Overseas Development Administration, except for the restructuring of sovereign debt. There is no current intention to use the powers for any new purpose, and I repeat previous ministerial assurances that this would not be done without a prior statement to the House.
  Clause 2 enables ECGD to continue to give guarantees on investments made in overseas enterprises. An additional power is introduced to extend cover in relation to associated companies, and this will broaden the scheme's appeal to potential investors. It is a minor example of the need for this legislation.
  Clause 3 allows the ECGD to enter into whatever arrangements may seem appropriate for the proper financial management of its portfolio, and this will permit ECGD to benefit from greater use of financial market techniques such as bond issues, interest rate and currency swaps. This will better control and possibly reduce costs to public expenditure.
  It will be noted that the statutory distinction between guarantees issued in the national interest and other "commercial" guarantees is not retained. It has become a less relevant distinction, and it will become even less relevant when ECGD's business is centred, after the insurance services changes, on medium—and long-term export credits. This has implications for the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, whose current role is to advise ECGD on the "commercial" risks—
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but you will recall that, just a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), on an intervention, asked some questions of the Minister. May I draw your attention to the Register of Members' Interests, published in January 1990, which among other entries records that the hon. Gentleman is parliamentary consultant to Trade Indemnity plc, which is likely to be the purchaser of ECGD if the privatisation goes ahead?
  I do not wish to cast any aspersions at all on the hon. Gentleman, because he has in the past made his own position quite clear. I just wonder if it would not be more proper in these matters, even if Members are intervening rather than making speeches, for them to take every opportunity to declare a personal interest.
  Will you not give the opportunity to the hon. Gentleman to put on the record the fact that he is a parliamentary consultant to Trade Indemnity?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is outrageous of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). He knows perfectly well that I have the honour to be parliamentary consultant to Trade Indemnity. The hon. Gentleman also knows that I happen to be a practitioner in this matter. If those of us who are in the House are going to be unable to participate in debates in the House on matters which are of great concern to our constituents and throughout the country, it is unfair. I have been accused by the hon. Member. The point that I raised with my hon. Friend had nothing to do with
  184
  whether I have a consultancy or not but everything to do with the measure that my hon. Friend is bringing before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harrold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting dangerously near seeking to debate the whole question whether hon. Members should declare their interests or not when they intervene in debates.
  There is an obligation, according to "Erskine May", that hon. Members participating in debate should declare their interest. However, it has not been the practice in recent years to require an hon. Member in the course of asking a question or intervening to make formal declaration of an interest which is recorded in the Register. It will be usual and expected that an hon. Member having a direct pecuniary interest in a matter before the House declares that interest in the event of making a speech in debate.
  very much hope that that will enable us to get on.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make it clear that I did not make an attack on the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood. He appears to be sensitive about these matters, and I am sure that he is well rewarded for his sensitivity. I do not want to criticise him, because he has made it abundantly clear in the past that he has a direct financial involvement.
  The point that I was trying to make was whether in these circumstances, where we are discussing the transfer of public assets to what is likely to be one private monopoly, and where the hon. Gentleman has such a close relationship, it would not be proper to interpret the ruling that you quite rightly gave in its broadest sense and require the hon. Gentleman and others who might have direct financial involvement to take the opportunity, even though on an intervention, to make that declaration of interest. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps reconsider your ruling with a view to broadening its scope so as to require hon. Members in these circumstances to make that declaration of interest, even though they are only making an intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be most unwise of me to go beyond what I have said. I very much hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear in mind what has been said in the course of this exchange.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that the House will not be misled, I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly for his kindness and courtesy—what he is like when he attacks people, I do not know. I am most grateful for his felicitations. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I hope to be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which is why I shall sit down very quickly now—later on in the debate. It is at that point that I had intended at some length to develop a full explanation to the House of my interest in these matters, which I hope might be for the benefit of the House rather than to its detriment.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Caerphilly may be interested to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) had had the courtesy to tell me that he hoped to try to catch your eye during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that he intended to declare his interest if he were called—

  185
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he did not want to interrupt the Minister. I do not know what he does when he wants to interrupt the Minister, because he has certainly succeeded in making a lengthy interruption.
  Returning to the implications for the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, whose current role is to advise ECGD on the commercial risks underwritten under section I of the existing Act, the advisory council consists of eminent bankers and industrialists, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to thank the chairman, Mr. Peter Leslie, and the council members for all the time and valuable advice that they have freely given to ECGD. The major challenges facing ECGD mean that their expertise is needed more than ever; consequently, the Bill extends the advisory council's role so that ECGD can seek its guidance on any matters relating to ECGD's powers, duties and functions.
  These changes in ECGD's basic powers do not, however, mean that there is to be any change in ECGD's practice, which stems from the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, then President of the Board of Trade, that it will not issue guarantees for "unduly hazardous or quite crazy" risks. In any circumstances where ECGD's accounting officer judges risks to fall into this category and is instructed by Ministers to cover them, then, as has been past practice, an announcement will be made to the House.
  I should also stress that the change does not mean that the Government's commitment to project exports is in any way reduced.
  Mr. Steve Norris: Will my hon. Friend the Minister just consider what, at least in my submission, is an important component of the examination of any risk that the Government propose to subsidise at the taxpayer's expense—the profitability of the manufacture for the company concerned? Surely, in an examination of the likely return to the community as a whole, it is important not to put ourselves in the situation where the net effect of our subsidy is to hand over a substantial amount of British taxpayers' cash to some foreign country.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) raises an interesting point. The objective of ECGD is to try to determine whether the buyer will pay for what he is purchasing, whether it is a sovereign buyer or an individual company. It would be requiring rather a lot of ECGD or any other credit insurance agency to expect it to try to make judgments on the pricing structure of the vendor.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend said earlier that the intention was that these services should be provided at no cost over time. Does that imply that previous losses have to be recouped over a period?
  Mr. Sainsbury: We would hope that what are now shown as losses would substantially be recovered over time, through rescheduling particularly. I am not suggesting that future business should acquire a profit sufficient to repay the losses which have been accummulated and which stand in the books, but we hope that
  186
  in due course they will be recovered through those who have failed to pay meeting their payments later, usually through the Paris Club rescheduling.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Sainsbury: I should like to move on, as I have been generous in giving way, and we have had points of order as well.
  Clause 5 will permit ECGD to encourage exports and at the same time improve its financial outturn by marketing some of the information and skills which it acquires in its business activities. Clause 6 places limits on the level of commitments which may be assumed in respect of the operations covered by clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill.
  At present, the sterling statutory limit is set at £35 billion and no change is proposed. The foreign currency limit currently stands at 25 billion special drawing rights, but as commitments under this limit do not exceed 6 billion SDR at present, it is proposed to reduce this statutory limit to 15 billion.
  Clause 7 provides for a return to be laid before Parliament giving details of the Department's sterling and foreign currency commitments as soon as practicable after 31 March in each year. ECGD also wishes to be in a position to take advantage of ecus as a financing medium and such other units of account as may be created from time to time, and provision for this has been included in clause 6, which I am sure will be welcome to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Part II of the Bill relates to the proposed privatisation of the insurance services business. It provides the necessary legal framework to implement the Government's intentions. It will allow the Secretary of State to prepare a scheme for the transfer of any property, rights and liabilities currently vested in ECGD's insurance services business. This is dealt with in clause 8.
  Clause 9 provides for the arrangements for the transfer of staff to the Government-owned company. These arrangements adopt the practice of earlier privatisations by ensuring that the terms and conditions of service of employees do not suffer as a result of their transfer. In this regard, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, commonly known as TUPE, will apply and will protect the position of staff.
  While TUPE provides some basic but none the less important legal safeguards, it does not apply to all elements of the employment package which civil servants enjoy at present. First, TUPE does not apply to pension schemes. The Government nevertheless wish to ensure that the staff of insurance services who transfer to the private sector will enjoy pension arrangements in conjunction with terms and conditions of employment which are overall broadly comparable to the civil service terms and conditions which they currently enjoy.
  Anything which failed to achieve this could prejudice the prospects for effecting a voluntary staff transfer. This would, in turn, endanger the success of the whole privatisation, given the vital importance to the business of the expertise and commitment of its staff. For that reason, in judging the bids they receive, the Government will ensure that any proposed employment package on offer reflects this need.
  Secondly, there is a point about the arrangements for redundancy compensation for civil servants. These redundancy rights are currently enshrined in the civil

  187
  service pension scheme. As I have said, pension schemes are not transferred under TUPE. It will clearly be important that the transferring staff do not lose the rights which they have built up in the civil service. It is therefore intended that arrangements will be made which will ensure that the existing entitlements of these staff to redundancy compensation remain with them in their private sector employment.
  Clause 10 provides the means for the Secretary of State to acquire or be issued with shares in a vehicle company for the purpose of converting it to a Government-owned company. So as to avoid unnecessary uncertainty, it is planned that the sale of the Government-owned company to the private sector will take place as soon as practicable after it has been set up. Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to take reinsurance from the company into which the other assets and liabilities of the insurance services business have been transferred.
  Clause 12 confers the power to delegate to the new company or any other body the functions described in clause 1. This is primarily intended to permit the new company to undertake an agency role on behalf of ECGD in respect of any business where ECGD remains the principal in the transaction, but wishes, for reasons of administrative convenience, to delegate the administration to the new company.
  I should at this point like to say a few words about the proposed method of sale of the insurance services business to which reference has been made. The Government have already announced that this will be by means of a trade sale rather than a public flotation. This is because of the particular character of the insurance services business—a highly specialised, risk-taking enterprise which has yet to operate as a fully independent entity. A trade sale offers the best prospect of securing a purchaser who will understand, and be committed to, this complex business and bring to it strong financial resources. This is obviously the right solution for our exporters.
  There is also every reason to believe that a competition between interested trade purchasers will achieve good value for money for the taxpayer. Responses to a pre-qualification questionnaire issued by the Government's financial advisers have been received from a wide range of institutions. As soon as convenient after Second Reading, and after taking account of the points made by hon. Members in the debate, a short list of bidders will be selected from the respondents to the questionnaire, and they will be invited to submit definitive bids.
  However, while price will be an important factor, it will not be the only one. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State reserves the right to reject any bid which in his view is unsatisfactory, after taking all relevant factors into account. I will ensure that the names of the short-listed bidders are published and that other relevant information will be made available in the Library of the House. As hon. Members will be aware, the Kemp review itself' and ECGD's annual report and accounts are also placed in the Library.
  I am sure that the whole House will realise that the changes we are proposing add up to the most radical and comprehensive review of ECGD since its establishment over 70 years ago. In making these changes, the Government's sole aim has been to ensure that the vital
  188
  services provided by ECGD to exporters are safeguarded for the future. It means that ECGD will now continue as two separate organisations.
  However, ECGD has never shirked the need for change. I am confident that both organisations will continue to provide first-class support for our exporters. Insurance Services, as a company, will be able to provide a still better and even more up-to-date service to British industry than it could as part of a Government department. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that a first-class standard of export insurance continues to be available to British exporters. I commend it to the House.
  4.56 pm
  Ms. Joyce Quin: We have become used to seeing the Government introduce privatisation measures amid confusion and incompetence. The latest measure is a striking example. We are presented with a Bill which seems to be privatisation for privatisation's sake. It is difficult to see any other justification for it. It is clear that what is proposed in the legislation will be harmful to British exports and to the economy as a whole.
  The Bill has already given rise to a storm of protest by those affected. Even by the Government's standards, it seems singularly ill thought out. It is likely to be harmful not only to exporters who rely on the short-term cover provided by the insurance services group of ECGD, which the Government propose to privatise, but also to those who rely on the long-term cover provided by the project division. The Bill includes clauses dealing with both parts of ECGD and both, I believe, will be badly affected by it.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Lady has been making a point about the reasoning behind the Bill. Surely there is a fundamental reason why we should examine the problem. It is likely after 1992 that under article 92 state support will be ruled out by the Commission. Clearly it is state support contrary to the competition rules. If that is so, the British exporter will be at major disadvantage, facing a state-run support system which in effect will be illegal under Community law.
  Ms. Quin: There are two responses to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The first is that there is no immediate pressure from the European Commission to take action of the kind that the Government are proposing. The second—if the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening—is that other state credit insurers within the EC do not seem to be acting in the same way as the Government in this respect. So there are clear differences. Because of that, we need to look at this much more closely rather than simply saying that, because 1992 is coming along, we automatically have to change the status of ECGD.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Lady seems to think that there is something wrong in the Government's taking action in good time. What would she say if we left it until the last moment and had to do things in a rush? Could I also draw her attention to the action being taken by the Danish Government in respect of its own export credit organisation? She should be aware that this is a real threat to which other European countries are having regard, and we would be falling short of our duty to exporters if we ignored it.
  Ms. Quin: It is not really a question of taking action in good time; it is a question of taking action which will mean that the so-called playing field in Europe is very uneven indeed with regard to export support. We are worried by the fact that the Government are, in effect, cutting back on this kind of export service at at time when other European countries, including our major competitors in France and Germany, are not doing so. I shall return to the point about the level playing field later in my comments.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: We have heard the Minister, and we have heard the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) from the Conservative Back Bench, but that is not what Kemp found in his report. He said this:
  "there is nothing in the existing package of 1992 legislation nor in any other proposals for legislation that have been tabled or are known to be under consideration, which in any way affects the ability of the state agencies to carry on business as they have been doing."
  I think it is a red herring—or a blue herring—from the Conservative Benches.
  Ms. Quin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although the Kemp report dates from some time ago, the position as outlined by my hon. Friend remains substantially the same.
  I stress that this measure comes at a time when support for exports in Britain is particularly important. We had a huge trade deficit in 1990—probably about £16 billion—following the staggering deficit of more than £19 billion in 1989. These are deficits of a magnitude previously unknown in our country. We run a huge deficit with West Germany and also with Japan, and we have the difficulty of competing with those countries in third-country markets. The average annual growth rate in the volume of our exports in the period 1979–89 was only 3·5 per cent. It was lower than that of any EEC country, Japan or the United States.
  The need to export has never been greater than it is now. As one newspaper headline put it just a couple of weeks ago,
  "As never before, it's export or die."
  Yet the Government's response to the need to export more has been to cut the services available to our exporters. The Government have introduced charges for export services, there have been cuts in support for exporters exhibiting at trade fairs, for example, and there have also been failures to help exporters in particular cases. One case which recently came to my attention, and about which I have written to the Minister's colleagues, concerned the Government's role in helping to lose a valuable order for six ships from Appledore Shipbuilders, in Devon, because the Government refused to act as guarantor in the way that the customer had come to expect from other Governments.
  The point should be made also that the current general economic climate in Britain is not helpful to exporters, so this is a particularly inappropriate time to introduce measures of this kind. Inflation is high, interest rates are very high, and the pound is at a difficult level for exporters within the exchange rate mechanism. Yet the Government's response is to privatise the ISG division of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. How many handicaps is industry expected to survive under in this country?
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Lady asks how many handicaps industry will have to suffer under. It would be a handicap if it had to suffer under the policies of Opposition Members. Has she not seen the figures for car exports? She has talked about exporters not succeeding, but the exporters of cars have succeeded very substantially
  Ms. Quin: I hope to refer to some of the contacts that I have had with exporters who are extremely worried about the Government's policy in cutting back on exports. They seem to me to have a great deal more in common with the industrial regeneration ideas of the Labour party than with the ideas of the present Government.
  Mr. Norris rose—
  Ms. Quin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already given way several times and there are quite a few arguments that I would like to make. Perhaps he will be able to intervene later on.
  As the Minister pointed out, ECGD has a distinguished record as the world's most experienced export credit insurer and it has traded profitably for most of its 70 years' existence. Unfortunately—again, as has been pointed out —over the last decade it has been affected by the special circumstances of third-world debt, although in this respect it is no different from the credit insurers in most other countries. ECGD services are valued by large and small firms alike. Small firms in particular do a great deal of business with ECGD and are worried about changes that are being proposed. Even the large firms which are the prime beneficiaries from the project division none the less sub-contract in the course of their work to many smaller firms, which thus benefit indirectly from the support given.
  It has been known for some time that the Government would be likely to propose changes in ECGD's status. The prospect of a genuine single market in Europe alters the picture—I certainly concede that—and it was felt that ECGD should have the flexibility to operate within the large single European market. This was one of the considerations behind the Kemp review and the different options suggested in that report for ECGD's future operation.
  The Kemp report suggests a choice of three possible directions for ECGD. One was staying within Government, perhaps as a separate accountable unit. The second was to become a Government-controlled agency outside the civil service, and the third was to be a Government-owned company with the introduction of private capital probably after a four to five-year period. The reaction to the Kemp review at the time was generally favourable, although exporters were largely satisfied with ECGD services anyway and were not exactly clamouring for change.
  What do the Government decide to do as a result of the Kemp review? Quite simply, they decide to ignore Kemp's recommendations entirely, take no notice of the wealth of advice they received at the time, and come out in favour of the immediate privatisation of the insurance services group. The transition period of four to five years becomes a transition period of 1·5 seconds, or however long it takes technically to create a Government-owned company and then immediately, in the same breath, complete the privatisation process.
  The Kemp report also made it clear that there would be a continuing need for a Government-backed reinsurance facility in the case of political-risk exports. In this

  191
  legislation, however, the Government are proposing to limit their commitment to political-risk reinsurance for three years. The Minister today has sought to soften this particular commitment by saying that there would be some mechanism for reviewing the situation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where the figure of three years came from and how it was arrived at. It seems a very arbitrary limit indeed. Perhaps he will specify in more detail what measures will be taken if, at the end of the three-year period, it is quite obvious that there is no real willingness on the part of the private sector to offer a reinsurance service, which is certainly needed.
  At the same time as privatising ISG, the Government seem determined to weaken the project division of ECGD, which is to remain part of Government. The Minister has already referred to the changes which are part of the new portfolio management system for calculating the premiums that exporters will have to pay, and we know these will mean steep increases and a more expensive export service for medium and long-term exports. I understand that, overall, ECGD premiums are higher than those of most of our main competitors. There is much concern among exporters about what is happening.
  All the Government's proposals—the immediate privatisation of ISG, the three-year limit on reinsurance and the introduction of the portfolio management system —are designed to ensure that British exporters get a poorer deal than their competitors. That is the real consequence of the Bill.
  Not surprisingly, there has been an almost uniformly hostile reaction to the Bill. The survey that was carried out by Sedgwick James, the credit insurance brokers, found that only 33 per cent. of those questioned felt that the private sector would be able to satisfy the needs of the short-term credit insurance sector. But 91 per cent. thought that the Government were being unrealistic in their stated plans to get other countries to follow their lead in cutting support to medium-term export business.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): How many people replied to that survey?
  Ms. Quin: According to Sedgwick James, 60 per cent. of the people to whom it wrote replied. It tried to make it as reasonable a survey as possible. The Minister may suggest that the number was small, but much concern has been expressed by companies through chambers of commerce —the London and Birmingham chambers of commerce, for example—the British Exporters Association, the Confederation of British Industry and others. The Minister is trying to convince me that only a few firms are concerned about this, but I do not believe him. I know that that is not so.
  Mr. Leigh: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady as, unfortunately, she does not know the answer. Of 7,000 exporters, 55 were surveyed.
  Ms. Quin: How many companies are covered by the chambers of commerce that I have mentioned and the CBI?
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Ms. Quin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to make some progress. He may get an opportunity to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The source of the Minister's comments was the Financial Times, from which it appears that 92 exporters were surveyed and 55 replied. That puts a different complexion on the figure of 7,000 that he gave.
  Ms. Quin: I am sure that the Minister heard what my hon. Friend said.
  The overwhelming majority of respondents thought that the Government's tactics of trying to convince other countries to follow suit were unrealistic. Despite that vote of no confidence, the Government are sticking firmly ro that illusion. In answer to a presumably planted question by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), the Government stated:
  "The Government intend to press in international fora for other export credit agencies to charge more economic premium rates for export credit support, but, in the meantime, ECGD will be adopting new premium rates which will be matched more closely to risk."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 359.]
  In other words, we shall proceed no matter how slight the evidence that other countries will follow suit. That is an absurd way of proceeding and of approaching export credit support.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Lilley): Labour Members want to subsidise everything.
  Ms. Quin: The Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, is saying something about us wanting to subsidise everything. That is patently untrue, as he knows. We want our exporters to have the same facilities as our major competitors. The answer is as plain and simple as that.
  At the time of the Kemp review, when the Government were considering the future of ECGD, many comments were received from exporters and from large companies. Most stressed strongly the importance of the existing service. For example, Hawker Siddeley said:
  "The future of the United Kingdom capital goods industry remains—as will all our competitors—virtually totally dependent on the ability to insure export business over the medium and long term. There is no evidence that this facility exists or will exist in the private sector."
  Vickers plc said:
  "another advantage in retaining the Insurance Services group as a United Kingdom government agency would be its assured access to the vast ECGD data base which may not be available to a government-controlled company supported by private sector capital."
  Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point when he replies. The Credit Insurance Association said:
  "We do not believe that the private sector could assume a significant proportion of ECGD's existing functions."
  Many other quotes could be given. Since publication of the Bill, many companies have expressed concern to many of my hon. Friends in whose constituencies they are located and to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) referred to Rolls-Royce in an intervention. Northern Engineering Industries, which is merged with Rolls-Royce, has written to many hon. Members expressing concern about the future of ECDG and that exporters will receive an inferior service.
  Dr. Hampson: Has the hon. Lady read the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry from Rolls-Royce and Northern Engineering Industries, which says:

  193
  "This should, in our opinion, take place as early as possible in order that ECGD's pre-eminent position in this field is not lost and continuity is preserved. Already the Dutch credit insurer is privatised and we see similar activities taking place in the relevant sectors by the French credit insurer. If the UK is to maintain its position in this field within Europe come 1992 it is important that steps are taken now to introduce private capital so that UK exporters may compete effectively with their foreign competitors."
  Ms. Quin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading that. That company wanted the same system to obtain here as on the continent. I have read that quotation and have it in front of me. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the force of its contribution is that we should be competing on equal terms. I contend that the Bill means that we shall not be competing on equal terms.
  The timing of the Bill irritated many exporters and industrialists. It appeared just before the Christmas recess, with little publicity, and was orginally timed to be debated in the week of the UN Gulf deadline. That is typical of the rather furtive way in which the Government have treated the ECGD issue. The proposals on its future were first announced by the Government in a written answer to a planted question, rather than, as we had asked, in an oral statement on the Floor of the House, which would have enabled hon. Members properly to question the Minister. The privatisation of ISG was originally scheduled by the Government for April, but because of various difficulties that will not happen until July at the earliest.
  The furtive and incompetent way in which the Government have introduced the Bill perhaps has much to do with the fact that they are divided about it. There is no doubt that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury hold different views on it, and perhaps the Minister will give us some details of that. At the time of the Kemp review, it was known that the Treasury, or some in the Treasury, favoured the so-called zero option, ending Government support for export credit even for the medium and long term. The previous Secretary of State was well known as a hardliner on export support, and it was rumoured that he might consider privatising all the Department's work in export support.
  There are still disagreements between the Treasury and the Department of Industry, as is clear from a leaked memo that was reported in The Guardian recently from the Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the Private Secretary of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I apologise if that sounds like a passage from "Yes Minister", but the relevant extract says:
  "As for the short-term business, as you know the Chief Secretary is very concerned about your Secretary of State's proposals for large-scale government support for the privatised company."
  That shows clear disagreement between the two Departments. The same memo refers rather ominously to
  "outstanding policy issues on reinsurance and national interest."
  Perhaps the Minister could give us details of the exact disagreements. The present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was previously a Treasury Minister. I wonder whether his promotion has changed his view. I also wonder what are the views of the various Ministers in the Chamber on the issue. It seems that different Ministers have different views.
  In a letter to me some time ago, the previous Trade Minister, Lord Trefgarne, said:
  194
  "I am sure that the changes…are essential to enable ECGD to maintain and improve the quality of its support to UK exporters."
  What is the justification for that statement? I see the Minister for Trade nodding, so presumably he agrees with the statement. What studies have been done on the damage that the proposals are likely to do to industry? It is not clear why Ministers make sweeping statements without giving further justification.
  Clearly, the Government are rushing to privatise the insurance services group of ECGD. However, it has to be said that there do not appear to be many bidders in the running for it. Perhaps the small number of bidders causes the Government some embarrassment. Furthermore, there are question marks about the suitability of some bidders and the consequences on the wider market if they acquire ISG. If ECGD's main competitor, Trade Indemnity, acquires the insurance services group, will there be a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because of its dominance of the United Kingdom credit insurance industry? It would be ironic if the Government, claiming as they so often do that privatisation will increase choice, are responsible for eliminating what choice exists in the export credit market.
  If the Dutch insurer NCM acquired ISG, would it have the promotion of British exports at heart? As the official Dutch credit insurer, its remit is to help Dutch exports. In any case, it would be absurd and unfair if Dutch companies which used NCM's services were entitled to the back-up provided by the Dutch Government while British companies using the service were not entitled to such Government back-up.
  If ECGD were sold to a company without much expertise in export credit services, would not our exporters lose in the long run? Such questions are important. I want the Government to tell us how many bidders are currently bidding and describe the nature of some of them. Parliament is entitled to that information.
  It does not seem that the sale will be a great earner for the Government. The sum of £100 million has been mentioned. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or contradict that figure. Certainly it is a small amount of money. It might keep our under-funded health service going for an hour or so, but it would hardly tackle any of the long-term problems of our country, for which public expenditure is badly needed. What is the Government's estimate?
  Unfortunately, we are handicapped in our work on the sale because financial details have not been made available to Parliament, even though some financial details have been made available to bidders. I noted that the Secretary of State said that he would make some information available in the Library. Will he make available the details that have been given so far to bidders but to which Members of Parliament have not been given access?
  Even possible purchasers have not been able to bid in full knowledge of the facts. For example, in the information memorandum first issued by Samuel Montagu on behalf of the Secretary of State, bidders were given no information on the extent of Government support for reinsurance after the sale. Indeed, the relevant section of the memorandum reads:
  "Decisions on the scale and detail of government participation in the reinsurance arrangements for the new company will be taken when the outcome of the discussions with private sector reinsurers is known."

  195
  That is hardly helpful to bidders who want some idea of the commitment that they will be taking on.
  The consequences of the proposed sell-off on the rest of ECGD cause the Opposition considerable anxiety. The losses of ECGD's projects side are considerable for the reasons to which I referred earlier. Therefore, there is a fear among exporters that once ISG is sold off, the rest of ECGD will be vulnerable to continued Treasury sniping —especially given the details of the Treasury's view which I gave earlier. Exporters also fear that ECGD will not be able to fulfil its proper role in promoting British exports in new and sometimes difficult markets.
  ECGD is already being forced to take a hard line on cover for certain countries. The portfolio management system will simply make that worse. Indeed, exporters have told me that the uncertainty surrounding ECGD handicaps them when trying to win contracts. They cannot be sure what element of the equation the ECGD contribution will constitute. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. I have contacts with exporters who feel that deals are being held up because of the uncertainty surrounding ECGD.
  Furthermore, the ECGD has been forced to take a particularly hard line on trade with eastern Europe, even though for both political and long-term economic considerations, links between Britain and eastern Europe need to be strengthened. It is ironic that the CBI recently launched an initiative to promote trade with three eastern European countries and the Soviet Union when of those four countries, three are off ECGD cover. That certainly does not make the CBI's role easy. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that position will change because it certainly needs to change.
  We all remember the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), declaring that Mr. Gorbachev was a man with whom she could do business. Yet ironically, even before the recent sad events in the Baltic states took place, we were doing far less business with the Soviet Union than we did with the old, repressive but, I suppose, horribly reliable regime. The Government must address that issue quickly. It affects exporters in many parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I read recently that even the Scottish Herring Buyers Association was having difficulty in selling to eastern Europe as a result of the withdrawal of ECGD cover. It is important to have Government support for exports in such markets for both economic and political reasons. It is unlikely that the private sector, which must continually be mindful of short-term profits, could support such trade.
  Throughout their term of office, the Government have claimed that they want a level playing field in Europe so that our industry can compete on equal terms. I state again that the Bill will do nothing to achieve that aim. Indeed, it will do the opposite. We should aim to give ECGD the same flexibility as COOFACE in France to compete for business in Europe but at the same time it should enjoy a similar degree of Government support for political risk reinsurance for medium and long-term exports. Why did not the Government simply seek to amend the ECGD terms of reference to give it that flexibility and those opportunities? Did they consider such a course? If not, why not?
  We have many specific worries and reservations about the clauses and provisions of the Bill which I do not have time to list now but which will certainly be thoroughly aired in Committee. We are worried about the effects on
  196
  the work force, particularly in Cardiff, employment prospects and, for example, pension rights. There has been a lack of consultation with the work force, much of which has been loyal to ECGD over many years and surely has a real stake and interest in the future of ECGD.
  It is clear that the Bill is an ill thought out measure which has been introduced in an incompetent and secretive manner. It is the result of departmental battles in which the privatisation dogmatists and cost cutters have won. Once again, the Government have shown themselves to be the anti-industry party which, for short-term and cost cutting considerations, is prepared to sacrifice our long-term economic well-being. The Opposition will rightly oppose the Bill, subject it to rigorous scrutiny in Committee and use every opportunity to point out not just to industry, but to the general public, just how foolish and ill-judged a measure it is.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I wish to declare an interest as non-executive chairman of GEC-Marconi.
  The Bill is important because adequate financing arrangements are fundamentally important to successful export activity, on which the country's economic health depends.
  There is a significant shortcoming in the philosophy that has underpinned our export credit activity for many years. That philosophy has been to offer credit only in a reactive manner, when our competitors have made a credit package offer and we have to match it or lose out. I know several cases in which a British product has won the support of a foreign purchaser in terms of performance, product support and delivery dates, only for the deal to be held up on the credit aspect, while other competitors are encouraged to enter the fray and improve their bids. Had our companies been able to make a pre-emptive credit offer at an earlier stage, a deal could have been concluded.
  In some cases, the contract is lost following extensive negotiations, but in other cases—this is almost worse—the contract is secured after lengthy reactive responses by ECGD, but has cost us far more in the end than if our companies had been able to make a carefully judged pre-emptive credit offer earlier. I emphasise that I do not speak as, or on behalf of—to quote from today's Financial Times—the
  "whingeing exporters who want to give British exports away to countries that are unlikely to pay for them."
  There are many British companies that have developed their export markets on the back of original contracts which contained export finance and which may have been more generous than the Treasury at the time would have liked. Much export business is long-term business, and the key factor is the ability to break into the market in the first place.
  It should not be necessary to state such truisms in this country, which is so dependent on trade. I am not in any way averse to the concept of private capital being introduced into a hitherto Government agency, as one might expect from a Conservative Member—far from it. I also accept that, with the onset of the single Eurpoean market, it is clean and neat to make some new arrangements. But I am concerned about some of the assumptions that seem to underlie the Bill.
  First, I see no signs of any of our EC partners, other than Denmark, making similar arrangements. The

  197
  obsessional phrase these days—the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has already used it—is "level playing fields". In view of my earlier comments about the structural disadvantages for British exporters over the years, I hope that the Government will not be naive and assume that our partners and competitors will automatically seek to bring their arrangements into line with ours.
  I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up, he will give us details about exactly what our EC partners are doing, because there is an element of hearsay about present examples, which are not exact. The House needs an assurance that the Government will continue to provide support, including support in the national interest, for exporters on terms at least comparable with those offered to our competitors.
  Secondly, the privatisation of the insurance services group will make the projects group position all the more exposed. I know that some in industry fear that the Bill could be a precursor to the abolition of the projects group, and I should like a reassurance on that.
  Thirdly, for the smaller exporter, the presence of ECGD insurance—the fact that the small exporter has got it—enhances the quality of the exporter's receivables, thus creating an improved borrowing base when negotiating vital capital borrowings from his banker. That last point was made in virtually those words by Lloyds bank in its evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
  Fourthly, there are anxieties in some quarters about the capability and appetite of the private market to provide reinsurance. The three-year guarantee proposed by the Government may not be long enough. After all, the Kemp report spoke of a four to five-year transitional period. I should like an assurance that the Government will review the working of the system within three years of the legislation coming into effect. Industry would be entitled to expect that such a review should examine the successes and failures of the privatisation up to that stage and consider the issue of the Government continuing with some measure of support.
  I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate so I shall conclude by saying that, in introducing the Bill, the Government need to reassure industry. Times are hard, and markets are tough. The 1978 Act talked of "encouraging" exporters; the Bill uses the phrase "facilitating". That does not sound like a Bill with the degree and element of full-hearted, warm, supportive commitment that the industry would like and the economy needs.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am proud to say that I am the president of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union. I hope that others who have to declare an interest can say, like me, that they are not paid for holding the office and do not receive any reward for it. However, the Bill affects many of my 650,000 members. Certainly it will withdraw an important ability to export from the two thirds of those members involved in manufacturing industry.
  The Minister referred to the esteemed Lord Young, who used to provide the previous Prime Minister with solutions—thank goodness he has gone. The Minister also referred to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon.
  198
  Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—thank goodness he has gone; he would have got rid of all the support given to British exporters. The present Secretary of State is not a great deal different from the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, but at least the total service is not being mutilated, if we are to believe what the Minister said.
  It is noticeable that, although the Bill affects 25 per cent. of our exports, two very junior Ministers have been left to put the case for it to the House. One very new Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, will reply to the debate.
  Mr. John McAllion: It is sinister.
  Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) says that it is sinister; I shall leave it to him to expand that point in his speech.
  I should congratulate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on his elevation to the Front Bench. As an opponent of his, I have not yet had an opportunity to do so, but I hope that he can provide some of the answers that were not provided by the Minister of Trade.
  It was shown to me yesterday just how essential the Export Credits Guarantee Department is. I was in Liverpool talking to a company executive, who said that 86 per cent. of his product was exported. The company is in the Mexican market. The executive to whom I spoke was aghast that there could be any change in relation to export credit guarantees. He pointed out to me that the company is already 16 per cent. adrift of the terms of the Spanish offer in that market. It is able to remain only because of the quality of its product. When a firm starts from scratch in a new market, it will not have the advantage that customers already know their product.
  The unwillingness of the private sector to provide this type of cover has been demonstrated in the past. Without such cover, many successful export initiatives would have been lost to this country. This is a blow to our export performance, and it comes at a time when our trade deficit is £15 billion. What a time for the Government to take another swipe at exporters and make life more difficult for them. I should have thought that the Government would be anxious to do the opposite, that they would want to strengthen the position of those entering the export market —a difficult field—and do all they possibly can for them, rather than injure them.
  As has been stressed, privatisation applies to small and medium-sized firms—the ones that need most help. They are the companies that provide the dynamic element in our industry. It is they that initiate. They are also the ones, I regret to say, that suffer most from the Government's economic policy. Many of them have gone or are going out of business as a result of high interest rates and a very difficult home market. In their attempts to survive, they have had to turn to the export market.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: A group in Nottinghamshire has three factories in my constituency. Not long ago, it was praised by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who used to be Prime Minister, for its marvellous export record. Despite that, one of the five factories in the group closed as a result of the Government's policies. Yet it was making a marvellous export contribution. I support what my hon. Friend has

  199
  said about small and medium-sized factories, which have made such a contribution, being clobbered by the policies of a wicked Government.
  Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more. Indeed, praise from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she was Prime Minister, or—even worse—a visit by her to a factory, was usually followed by the firm's going into receivership.
  Small and medium-sized firms ought to be encouraged to get into the export market, yet the Government are removing the prop that they need. These are the firms that are most at risk, the ones least able to bear the burden, the ones that will suffer most when a customer defaults. It is wrong that such firms should be left to the vagaries of the free market, yet that is what the Government are intent on doing.
  Even Conservative Members have asked who will take over this function. Will a private monopoly be created? I should be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who said he was a creditor consultant, might say about maintaining competition in the market. What is going to be done to help the small and medium-sized firms that will find it so difficult to survive? I hope that they can be reassured. It would be interesting to hear the defence of this monopoly.
  Mr. Hind: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is not the only organisation in this field. There is a private insurance market that is used quite widely by small firms exporting from the United Kingdom. Consequently, there will not be a monopoly. In addition, other firms will have an opportunity to develop. The ECGD has tended to take on the larger projects, but there are facilities, through the projects group, to make such provision. There is not a monopoly, although it is true that one organisation will be in a dominant position.
  Mr. Hoyle: We are talking about the insurance services market. What is being taken away is the public-sector element, which operates in an area into which the private sector is not prepared to go. That is the danger. In the letter that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and I wrote to The Times, we said that we hoped that, if this arrangement should go through, the Government would look at companies placed in this position and decide not to withdraw completely. I understood from the Minister's introductory speech—perhaps we will hear more in the reply to the debate—that it was accepted that there would still be a need for public-sector involvement in part of the market. I think that that is the point that was being made by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
  Another difficulty will arise with the advent of the single market in 1992. Nothing in the legislation relating to the single market makes it necessary for the Government to take this step. We have heard that the only other Government contemplating such a course of action is the Danish Government. Certainly there is no sign of it in the case of our competitors in the European Community. I say again that, in this regard, there is no need for the Government to be a pathfinder.
  At one time, I thought that the whole operation of the ECGD would be destroyed. I am very pleased that the judgment of the Kemp report—that there is no alternative to a Government scheme if our exports are to remain
  200
  competitive—has been accepted. Privatisation of the insurance group will secure the short-term credit proposals. However, this change is unnecessary and unwanted, and it will not reassure industry. The danger is that it could do great harm to British exports.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said, we are facing not only the single European market in 1992, which will bring with it more competition, but the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the eastern economy. There are more opportunities, but they will bring with them new uncertainties and risks. We should be encouraging companies to break into these new markets. They will deal with new ventures and new trading records and may be facing an uncertain future. They will have little market expertise, no credit history and therefore no credit rating. I am sorry to say that they will have to do all this against a background of continuing political uncertainty. If we are asking small and medium firms to enter that difficult market, it is incumbent on us to give them every possible support. Because the Bill will not do that, it is wrong to introduce it at this time.
  The Gulf crisis proves that the risks for exporters have never been greater. Along with that risk, there are opportunities for exporters, and we are asking only for some help for them. Why should we tell them that they can go into the markets, but must do so with one hand lied behind their backs? We must ask why the Government have, against the advice in the Kemp report and against the lack of demand from exporters who said that they were satisfied with the ECGD, introduced the Bill at this difficult time. We heard no good reason from the Minister for Trade, so we do not know why the Government intend to place a further burden on the back of British industry, which is already reeling because of the difficult recession.
  It has been suggested that the Bill has been introduced so as to bring us into line with EC policy, but that is not necessary. We see the difficulties for people entering the private sector underwriting business. There is no need for the Bill, and the exporters have not demanded it. The real reason for it is the Government's ideological and political prejudice. Once more, dogma is taking over from common sense. The Government have a hatred of everything that is in the public sector. They have to go for privatisation, whether or not it is better.
  The Government should think again before inflicting this blow on British industry. The Minister for Trade is no longer here, so I ask the Under-Secretary not to stay within the Department and just have dinner with his colleagues. He should go out into the real world and see the difficulties that these companies are facing. He should seek their advice instead of doing what he thinks is best, because the Government think that everything must be privatised. If the Under-Secretary did that, he would come back with different opinions, and opinions different from those expressed by the Minister for Trade. The Prime Minister may have changed, but Government policy has not.
  The Minister said the staff at Cardiff would be transferred to the private sector. What happens to the staff who do not want to be transferred? Will they be allowed to remain in Government service? Will they have a career? Will they be able to use their expertise? It is essential that we get some replies to those questions, because these people have done a first-class job, as British industry and

  201
  exporters have recognised. Anyone who cares about British companies and British exports should reject the Bill. I hope that the House decides to do just that.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I start by declaring my interest in the Hill and Smith group.
  I thought that there would be agreement on a wide range of points across the House. I believe that there is that agreement, although the speeches from the two Front Bench spokesmen did not make it apparent. I say this for the simple reason that, as has been said before, we are a trading nation. We are a nation that succeeds or fails economically on its ability to export. Economically, we live or die by the success of our exporting industry. On that at least, we can agree.
  An exporting nation must ensure the security of those in the business of exporting goods. It must consider what is necessary in the insurance structures that underpin that. In this day and age, a trading nation cannot thrive without having some structure or infrastructure to take care of the insurance aspect of exports. I am sure that that fact must be common ground across the Floor of the House. In a sense, all that we are talking about is how that is to be achieved.
  The single criterion on which one can judge whether the Bill deserves the support of the House is this. Will it make better or will it make worse the position of exporters? Will it improve the security of exporters, in so far as one can have security in such a risky trade? The Bill succeeds or fails on its ability to fulfil that one central point.
  When one considers the needs and demands of those who export, it is clear that there are only two options. There can be disagreement about which option to go for, but one has to be chosen. In so far as one can detect a policy from what we heard from the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) she appeared to be supporting the first option—maintaining the status quo. I do not say this in an adversarial way, but I am sometimes slightly surprised by the conservatism of Labour Members. They appear to think that, because something has been done —in some ways very successfully—in one way, looking at it in terms of future demands and needs, and because there is a good idea in there trying to break out, that is bad. One of the curious things about our debates is, at times, the radicalism shown by those on the Government Benches and the conservatism shown by those on the Opposition Benches.
  Ms. Quin: I did not defend the status quo. I said that there needed to be changes so that the ECGD could take advantage of the European market, but that I did not like the changes proposed by the Government because I felt that they would weaken, rather than strengthen, us in the face of our European competitors.
  Mr. Nicholls: It is one thing to say that one is not in favour of the status quo, but that position becomes somewhat less convincing if one takes a very dogmatic attitude to any of the reasonable, feasible proposals which are put forward against it. I shall develop my argument and if the hon. Lady is still not totally convinced, I shall give way again, if necessary.
  202
  The only two options that hon. Members need to think about in considering what is the appropriate insurance structure is either to maintain the status quo or something pretty close to it. In other words, we should leave it up to the state or, alternatively, turn it over to the market. The moment one talks about turning this over to the market, one can almost hear Labour Members writhing and taking the view that that lets in laissez-faire politics. To use a much more neutral word in the more neutral times in which we live, it is not so much a question of leaving it to the market; it is a question of leaving it to those who actually know how to handle these things. I am referring to the people with particular expertise and particular interests.
  In other words, one is saying that, rather than this being done by the state, it would be better if the whole insurance infrastructure so far as possible were left to the private insurance industry. As a politician and an ex-Minister and as somebody who has worked with civil servants and who has high regard for them, for the most part I prefer to confine politicians and civil servants to those things which politicians and civil servants, by their talent or lack of it, are qualified to do. I do not see it as the role of politicians and civil servants to get involved overly much in matters which could be more properly accommodated by those who actually know how to do them.
  If one accepts, as I do, that the right way forward for insurance in terms of exports will for the most part lie in the private sector, then certain considerations and consequences flow from that. One of them must be examined and thought about, although at the end of the day it is not the fundamental criterion to which I referred a moment or two ago. One consequence will be the employment effects for those who are employed within the present structure. I accept that to the hilt. I have a particular interest and I shall refer to that aspect in a moment or two. As I have said, it does not seem to me that the status quo is a viable option. The only sensible option that remains is that which underpins the Bill, which is to privatise this sector of the ECGD and to proceed in that way.
  In this debate, the Kemp report has assumed almost the importance of the Bible on the basis that we have all decided to quote it for our own purposes. Inevitably, when dealing with such a report one has more or less to dine a la carte. I do not think that it would be appropriate even in a debate such as this to quote the Kemp report at any great length; it may be that others will wish to do so rather more in extenso. But it is a fair point to make that that report recommended, albeit over a slightly different time scale, what the Government are now doing in this Bill.
  Of course, times move on, and the point has already been rightly made that the report was commissioned two years ago. That has implications in terms of the European dimension and I shall touch upon that topic in a moment. It must be said that there is increasing competition in the credit insurance market both in the United Kingdom and in the European community. Obviously that is led and generated by the private sector and we cannot turn our face against it.
  We also have to face the fact that in the EC credit insurers are increasingly offering policies which cover both domestic and export credit possibilities. Once again that is a relatively new and increasing factor which must be taken into account. That is a trend which, in my judgment, can only be intensified by the EC directives we have seen of late

  203
  in the non-life insurance sector of the industry who allow private sector insurers registered in one state to do business in another state in the community, provided that those are private firms and do not operate with state backing.
  For the purposes of this debate I do not have to say whether it is a good idea or not, but the fact is that that is the world in which we live and that is what is coming out of Europe. For better or worse, I say, gritting my teeth, that that is something we simply have to live with. That is the fact of life in Europe at the moment. If the insurance firms concerned are state backed as opposed to being backed by private firms, they will be unable to operate. Therefore, I believe that it is unrealistic to look at what the position was in 1988 when the report was first commissioned. We should look at the position in which we find ourselves today. We must face up to that consideration.
  Where do we go from here? What other possibilities remain? One point that occurred to me when l was preparing my thoughts for this debate, and it is a point touched upon by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), relates to the possibility of altering the enabling legislation. I understand that that would be possible. It would be feasible, in the short term at least, to alter the legislation so that that section of the ECGD could compete for business other than that to which it is presently confined. In a sense that would be worth while. There would be the possibility of other forms of trade, other business or cross-subsidy. Once that is done we have to face the European dimension and how we cope with it. If we proceed in that way, we may be able to loosen things up in the foreseeable future, but after that we shall have all sorts of problems.
  Again reference has been made, and it is a theme that will run through this debate, to article 92 of the treaty of Rome which makes it quite clear, as I understand it, that any insurance agencies which adopt policies which in a sense provide aid and in so doing distort competition are likely to be outlawed. I can understand people making the point that this has not happened yet, but that carries the same sort of conviction as the character who falls out of a 20-storey building and who, as he hurtles past the 18th floor, says, "So far so good."
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I ask a question in a genuine thirst for knowledge. The hon. Gentleman said a little earlier in his speech that the fact that Mr. Kemp reported two years ago has some implications for Europe. In fact, Mr. Kemp reported 18 months ago, but that is not a point that I wish to press. Article 92, as I understand it, has not changed in that 18 or 19-month period. So what are these implications which arise from the fact that Mr. Kemp reported some little time ago? I should be interested to know the hon. Gentleman's view.
  Mr. Nicholls: That is a very fair point, it touches particularly on the European dimension, and I shall move to that almost immediately. The significance of the Kemp report is that it was commissioned in 1988 and published in 1989. There is not much point in working out precisely the month in which a particular event took place. I am saying that when one is dealing with Europe one has to try to keep ahead of the game. One must try to foresee the way in which fashions in Europe are going, rather than finding at the last moment that one has a problem to cope with.
  Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman agreed that the question on intervention was reasonable. Will he please answer it? This Government do not have a reputation for trying to stay ahead of developments in Europe on the environment, agriculture, trade and industry or anything else. On this issue, time and again we have been asking Ministers to tell us what are the legislation and regulations concerned and the reasons for jumping in this fashion. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us?
  Mr. Nicholls: As I said when replying to the more helpful and more thought-out intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the fashions in Europe will change. Fashions do change. Anyone who has ever been involved in considering the social charter will know that once an idea gathers force in Europe, Europe and the European institutions may seem rather slow moving and monolithic. When the process of change starts, it is essential to keep ahead of the game. That was the point that I was making. I said that I would deal with that topic in my own time, and I shall.
  Mr. Norris: I commend my hon. Friend for what he says. He has hit the mark. There is no need to be sidetracked down a legalistic alley by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). It is clear from article 92 of the treaty of Rome that the whole drift of competition policy is against Government intervention to distort competition. Therefore, my hon. Friend was right in his analogy of the so-far-so-good victim of a defenestration. As my hon. Friend suggests, were we not now to take account of the fact that European rules will inevitably lead to the point where Government subsidy of this sort of service is outlawed, the Government would be failing in their duty to the very exporters whom the Bill aims to support.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has it exactly. The point in essence is simply that, if any hon. Member thinks that an article in the treaty of Rome, which could be used to Britain's detriment, would be allowed to lie fallow in Europe, he would not be living in the real world. The point simply illustrates the utter confusion in the minds of Opposition Members. From being violently and rabidly anti-Europe, they have become so communautaire that recently, when I attended an assize held in Rome which was the first conference of EC Parliaments, the Labour delegation voted to accept, virtually without amendment, a communiqué calling for economic and political union. It was not a question of them suddenly deciding to dip their toes in the water. They went from violent opposition to ecstatic surrender.
  Mr. Haynes: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be fairer than to accuse Labour Members in that way on Europe. When the decision was made in the House to go into Europe, Members on both sides were opposed to it, so the hon. Gentleman should be fair about it.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman knows the high regard in which I hold him. I would be upset if I thought that, whatever else he thought about my views, he thought that I was being unfair to him. The only point that I was trying to make, in my usual helpful and non-adversarial way, was simply that, if one were looking for a consistent policy on Europe one might be expected to find it in a party which, for all its internal divisions on the subject and

  205
  for all its changes in emphasis, has at least maintained a consistent position before the electorate. If the hon. Gentleman feels that I was less than fair in making that point, I can understand it.
  What alternatives to the ideas put forward in the Bill have come from Opposition Members? We have heard that they think that the status quo could be altered to advantage. We have not heard precisely how, but we know that it must not be altered in this way. But it is difficult to find a consistent policy from Opposition Members. The moment the word privatisation is mentioned it is like red rag to a bull. The Bill was described by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) as an exercise in dogma, or something like that. It would be difficult to find a more dogmatic and doctrinaire attitude than that of the Opposition who say that they do not like what there is at the moment, that they have no idea how to change it, but that they do know that anything that the Government come up with will be unacceptable.
  Mr. Hoyle: I said that not only did I think that the Government were making a change for the sake of it, but that the exporters did not want such change. It is not a matter of dogma on our side or on your side. It is you who insist on instituting such a change against the advice of those who use the service.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not my dogma.
  Mr. Hoyle: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You never believe in dogma. You are very fair.
  Mr. Nicholls: There are no dogmatic or doctrinaire attitudes on the Conservative Benches, either.
  Once again, the Opposition raised the terrible bogey man of what would happen if some foreign country were to take over. It is remarkable that, despite the Opposition's communautaire policy which leads them to go to Rome and, in a spirit of enthusiastic surrender, yield themselves up to European union, the moment that there is a possibility of a foreign company having an interest in Britain, the Opposition are prepared to go to the barricades about it.
  Export is a two-way street. The idea that we can have some mad, potty world in which all we have to do is to export our goods, industries and services without making provision for the import of services and goods is unreal. Whether a Dutch or any other company were to have such an interest in a reinsurance firm within the private sector, at the end of the day it would be acting for the reason that business men always will act—to make a profit. It is that word again. The idea that some private company would try to so construct its insurance arrangements as to make it virtually impossible for Britain to export in such a situation to do themselves some good is a marvellous idea, an exercise in a certain type of xenophobia, but at the end of the day it is completely unreal.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) had a pile of papers a great deal larger than mine and I was waiting for her to read them, but I am happy to say that that did not happen. One of those papers was pink and it occurred to me that it might be today's Financial Times. Picking up a theme that I have heard so many times from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) I thought that the hon. Lady, knowing of commentaries which are quite
  206
  against the position that she has adopted, would bring them to the House, almost as one would do in a court of law, and say that although she has come up with ideas, as one would expect, some of the evidence was against her.
  Perhaps the hon. Lady will refer to the Financial Times when she replies instead, but I suspect not, and one can see why.
  In today's Financial Times there was a lengthy critique entitled "Breaking Cover at ECGD". Because the paper's name sounds vaguely capitalistic, some might have the idea that it is a rabid tabloid which panders to the worst fantasies of the right of the Conservative party. But that optimistic view, which I should like to think was true, is not borne out. Anyone who has had any acquaintance with the Financial Times, especially on employment matters, and has seen the way in which they are handled, will know that it writes with great knowledge and with some considerable skill, not automatically from a pro-Government point of view.
  Today's Financial Times has a number of things to say about the Bill and what our attitude to it should be. It picks up exactly the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery a few moments ago. It starts by reviewing at some length the sort of difficulties in and objections to the Bill. It makes the point that the Kemp report, if not all things to all men, certainly has something for everybody. But it then goes on to say:
  "None of these is ground for abandoning a sale whose original motive remains valid."
  It continues:
  "Without new freedoms ECGD will lose ground to UK and continental competitors."
  That is exactly right. The Financial Times has no axe to grind. That is its reading of the situation. It goes on:
  "Admittedly, privatisation has not yet been forced on the government by the European Commission. Simply changing ECGD's charter might allow it scope to compete in the single market."
  Then it comes to a point which is obvious to anybody who has had any contact with Europe, whether within or without government, in terms of the real world. It says:
  "But Brussels is looking much more closely at subsidies implicit in export credit insurance. Privatisation is much the cleanest approach."
  That is what is being said. That is not the situation that existed 10 years ago, or even five years ago. That is what the Financial Times says today about this measure—that privatisation is by far the cleanest approach; that we should not take comfort from the fact that the European Community has not done it yet; and, most important of all, we should recognise there are difficulties but we should not make the mistake of thinking that those difficulties are insurmountable.
  On employment prospects, I was extremely pleased to see that the duty regulations are there so that provisions relating to redundancy will be continued and that there will be continuity of employment. Some people may claim that that is the minimum requirement, but there is not just the standard protection of the regulations; there is also protection for the enhanced redundancy payment as well. The point has been made very forcefully that transfer will have to be voluntary; that there will be no compulsion. The terms and conditions will be at least as good. Clause 9 provides quite specifically for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations in the way that I have described.
  It could be asked whether that gives total protection. Could the Minister or anyone else absolutely guarantee

  207
  that the position of the civil servants who transfer will be precisely the same so that their jobs are secure? Of course not. Surely we have moved away, have we not, from the idea that there is any such thing as total security in employment?
  If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were working in the ECGD and were concerned about your job prospects, would you feel safer in a structure which takes account of the changing times and of the fact that one cannot continue in the old ways for ever, but at the same time says that as far as possible the previous conditions enjoyed in the civil service regime will be replicated under the new regime? That is not a guarantee because there is no such thing, but it is really the very best deal that can be obtained in the circumstances.
  Yes, there can be problems in setting up a structure in this way. As in any legislation, one is trying to look into the future on the basis of the best information that one can get. If we look at what is happening in Europe today and at what exporters need and if we look at the Kemp report in the light of where we are now, not back in 1988, we realise that this Bill and the policies in it are the right ones for our exports. That is why the House should support this Bill.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: In the part of Wales where I live, it is normal at funerals to spend a little time praising the deceased. Therefore, I think it is right to start my speech by saying that the Export Credits Guarantee Department has done an excellent job for many years and that many industrialists, and other people who are beginning their business lives as entrepreneurs building up manufacturing industries, view with some alarm the change that they see taking place, the consequences of which they are unsure of. Change for change's sake cannot be justified; but if the change is to produce a more beneficial export environment for potential exporters, the Government will have succeeded in their aims, whether these are brought about by dogma or on empirical grounds.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. and learned Member should make it perfectly clear that ECGD is not dying; it is going to a better place.
  Mr. Carlile: It is a bit of a mixed bag, because part of the ECGD will continue to survive. This is a form of medicine that we have yet to apply to human beings. Part of it is possibly going to some other place, and the hon. Member has a particular interest in that place, which he has frankly declared; that is probably why he thinks it is better.
  This Bill emanates from a Government Department which has become renowned for the political and economic dryness of its Ministers. They are dry and proud of it—drier than those in any other Government Department. Indeed, it is a Department in which those copies of the former Prime Minister's Bruges speech which are not framed are heavily dog-eared through repeated reading, in an effort to check that what is being done fulfils the requirements of "Brugesism".
  It follows that this anticipatory obedience which the Department of Trade and Industry wants to show to a possible future interpretation of article 92 of the treaty of Rome is a little uncharacteristic. I have been trying to
  208
  think of an analogy, and the best I can come up with is that of the footballer who rushes up to the referee during the first half and says, "Excuse me, ref, but I anticipate committing a professional foul in the second half, so would you please show me the yellow card now to try to stop me doing it then?"
  That is certainly not a characteristic approach by this Government and one is tempted to the view that, although dogma may sometimes be logical—it may be the best basis for a decision if it is right—there is nonetheless more than a suspicion of dogma in this early progress by the Government to privatising the insurance services group of ECGD.
  Mr. Norris: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the attitude to Europe of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. As the only wet ever to have survived in the Department—and that was not for long —I cannot comment on that. If there is a cynicism among some people in this country about Europe and the difference between what is said and what is done in Europe, it is precisely because in Britain it is clear that progress towards the single market, which is the single greatest manifestation of something practical that can happen in Europe, is much further advanced than elsewhere, where there are many more interventions by state organisations than in the United Kingdom.
  While I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument or his interest in Gazza analogies, may I suggest that it is entirely proper that this Government should now be addressing the question of anticipatory legislation in the right spirit—that is, believing in the single market and wanting to see it completed as soon as possible.
  Mr. Carlile: As ever, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) makes a very interesting point. However, I am slightly puzzled by the logical analysis he makes, because it seems to me that, in the decision they have taken in this Bill, the Government are running the risk of putting British potential exporters at a disadvantage compared with some of their European competitors, whereas in some other respects, such as going enthusiastically for 1992, they are trying to put British industry at an advantage compared with some other countries which may in certain respects have been a little slow.
  I believe that it is contradictory to the future practical prospects of the export credit guarantee systems, and of exporters, to privatise the insurance services in this way and at this stage. It would have been far better for detailed discussions to take place within the European Community, so that we would have a clear picture of the way in which other member states were likely to react to the possible breach—it is only a possible breach—of article 92.
  The phrase "level playing field" has already been mentioned often in this debate. It is important that our exporters should not find that, as a result of a Government decision the motive for which is privatisation, they are at a disadvantage because other countries have not only failed to move as quickly towards obedience to the interpretation of article 92 in relation to 1992, but have no intention whatsoever of doing so. Our anticipatory obedience to article 92 is a clear potential disadvantage for British exporters.

  209
  Insurance—particularly export credit insurance, which is a form of factoring—is a high-risk business, as I am sure the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) who declared an interest in Trade Indemnity, would readily acknowledge. It is therefore a business in which the initial profit discount, or premium, must be fairly high. There is a danger that a company in the private sector will be forced in certain transactions to set its premiums so high that smaller companies will be unable to manufacture goods or to provide services and sell them at the net price that they will receive.
  That is not a criticism of companies such as Trade Indemnity. In the ordinary commercial sphere, they provide an important service—for example, in respect of straightforward commercial factoring—but it is one generally taken up by companies that are in the growth phase of their existence and not in their early stages, nor in their later stages either.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point about a matter of some concern to small and medium-sized businesses. However, he may agree that an important point of principle is at issue in respect of reinsurance. The strength of reinsurance is the test of availability of cover. Those who oppose the Bill argue that the strength of reinsurance provided by the Government's bottomless pit—that is, the taxpayer—represents strong reinsurance cover and that it has to be demonstrated that similar cover will be available in future.
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point, and it is well taken. However, at this stage in my argument I am more concerned about the initial situation, when a potential exporter tries to obtain a guarantee. If I were a small manufacturer of goods for which I saw export potential in, for example, a South American country, I would be concerned not so much about the reinsurance aspect as about the amount of money that either ECGD or Trade Indemnity, or whoever, will take off my price, and how much profit I will be left with at the end of the day. I believe that there is a genuine fear—which I hope will prove unjustified—that small companies will find it difficult to trade in exports to risk countries if they are confronted with the high premiums which I anticipate.
  The Kemp report did not recommend that the Government should aspire to withdrawing their support completely. It stated:
  "This would be a very high risk policy and would be strongly opposed by industry. It is unlikely that the private sector would adequately supply cover against political risk, for small businesses, or provide supporting advice in the way in which ECGD does at present."
  That shortfall, foreseen by Mr. Kemp, will remain; and will continue to exist as a consequence of the Government's decision to privatise in a hurry.
  When the Minister replies, perhaps he will explain why the Government decided to reject the option in Mr. Kemp's third recommendation, that four to five years should be allowed before introducing private capital. Ministerial statements have developed in response to that recommendation. When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he spoke of
  "converting insurance services into a company and the injection of private capital quickly thereafter."
  210
  That was something closer to Mr. Kemp's third option than the measure now before us.
  By 26 July last year, the then Minister and present Secretary of State said in a written answer:
  "I have decided that the short-term business of ECGD should be sold by means of a competition"
  and that the sale should be completed
  "as soon as possible thereafter."—[Official Report, 26 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 410.]
  That is, after April 1991. It would be genuinely helpful to know why the Government decided to accelerate that process in a way that is inconsistent with both the objective and the carefully researched views expressed by Kemp.
  That action is not consistent either with the wishes of British commerce and industry. Earlier, there was a contentious reference to a report by the credit insurance brokers Sedgwick James, the results of which were summarised in the Financial Times on 10 October 1990. So that the Minister will not leap to his feet and savage me, I concede immediately that only 55 replies were received to the 92 copies of the questionnaire that were distributed —which, on the face of it, is a very small sample.
  However, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) fairly pointed out, although some of those invited to reply were large-scale exporters, others were organisations representing large numbers of exporters in general. Bodies such as the London chamber of commerce carefully collate and cautiously analyse their members' views before expressing anything that could be remotely described as a collective opinion. Although I concede the sparsity of the sample in that survey, I hope that the Minister will recognise that at least the opinions given were informed opinions, based on careful consideration of the issues.
  I should add that it is the best evidence we have. I am not aware of any other survey, or of the Government having sought to collate the type of information carefully obtained by Sedgwick James. Of the respondents to that survey, 71 per cent. said that they would review their business strategy if British export credit facilities ceased to be competitive with those of other countries, and nearly half—and this is a shocking feature—replied that they would switch productive investment and procurement to other countries having better export credit arrangements. Some companies even said that they would cease to export to certain markets, which is understandable.
  This hasty legislation has been cobbled together to produce a piece of privatisation of a less contentious nature than others, one that would not attract so much public notice, to fill part of a thinnish parliamentary timetable. I suggest that at best the Bill is premature, and that at worst it is, on its merits, wrong.
  6.38 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: An hour ago, I thought for a moment that, for the first time in 17 years, I would be called to speak before 6 o'clock. However, right hon. and hon. Members have been so gentlemanly and polite today in allowing many interventions that the time has moved on. Nevertheless, I am glad to be of assistance to the Treasury Bench in making an early and extended speech, rather than a late and short or squeezed contribution. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will not take the hint and pursue it in Committee.
  First, I must declare an interest as I am a consultant for a company which is an adviser to GEC.

  211
  Some of my remarks will reinforce those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie). The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I wrote a letter to The Times, as we are both members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. However, I think that our views diverge from there on, because he made certain remarks about the economic cycle, whereas it is my view that, if there is a complaint to be made, it is that the Bill should have been put before the House a year ago during the 1989–90 session —as indeed it would have been, but for a somewhat unseemly dispute between officials at the Treasury and at the Department of Trade and Industry.
  I would certainly argue in favour of the merits of that part of the Bill, on the basis of the evidence heard by the Select Committee and contained in the Kemp report. I was impressed that the Kemp report did not commit itself absolutely to a long period as a Government holding company before bringing in private money. Other options are considered and some of the evidence, for example that from Rolls-Royce, suggested that the ECGD had become more commercially oriented in recent years. As a result, there had been positive benefits and it was putting together more imaginative packages. Confiscation insurance was cited as an example. The evidence also suggested that privatisation would maintain progress, at a time when there is growing demand in Europe. That is what it is all about. We were unnecessarily restricting one of our major financial industries, at a time when the European financial services market was growing.
  I fully support privatisation. Nevertheless, as was pointed out in the Financial Times, British industry is "whingeing" about it. Let me put it another way, it is not at all happy about some of the other aspects; that is where I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton. GEC is the largest client of the ECGD, spending more than £1 billion per year in insurance. There are about 12,000 accounts. However, ECGD is not really about insurance. It has the single statutory duty of encouraging British exports, and it is in that context that British industry is expressing its unhappiness, because we have never needed exports more than we need them now. Competition has never been more fierce and there have never been such opportunities, especially those in eastern Europe at present.
  That being said, if one is not careful one can come to conclusions which do not stand up, by assuming that other countries always do things better, and more generously than we do. For example, if one studies some of the evidence to the Committee about the situation in eastern Europe, it does not show that the German or Italian credit agencies were offering anything other than short-term cover, on much the same terms as the ECGD, in the Polish market.
  As stated in the letter which I signed with the hon. Member for Warrington, North, my first criticism is the lack of detail during the sale, both for potential buyers and for those hon. Members who take an interest. One could argue that more information would have been available from a private company than has been available from a state operation.
  A more central criticism—I am seeking further reassurance about this—is how the high political risk markets will be handled. I understood my hon. Friend the Minister, in his opening remarks, to be giving a key reassurance that there would be a period during which the
  212
  new privatised company would gain reinsurance from the retained ECGD Government operation. British industry will want to know our intentions as regards the length of that period. Will it be three years, or will it be abandoned in less time? Could it run beyond three years? I think that British industry will take the view that there should not be an artificially imposed time limit.
  Many people think that the private sector would not be able to pick up suitable premiums in many difficult political markets to enable smaller and medium-sized companies to get the right price for their products. Therefore, we should not abandon that principle of reinsurance, and I recommend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we keep the situation under review and wait to see at what stage, if any, in the near future the EC produces a directive. If, as the years go by, industry can show that there remains a real need for it, we should continue to supply back-up.
  There is special concern about that aspect and the Guardian newspaper released some Departmental papers about it. The Treasury wrote to the Secretary of State's private secretary as follows:
  "As for the short-term business, the Chief Secretary is very concerned about your Secretary of State's proposals for continuing large-scale Government support for the privatised company"
  Anyone reading that will realise that those remarks take us directly back to the zero option. Has the Treasury given up the zero option proposals? We all assumed that it had given them up for long-term projects, but that Treasury mentality seems to remain. That sort of evidence of the Government's intentions is what has been disturbing British business. We should wait and see how the situation develops.
  Some of the gentlemen who gave evidence to the Committee on 4 July 1990, when asked what the ECGD's premium rates were like compared with those of our competitor countries, replied that the ECGD rates are sometimes higher by a factor of two, and occasionally more. If that situation is maintained, there will be be a level playing field.
  As the letter which the hon. Member for Warrington, North and I wrote to The Times yesterday states, it is vital that we give an assurance to British industry that, so long as the playing fields are not even, we will use some mechanism—the reinsurance aspects of the privatised company—to enable our companies, especially small and medium-sized businesses, to have access to those markets. That is what the ECGD has always been about. It was created so that we could lower premiums and establish level playing fields.
  GEC sent some comments to members of the Select Committee last week, in which it stated:
  "There is no evidence that our overseas competitors are being subjected to the same changes through a withdrawal of Government support for exports."
  So, will Ministers give a commitment today that, until such time as there is evidence of similar changes for our overseas competitors, there will be a commitment to maintain support in political high-risk markets? As the GEC document points out, if one does not
  "Whereas Government has a role in trying to boost export activity, a commercial agency"
  primarily has as its goal
  "the maximisation of its returns",

  213
  and therefore is either not likely to take the risk of insurance or would substantially raise its premiums. That is a major concern.
  As regards the Treasury's attitude to long-term projects, page 98 of the Kemp report states:
  "As there is absolutely no prospect of a world free market, without interventions or support by governments, being established, the use of export credit agencies by competitors, within the scope of the rules of the OECD Consensus, is a fact we must take into account when deciding our own policy".
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a complete commitment that that view is Government policy, and that no change is planned?
  If we are not careful, the Treasury's thinking on industrial policy will prove to be the worst form of "short-termism" that British industry faces. The Treasury memorandum on the ECGD caused great alarm in the Select Committee, as we said in our report. According to the memorandum, the reason for the lack of private sector interest in export credit insurance was
  "the existence of Government schemes. The withdrawal of such schemes should stimulate the introduction of private sector alternatives".
  I do not accept that that has been proved. The memorandum also stated:
  "The withdrawal of subsidies will have 'a beneficial effect upon the rest of the economy which is relieved of the burden of paying for them."'
  We encounter that sort of attitude all too often. Understandably, every Treasury has an intrinsic dislike of subsidies, and of any assistance that involves taxpayers' money. Notwithstanding that, all Exchequers in all industrialised nations provide subsidies to some extent, as they always have done in this country.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is right, of course, but surely our objective should be to get rid of such subsidies across the board, so that taxpayers throughout Europe can stop financing the export of goods for which no one can pay.
  Dr. Hampson: That is precisely my point. I have urged repeatedly that we should not proceed too far in the present direction. Although I accept that a privatised company will need some assistance in certain markets until the grand design has been achieved, no one who has examined the position sees any evidence that we are anywhere near that stage. I represent a textile-producing area, and I have come across the same attitude in that context—the belief that, if textile subsidies are withdrawn, consumers will instinctively buy imports because they are cheaper, and will therefore have more money in their pockets to boost other aspects of the British economy. That view is contained in the Silberston report.
  The answer is that, although consumers might spend in other sectors and increase growth rates in the new service industries in the south-east, they would not necessarily spend in a way that would create or maintain jobs in the north. What that short-sighted, short-termist attitude overlooks is the "cascade effect": if the major players in the game are not assisted, all the small sub-contractors and suppliers will suffer as well. It was absurd bottom-line thinking on the part of the Treasury to predict a short-term loss of £1·5 billion per year as a result of the ending of long-term project help. The Treasury did not
  214
  take into account the way in which major companies enter new markets, open them up and establish longer-term business contacts for both themselves and their suppliers.
  Although I welcome unreservedly the privatisation of the short-term insurance services group, British industry undoubtedly needs reassurance that the remaining ECGD will continue to assist the new privatised company in especially politically difficult markets. We need reassurance, too, about Treasury thinking on the long-term project group. Above all, we need to create a climate in which British industry feels that it is wanted and encouraged by Government, rather than an alarmist state of mind. I believe that the British Treasury has gained far too strong a position in industrial policy making, and that that is the reason for the reaction of British industry.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: Let me join other hon. Members in declaring an interest. I act as parliamentary consultant to the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, many of whose members will be directly affected by the privatisation. I am proud of my association with the union, but, naturally, I receive a consultancy fee. I assure the House that I donate the whole of that fee to my local Labour party in Dundee. If any Conservative Members feel particularly guilty about any consultancy fees that they may receive, I recommend the same course to them. I will give them the name and address of the treasurer of my local party; we need the money more than they do.
  At least one faction of the ruling Conservative party has long nourished an obsession with privatisation. The faction to which I refer is, of course, the No Turning Back group—or, as I heard a Conservative Member describe it, the No Coming Back group; no coming back after the next general election. The tragedy is that the supporters of that faction have risen to the highest levels in the present Government: I understand that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is an erstwhile supporter. Indeed, he seems to support it still, for he has brought to the Department not only his own obsession with privatisation but his No Turning Back fellow-traveller, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who is now Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs.
  What I know of the background of both men convinces me that the only rationale behind the Bill is that privatisation obsession. Why else should it not only unite Opposition Members—not always an easy task—but attract to the same anti-Bill coalition representatives of the trade unions, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Exporters Association and many chambers of commerce? No doubt some Conservative Members find that an even more unlikely coalition than the one that has formed in the Gulf over the past few weeks, but I can tell them that its members had been united by the Government's failure to provide any justification for the measures contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I know that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House when he included the CBI in his list of the Bill's opponents. However, according to a CBI brief which I have here, that organisation supports the Bill in principle. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has information that he has not shared with the rest of the House—or was he himself misled?
  Mr. McAllion: Not only is this information that I have not shared with the House; it is information culled from the newspapers, which were reporting the CBI's opposition to the Bill long before it came to the House.
  Conservative Members will always try to point to a consistency of purpose in the Government, which they will claim has led logically to this Bill. They will cite the launching of the "next steps" agencies initiative and to the Kemp report, which arose from that initiative and which recommended the privatisation. One hon. Member even described it as a bible for hon. Members. It has been asked —rightly—why Kemp's advice has been ignored. Kemp recommended that a state-owned company be created for a period of three to five years before privatisation.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps I may be of some assistance to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who has referred to the CBI. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) appears to feel that the CBI was supportive of the principles of the Bill, but the CBI also called for
  "a statement that the Government will continue to provide support for exporters on terms at least comparable to those afforded to their international competitors, including that support provided in 'the national interest'".
  That goes to the heart of our criticisms of the Bill.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is right: it is that kind of support which is completely missing. This explains the united coalition in this country against the Bill arid the Government's proposals.
  Kemp recommended that in the first stage there should be a state-owned company for at least three to five years before moving on to privatisation, and so far no convincing answer has come from the Government Benches to the questions raised by Opposition Members. We can, however, be certain that it has something to do with the Government's determination to rush the Bill through the House before the next election and before the people put them out of office and this Bill out of existence.
  One of the key arguments has been the assertion that the requirements of the single market in 1992 will exclude state credit agencies from the insurance market. We are also told that increased competition within the single market requires a level playing field on which private sector insurance will not be placed at a disadvantage to public sector insurance. Both these arguments are no more than free market dogma, and an uninformed dogma at that.
  First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the European Community is about to introduce, or even intends in the short to medium-term to introduce, legislation that would directly affect the operation of the ECGD. The Kemp report itself reached that conclusion. Hon. Members on the Government Benches have said that this development is inevitable, and one of them referred to a report in the Financial Times; but they are very selective when they refer to reports in the Financial Times. If they referred to a report on 10 January they would find that the Government line that private reinsurers would quickly step in to fill the gap was hotly disputed in the market place, where withdrawal of support was seen as unilateral export disarmament. That is what the Financial Times said recently, yet none of the hon. Members on the Government Benches have referred to that kind of argument.
  216
  In the absence of any substantial evidence to the contrary, the Government have a clear responsibility to explain why they are rushing this Bill through even before they know that there will be any such legislation or what form it may take. Those of us who are more cynical might suggest that not only is it expedient to rush the Bill through before a general election but that there is no better time than now to try and rush it through when the country's time and the attention is elsewhere and when the eyes of the media are diverted; there is no better time to slip through this unloved and shoddy measure in the hope that it will receive scant attention from anyone outside the House.
  Let us take the question of the level playing field. Level for whom? Certainly not for British exporters who will be almost alone in having no kind of Government promotion for trade and exports compared with their European competitors and in having no public support for high-risk and politically difficult markets. Our exporters will thereby be weakened in comparison with exporters elsewhere in Europe. The Government justify this weakening of our exporters' position by reference to a level playing field and some imaginary state of capitalist perfection where we have a wholly free and unregulated market. It exists only in the minds of the No Turning Back group, but it is on the point of doing serious damage to our exports, to our balance of trade and to our national interest.
  Another real cause for concern is the impact on ECGD itself and on its work force, who for more than 70 years have provided an invaluable service to exporters in this country. They have rightly been described as the world's most experienced credit insurers. They have given something like £250 billion in support to United Kingdom exporters, and they assist some 6,000 exporters every year. They have an insight into the problems facing exporters which is unrivalled and an expertise that underpins the export drives on which this country's future depends, and yet they are now to be subjected to break-up, privatisation and massive changes—changes unsolicited by them, about which they have not been consulted by Government and which I have no doubt they wholly oppose.
  Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member said that this was a case of radicalism versus the status quo. There is radicalism and radicalism. There is the kind which is change for the worse and the kind which is change for the better. The radicalism advocated by hon. Members on the Government Benches is change for the worse, and that is why Opposition Members oppose the measure tonight. Perhaps in replying to the debate the Minister will tell us what support for the Bill exists among the experts in the ECGD themselves and how, if they had the vote, they would cast it at the end of the debate, for or against this particular measure.
  What is certain is that the Government's proposals have met with almost universal hostility from those who represent the ECGD work force—the trade unions, who carried out a very successful lobby of the House today. They have raised a whole series of legitimate questions and worries with the Government to which they have so far had no satisfactory answers.
  The Minister will know that the privatisation of the insurance services group will affect some 600 civil servants based not only in Cardiff but in the regional network. When it comes to redundancies, they want to know if at any stage there will be compulsory redundancies after the concern has been privatised. I understand that some in the

  217
  regional network have already been threatened with redundancy, even before the Bill came before the House tonight. Will the Minister give a commitment to investigate these allegations of redundancy threats in the regional network and report at least to the Committee, if not to the whole House, the outcome of those investigations?
  I also want to know what guarantees the Minister will give that privatisation now will not mean compulsory redundancies for the work force at some future date.
  There is also the question of the terms and conditions of workers in a privatised concern. In opening the debate the Minister referred to the TUPE regulations of 1981 which require the offer by the purchaser of an overall employment package which is no worse than the civil service's employment package. I think he used the term "broadly comparable". What do "broadly comparable" and "no worse" mean? They are open to interpretation. I suggest to the Minister that the employers and the Government are in a better position to interpret what these words mean than are the employees.
  Moreover, what is not open to interpretation and what has been confirmed by the Minister earlier is that pensions will be excluded from the TUPE regulations: workers who have contributed throughout their lives to an index-linked pension scheme, who have paid for them, are to have that agreed scheme stolen from them by Government diktat. The Minister says that this is fair. What guarantees has he given? The statement made by the Minister at the opening of the debate was less than clear. Does he guarantee that exactly the same pension rights will be available to the workers after privatisation as before privatisation; exactly the same kind of index-linked pension scheme?
  Will the Minister confirm for the benefit of the House that the TUPE regulations cover only the position on day one of the transfer, and that on day two the new employer will be free to make whatever changes he wants to the terms and conditions of employment of the workers he has taken over?
  Will the Minister further confirm that the transfer from the civil service to the new company will continue to be on a voluntary basis or say whether there will be a shift to compulsion? I understand that it is voluntary at present, but if insufficient people are convinced about the new company will the Government conscript civil servants at ECGD into the new private sector company that replaces it? If they do so, will he confirm that those who transfer will have exactly the same rights relative to their civil service status as they have at the moment? The Minister said that he would secure existing rights to redundancy and so on, but what about future rights? Will they be guaranteed? Will rights in the privatised concern be the same as they were in the public sector? I hope that the Minister addresses those points in his reply to the debate.
  Will the Minister consider why the CBI and the British Exporters Association have lobbied against the measure? A privatised insurance group will not provide credit and insurance in high risk markets, particularly where there is political instability. The ECGD works under a break-even requirement on a yearly basis, but after privatisation the position will change and it will be required to make a profit. There will be a new balance between profit and risk taking, and risk taking will be the loser. There will be less
  218
  risk taking after privatisation. Fewer exports will be assisted and fewer markets will be won. The national position of the United Kingdom will be weakened substantially.
  Future options for export credits will be bleak. Either we will have a United Kingdom monopoly, most likely under trade indemnity, with higher premiums and reduced support, particularly in difficult markets, or there will be a foreign takeover, with British companies at a disadvantage, particularly in relation to companies from the home country of the foreign predator. That is a bleak prospect. We have already seen a reduction in support for trade fairs, the introduction of export charges and the withdrawal of cover from certain countries. In the case of a firm in my constituency recently, credit cover for Kenya was withdrawn. Now we have the creation of a so-called level playing field which will leave British exporters at a clear disadvantage.
  In presenting the Bill, the Minister summed up by saying that its sole aim was to ensure the safeguarding of vital export services. It is precisely those services which would be put at risk by the Bill. For that incompetence and lack of understanding, the Government deserve to be put at risk. Their stupidity will play a significant part in ensuring that, when eventually they face the people, they will meet certain defeat.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this fascinating debate. I must follow the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) by declaring an interest. My interest is twofold—first, as director of a small to medium-sized manufacturing company which exports, and secondly, as a parliamentary adviser to a major firm of international contractors who have a distinct interest in the measure.
  In principle, I have no great hang-ups about the part of the Bill relating to the privatisation of the insurance services group. From my personal experience, with my small company hat on, I have not had the greatest satisfaction in dealings with ECGD in the past. I have found it bureaucratic and slow. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) put his finger on it when he referred to decisions where we found that the cost of market development in overseas countries, especially where there was a high finance risk, coupled with the cost of the premium and the price that we could get for the product, made the business unattractive. Therefore, we found ourselves inclined to leave aside those parts of the world where finance was difficult or where we would have to undertake excessive market development, with nobody else to do it for us. As a consequence, our exporting activities were inhibited. We did not achieve anything like as much of the export activity that we would all have liked. We felt it safer to do it the other way.
  I entreat my right hon. and hon. Friends, when addressing the question of how to divest Government of the operation after the passage of the Bill, to make certain that there is strong and free competition. That is very important. The attitude change which will come about as a consequence of the Bill could be of enormous help to small and medium-sized manufacturing companies such as I am involved with. We have found after previous privatisations that once the change in structure has been

  219
  made, there are new dimensions of thought. The establishment of clear competitiveness between two or more suppliers could bring out new dimensions of thinking on export credits guarantee. I should like to see that sphere opened up.
  I should like to address the remainder of my remarks to the serious business of project exporting industry. My hon. Friend, in opening the debate, remarked upon the welcome that had been received from those involved in exporting. That is not the uninhibited joy which has been expressed to me. In an article in the Financial Times on 15 January 1991, the world trade editor, Peter Montagnon said:
  "it has sparked deep worries among exporters that stiff terms for export credit insurance would make them uncompetitive on world markets."
  The article underlines all the way through the representations that I have had. People have come back to me asking why, within the portfolio management system which is being put forward, we have got for project group business the most expensive premium rate structure of all the major exporting countries. I understand that this is ECGD's estimation of the position. I should like the Minister to confirm that to me in his reply, because it is fundamental that it should be appreciated.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will surely realise that if that is the case, as I believe it is, it is putting United Kingdom exporters at a significant disadvantage and, indeed, diverting manufacturing activity away from this country. If it is felt that we do not provide the sort of assistance being provided by others, the major exporting companies in project business will look to overseas arrangements which will bypass this country. It worries me that that may happen.
  France and Germany were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). The United Kingdom is pitching in the same marketplace, an incredibly competitive marketplace, in third-world countries. Both France and Germany charge lower premium rates. Significantly, in EC terms, neither France nor Germany publishes figures or accounts in the same way as we do. So, in effect, there is a hidden subsidy to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom. Looking at the drive towards Europeanisation, harmonisation and the political unity which is being urged upon us by France in particular, I cannot help but feel that such activity has to be ironed out of the system. We have to be careful that we do not go along with a situation in which France, Germany and others give more favourable rates, particularly as I gather that we are the most expensive.
  If my hon. Friend's answer is a recognition of the premium position so far as the portfolio management system is concerned, perhaps he will tell the House why the Government are apparently deliberately withdrawing support for British exporters, in contrast with the very positive attitude of the French, and indeed the rest of the world, who are in there pitching for these third-world contracts that are so difficult to get? I read with great interest about the stone-walling that went on in another place a week ago by the Minister for Industry when he was challenged on this very point. I have no doubt that his brief said that he should not answer the question but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would answer it tonight. One cannot help feeling that possibly the Government want to prevent United Kingdom project exporters from exporting
  220
  to third-world countries. I cannot believe that that is the case, but it is the impression that one is left with all the time.
  I want to refer to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 14 January. I must confess that I am glad that there has been a week's delay on this debate, which has given us time to digest things a bit. I note with interest that the Government are taking measures to press in international forums for other export credit agencies to charge more economic premium rates. The exporting industry, obviously, is not adverse to this. All it wants—we have heard this expression before—is a level playing field, and I can understand that. It does not want the Government to move at a pace which places the United Kingdom project exporting industry at a competitive disadvantage.
  So, may we have some positive information from my hon. Friend in winding up tonight relating to the steps that he is taking? Which forums are we pressing? What is the timetable, the expected completion? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that no one on the Government side had mentioned unilateral disarmament. He had the fortune to be slightly ahead of me rather than after me.
  I have to remark that, while in another context the Government have not been strong advocates of unilateral disarmament, in the written answer of 14 January there is a clear statement that this is what we are about in this context. It is unilateral disarmament in that we are saying that we will seek a level playing field; we are unhappy with the premium rates that the other countries are charging so we will jack ours up to minimise the risk; we are sorry about the effect that it will have on all of them, but they will have to live with it. So can we have a little consistency by my party and my hon. Friends in terms of disarmament? I am a keen advocate of multilateral disarmament as far as arms are concerned, and I should like to be consistent.
  Can we be told what timetable my hon. Friend envisages for achieving this level playing field, which will be welcomed by industry? Furthermore, what review mechanism does he have for assessing the consequences of this unilateralism in terms of business opportunity lost? If I am wrong and there is no business loss as a consequence, that is fine; that clears the ground; but we need some assurance that there is a mechanism for assessing it.
  In his written answer my hon. Friend makes the point:
  "It is not the ECGD's policy to disclose details of the amount of cover available for individual markets; exporters should contact the ECGD to ascertain the cover position in respect of contracts they are currently processing."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 359.]
  That rang alarm bells with me. What speed of response does my hon. Friend expect when a project exporter with a possible bid in mind approaches ECGD to ascertain the possibility of cover? I am talking about the major project exporting business and it is an important point, since companies have to be able to work out their longer-term forward strategy and tendering is a long and expensive business. My hon. Friend will know that project exporting is difficult and tendering costs are high, while success rates are low. So each success has to bear the cost of all the failed bids.
  Once a breakthrough has been achieved in a particular market, it is vital to be able to build on that success with follow-up orders. An over-restrictive application of

  221
  portfolio management system principles could mean no cover for those follow-up orders precisely because of that initial success—an unsustainably wasteful way of doing business.
  We are talking in terms of a tender time of, first, three to 12 months to identify an opportunity, pursue it and pre-qualify to tender. It is an expensive process; it means a lot of money and a lot of work up front. it probably has to be pursued against the strategy that I have mentioned in respect of a particular country as well. We have a tender period of three months, followed by the adjudication and subsequent negotiation process before contract award, which takes six to 12 months, or even more. So we are talking about a time span of at least 12 months, and probably 24 months or even more, before a contract comes to fruition.
  So could a company which established when it started the process that ECGD cover was okay for the country and available, therefore, in principle, and even that the amount involved was in the ball park, be told when it moved into the adjudication phase or the final negotiation phase that there was nothing left in the kitty, that a major contract had been given the previous week to another company in another business relating to that country and therefore its effort, time and money had been wasted? That is very important because it affects the confidence with which people attack the process of achieving export business in the project field in third-world countries.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend how the Government see the portfolio being constructed and developed. It is said in the release that this is really a matter for the ECGD to look after, but I think it is helpful to know how it will be structured. As I understand it—I shall be grateful to be corrected if I am wrong—the portfolio is spread on the basis of 25 per cent. being defence-related, 25 per cent. being aid-associated, roughly 25 per cent. being Airbus-related—very heavy—and 25 per cent. being routine commercial projects. Airbus and defence look like being locked in, which leaves the aid and commercial sectors open to squeeze, and there was a mention of the Treasury possibly seeking to exercise influence towards a zero option in terms of funding.
  Both those points have important connotations, in the short term for employment and in the longer term for United Kingdom national interests abroad in terms of influence, future business and the whole long-term approach to things.
  So I would like from my hon. Friend an assurance that there is a continued commitment to exporting industry working in third-world arenas and not making the combination of premium increases and market capacity restrictions so severe that United Kingdom exporters will be unable to compete and, as a consequence, will achieve little or no business.
  Lastly, a practical potential result of getting the parameters of the portfolio management system wrong will be to encourage United Kingdom based project importers to look even more towards co-operation with overseas partners. I have mentioned this before. These joint operations result in a dilution of the use of British manufacturers. As a British manufacturer potentially engaged in supplying overseas contracts, I feel very strongly about this. It would be possible to paint a
  222
  scenario of penny wisdom and pound foolishness as we further risk our manufacturing base, engender unemployment and spend more on unemployment costs than we save on ECGD accounts. This is where the two budgets have to be brought together. Furthermore, we help our competitors, who may well be assisted to secure a foothold in markets which traditionally have been ours. The other point is the consequent effect on the balance of payments, which is important, and on employment.
  I want an undertaking that the Government will closely scrutinise the operation of the portfolio management system and examine its trends and progress, that they will keep the door open to the United Kingdom project exporting industry so that it can be kept informed, and that they will respond to alarm signals with alacrity and flexibility when they are pointed out to them.
  I should like to give a fair wind to the basic principles of the Bill. I have no hang-ups about its privatisation provisions, but there is tremendous responsibility on the Government in exercising their powers on the ECDG and the project exporting industry, which is not being offered to private ownership. It is a big responsibility.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I shall be brief; if that gives a flicker of anxiety to some, it will bring relief and rejoicing to many more.
  I wish to follow the point that was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who is no longer present, in his plea for a long-term industrial strategy. Although his hopes are high, his prospects are rather limited. This matter has gone on for far too long. The Kemp report, which has been referred to almost ad nauseam, was issued at the end of a period of uncertainty about the Government's intentions for the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
  The Kemp committee sat for a long time and thought carefully. Anyone who has had a quiet word with those who prepared the Kemp report will realise that their purpose was to come up with as low an order of madness as they could get away with to prevent the Government from coming up with as high an order of political madness as they could get away with if left to their own devices. That is not a satisfactory basis for the report.
  After the report's proposals became known, there was a further period of uncertainty as we waited for the Government to clarify where they stood. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) properly and accurately said, there was a clear conflict of interest between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury.
  That period of uncertainty gave rise to additional difficulties. For example, in an attempt to structure or influence the Government's proposals, the ECGD began to modify its behaviour. It would be interesting to know from how many countries the offer of export credit guarantee help was withdrawn during that period of internal debate on how to respond to the Kemp report. I fear that, during that period, a massive effort was made to contain current expenditure—the source of the Government's concern—to satisfy the Treasury. That process has already damaged the prospects of British exporters, in some cases irreversibly.
  It is interesting to note that the proposals of the Kemp report—to privatise the short-term services division of the

  223
  ECGD as a state-owned holding company—were taken up by the Government of France, who operate their export credit guarantee assistance through a state-owned holding company. It is instructive that, for the purposes of joint marketing, that state-owned holding company has linked with French domestic credit insurance companies. Inspired and encouraged by the French Government, it is setting up export promotion agencies throughout eastern Europe to ensure a substantial place in those markets for French exporters.
  That shows how those structures can be used to promote exports and an industrial strategy. It is terribly disappointing that in all the hints, guesses and statements of the Government, there has been no sign not only of any proposals but of any suggestion that such matters were a matter of concern or interest. That must be profoundly depressing for many exporters who, in increasingly difficult economic circumstances, are attempting to serve this country by broadening the base of our exports.
  That uncertainty affects not only the past but the future, because, although we are aware of the structure and form of the Government's proposals, we are still uncertain about their content. For example, we have no clear idea of how they will attempt to ensure that the spread of risks covered by the ECGD will be reflected in the new arrangements made for the state agency.
  Mr. Tim Janman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned what the French are doing for short-term credit. They do not have a good record on using state aid, supposedly to help industry. In that context, one thinks of the motor industry, and Renault in particular. To what extent is he aware of whether the state-owned companies that have been set up are profitable and are not subsidised by the Government? If they are being subsidised, surely that would be in breach of article 92 of the treaty of Rome?
  Mr. Cousins: I suspect that the French Government have chosen to operate in that way to cast a fog of decent obscurity on that matter. Hon. Members may regard that as a sign of duplicity, but they may also regard it as a sign of ingenuity. If ingenuity promotes exports and increases their base, it may be no bad thing. The changes that the French Government have made in their export credit guarantee system in the past five years have been much influenced by the rules of the European Community and, in substantial measure, are an attempt formally to comply with them while retaining the ability to launch active industrial strategies of their own. There is no doubt about that, but I do not know why that accusation is made against the French. If one were a member of the French Government, one might take considerable pride from it.
  The Government have thrown no light on how and by what means they will attempt to ensure that we shall have the same ability to take advantage of the spread of risk that we have now. They have not said how they will try to control the risk premiums that will be offered. They have thrown no light on whether the prospects of the network of the nine regional offices, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), will be secure under the new system.
  The availability of a deeply embedded regional network of export credit guarantee offices for that small-scale but intense level of export activity is absolutely vital if smaller firms in the regions are to be drawn into the practice of
  224
  active exporting. We expect the Minister, if not tonight, later in the Bill's progress, to give us his thoughts on how the network of agencies can remain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was also right to cast doubt on whether the provisions for the transfer of undertakings in the Bill are meaningful. Those of us who are witnessing the true impact of changes in the national health service and the protection offered by the transfer of undertakings provisions are profoundly sceptical about the assurances provided in this Bill and whether they will prove meaningful.
  Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have remarked that the Minister gave us no idea how he proposes to fill the black hole in his proposals. We are agreed, and the Government have been forced to concede, that even in their own proposals there remains a problem with the reinsurance of high political risks. The Government have said that, for three years, some means will be found to keep the reinsurance going. We have been given no details of that.
  What will happen at the end of three years? Will there be a further period of transition and if so, on what basis? If not, how do the Government expect people to go over that cliff—because cliff it will be? The problem of political risk reinsurance will be an increasingly dominant feature of exporting to—one regrets—an increasing number of countries throughout the world. The Minister gave only a general assurance, which was not backed up by precise details. That is a matter of considerable regret.
  There is a problem for the Government themselves. It would be a curious thing for the Government to privatise —if that is their word—the Export Credits Guarantee Department, lose control over the pattern and level of activities and be manoeuvred into passively picking up the tab for problems of political risk reinsurance. Again, the Government have provided no information to us and possibly no protection for themselves and their supposed aim of containing public expenditure.
  The present position is disturbing. The economy is undoubtedly entering a period of recession. That point does not need to be laboured, because it is obvious to all. The insurance industry is less capable now than in the past of bearing some of the burdens which the Government propose that it should undertake. I draw the attention of the Minister to clause 3(3) of the Bill which contains the words:
  "The Secretary of State may not, in pursuance of such arrangements, enter into any transaction for the purpose of borrowing money but, subject to that, he is not precluded from entering into any transaction by reason of its involving borrowing."
  The only conceivable meaning of that rather tortured language is that some of the Government's proposed arrangements in the new system will be extremely complex in insurance terms. Is this the right moment for the Government to hurl into the market many difficult and problematic transactions when it is clear that the British insurance industry is already shouldering a wide variety of difficulties and is much less robust than it has been for some time?
  The Government's intention to bring export credit guarantees to the market is of little advantage to anyone if there is no market to be made. The Government must be somewhat cast down by the fact that many of those whom they hoped to interest in buying into the future of ECGD express much less interest now than previously. If the

  225
  Government wish to offer ECGD for sale in the market, they owe it to themselves and the people who work in ECGD to ensure that there is a market to be made. At present, no such assurance can be given.
  I do not wish to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) about the problems in the projects assistance provided by ECGD. The points that he made were sound. We do not know the exact balance—to some degree we must rely on guesswork—but Airbus and defence account for over 50 per cent. of the work of the projects section of ECGD. One could question whether that is an appropriate emphasis for a Government agency. It will continue to be a Government agency which is seriously interested in broadening the basis of British exports.
  It would be unfortunate if, at the end of this tortured and difficult business—it has already lasted far too long and created far too much uncertainty and the results seem far from clear to the Government—we ended up in the disgraceful position that the Government not only had no industrial strategy to underpin their work in export credit guarantees but relied excessively on their own involvement in reinsurance of political risks in an entirely passive way. That may not represent good value for money. Neither should the main occupation of the remaining Government export credit guarantee activity be the promotion and securing of the British arms export trade.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: It is always a pleasure to speak at the time when, as they say, the going gets tough and the tough go and have their dinner and leave those of us who are in thrall to the Whips to address the nation. [Laughter.] I do not know why that is a matter of amusement to my hon. Friends. It is a deeply serious point. We had hoped to have our dinner closer to 7 o'clock than 8 o'clock.
  As it is fashionable to make declarations of interest, I should perhaps declare an interest as one of the few small business men in this place, and a one-time exporter. I have been had by almost every insurance company that exists. To that extent, I am distinctly susceptible to the quality of their service.
  I have generally had a good experience in my dealings with ECGD. I have heard views to the contrary. One of my hon. Friends said that he found the service bureaucratic, but that was not my experience. It has always been straightforward, and its employees were knowledgeable and helpful. The acid test of the Bill and the proposal to denationalise ISG is that which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) set out.
  In an excellent speech—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who is looking slightly quizzical, did not hear it, because it was first class —my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) suggested that the acid test was extremely simple. One had to ask oneself—[Interruption.] Are we sure who my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge is? We should look him up. May I continue, Madam Deputy Speaker?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Please do.
  Mr. Norris: We must ask whether the Bill helps or hinders exporters because, in all honesty, that is the acid test.
  I do not know if I speak for all my hon. Friends but I suspect that I speak for the true intelligentsia, those of my hon. Friends who are present, when I say that I would not be in the slightest bit interested in a measure that was dogma purely for dogma's sake. The proposition in the Bill is an intensely practical response to a potential problem facing British industry. It saddens me that Opposition Members give a most extraordinary knee-jerk reaction whenever the word "denationalisation" or "privatisation" is mentioned, and in whatever context.
  It may be a slight breach of confidentiality for me to tell the House about a conversation that I have every reason to believe took place between an Opposition home affairs spokesman on the privatisation of some prison services, a development to which I look forward. When I asked the Opposition's spokesman's attitude to that, I was given to understand—I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will be able to put two and two together and make five—that the Opposition spokesman's response was, "I gather that we are against it, although in all honesty I am not terribly sure why." If Opposition Members ask themselves whether they are sure that they understand why the knee has jerked so comprehensively against the idea that we should transfer the operation of the ISG to professionals who understand the business, they will find that there is no good reason whatever.
  Mr. Michael: As I am sure you would point out fairly soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman strayed into home affairs matters. I think that he reversed the quotation, because, as I understand it, the response was given by the Minister. That reflects the confusion among Government Members about many policies. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the minutes of the Committee currently discussing the Criminal Justice Bill, because he will then see that the knee-jerk reactions occur among Back-Bench Conservative members of the Committee.
  Mr. Norris: I did not want to say this, because it is terribly unfair to do so, but I was referring to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who is not on the Committee. If I were an Opposition Member, I would question the right hon. Gentleman about the soundness of his opposition to privatisation. I have always given the right hon. Gentleman credit for considerable intelligence and I suspect that he, like many Opposition Members, privately knows that the idea that a service should be provided at arm's length by professionals, with proper supervision by the legislature, is inherently immensely sound. Conservative Members can be immensely proud of having promoted the idea so strongly during the past 10 years.
  The Bill's purpose is to address the acid test of whether or not we can improve the service to exporters. I believe that we can, for concrete reasons. We should not still be debating the first one, which is whether the whole direction of the single market and single market legislation in Europe is towards the declaratory principle of article 92, which is, essentially, to outlaw state aid that distorts competition. It is absolutely clear that that is the nub of the single market. The whole point of the single market is to create conditions in which there are no artificial

  227
  boundaries to trade and competition among companies in all the European member countries. A cardinal principle of the single market is that Governments should not distort competition by artificial intervention.
  I have heard the Opposition advance some most extraordinary arguments on that issue during today's debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for whom I have great respect, uncharacteristically—there is no need for him to look round because I am referring to him and if he looks forward he will see that I can only be referring to him— advanced an extraordinary proposition. He suggested that what he describes as the complicity—his description, not mine—that underlines the French Government's approach to its subsidy of exports is a virtue, of which, on the quiet, we should approve. That is not only a dangerous proposition, but deeply questionable. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the great spoils of this life should go to those who, in the single market, are most capable of undermining the whole purpose of the legislation. That strikes at the central purpose of the European Community.
  I must say—it is directly relevant to the denationalisation of ISG—that, if there is occasional cynicism among Conservative Members about the direction in which the European Community is progressing, it is absolutely because over the past decade, the Government have shown a complete commitment to the implementation of the single market. We are further advanced towards the single market than any of our colleagues in Europe, and intend to see it completed. We wish to see it completed honestly and openly, because we believe that honesty and openness form the correct basis on which to conduct international trade.
  It is utterly objectionable to suggest that we should adopt the attitude that, if we can evade the regulations, twist and turn them to our purpose and permit an underhand support of industry against the clear and wonderfully declaratory principles of our Community Ministers, whether French, Italian or whatever, it is desirable to do so.
  Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norris: I was rather enjoying myself, but if I must, I shall give way.
  Mr. Michael: It was clear that the hon. Gentleman was enjoying his own rhetoric, but he had left the subject of the Bill. Which pieces of legislation and regulation was he referring to?
  Mr. Norris: I was so bound up in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that that was wonderful rhetorical nonsense that I missed his question. Would he mind repeating it?
  Mr. Michael: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has to seek time to collect his thoughts, as have Ministers and other Back Benchers in the debate. Which piece of European regulation was he referring to?
  Mr. Norris: I am sorry—I had given the hon. Gentleman credit for a more subtle intervention. I was simply referring to the principles of article 92. We have had a great discussion about the Kemp report as if it were some sort of bible-1 think that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge described it as such—from which it was impossible to deviate. There is no difficulty in reading the
  228
  Kemp report and assimulating it into the position that the Government have adopted. It is quite clear that it is not necessary as of today to denationalise ISG—
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Norris: I think that precisely my next point will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will wait to hear it; if he is still not happy, he can then by all means intervene. As the Financial Times said in an article today, privatisation is much the cleanest approach to addressing the obvious question that will arise in future for French and other Governments in Europe—ensuring that there is a cast-iron mechanism to guarantee that state support to exports does not distort competition in contravention of what will then be established European legislation. That legislation will be so established because that is the whole drift of the European market, as underpinned by article 92.
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman provides fresh confirmation that there is no such regulation. Perhaps he could now tell us how long ago article 92 was signed, as he seems to rely absolutely on it.
  Mr. Norris: This is typical of the "angels on pinheads" nonsense that dogs the argument. In fact, the argument is extremely clear.
  Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Norris: The whole drift of European single market legislation is clearly towards a competition environment and the absence of state subsidy. If we and other European Governments—with some honourable exceptions—were to continue with the present arrangements, there is no question that, in due course, we should fall foul of the very clear competition regulations that are the very essence of the single market.
  I am given to understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is a Front-Bench spokesman on these matters. That being the case, it really disturbs me that his party should be so confused as to the whole thrust of the European Community. That thrust is the creation of the single market. Indeed, I can think of few other virtues that the Community brings with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman)—a fellow member of the "Essex mafia"—has been extremely patient. I give way to him.
  Mr. Janman: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way eventually. After all, he invited me to make interventions. I am grateful also that he is a colleague from the very fine county of Essex.
  My hon. Friend is right when he says that it is surprising that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seems not only to be gleefully unaware of the existence of article 92, but also not to understand that we are talking about a measure that is very important to the insurance industry. He seems to be unaware of the fact that there have already been three European directives laying down the criteria relating to competition in the provision of insurance services across national boundaries. Some of those criteria gel with this Bill, in the sense that an organisation funded by the state would not be able to compete across national boundaries.
  Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. Indeed, such is his grasp of these events, that he confirms his position as political commissar of the Essex

  229
  Members. It is a pleasure to have him alongside me. However, bearing in mind the way in which he thanked me in the introduction to his intervention, in future I shall be more wary about giving way to him.
  I want now to move on to what seems to me to be a very important practical consideration, to which, it may be, too little attention has so far have been paid. More than half of the business of ISG is conducted with fellow members of the European Community. My understanding of the whole principle of credit insurance is that it provides cover against default on payments. Understandably, in the case of ISG, we are talking about business with fairly low margins. As the risk is fairly assessable and sensible, there is clear virtue in establishing two principles.
  The first is that, in this context, there is absolutely no need for artificial subsidy. It is very questionable that a taxpayer would get fair value for money were the Government, by way of a state agency, to subsidise credit insurance within the European Community. The second principle is fairly straightforward. Business with low margins ought to be conducted in very large volume throughout the community. So far as Trade Indemnity and potential bidders for this company are concerned, I have no axe to grind.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Shame.
  Mr. Norris: Indeed, it is a great shame. My hon. Friend gets a lot more by way of retainer than the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) gets from his union.
  As I have said, I have no axe whatever to grind. Subject to proper application of the rules on monopoly, my understanding is that we are not creating a monopoly.
  What we shall have is a substantial professional organisation acting within the United Kingdom. It is clear that, by definition, we are entering a European market. The competition will be within Europe. Indeed, I can even see virtue in having in the United Kingdom a pretty substantial organisation capable of taking on the spread of risk and the volume of business that makes the underwriting of European community commercial risk justifiable. The idea that there is some sort of great monopoly scare in the prospect of tying the ISG to one of the existing credit insurers in the United Kingdom need not detain hon. Members, especially those on the Government side.
  What is important is one of the other conditions attaching to the sale of ISG. This follows from a point that was discussed earlier. It would be utterly self-defeating if the bidder were to be a state-subsidised foreign company. Indeed, it would be intolerable if we were to have, for example, a part French-owned company actually determining the ability of British companies to export to France or, indeed, to any other country in the community. Clearly, under competition rules, the Secretary of State has already established that he will look very carefully at cases of acquisition by companies that are themselves part state-owned. I believe that that policy is entirely right and has widespread support on this side of the House. It is gratifying that the principle is embodied in this Bill.
  One question remains, and it is one to which Opposition Members have quite rightly alluded. Other European countries will not necessarily change their regulations on the day on which this Bill becomes an Act.
  230
  It is quite obvious that, so far as British industry is concerned, if the profitability that is demanded by the sale involves a sudden and short reduction in the facilities that are available to exporters, the British exporters will be at a disadvantage. That is the point at which we would allow dogma to overtake common sense and the interests of our business community. That being the case, I am delighted at the willingness of the Government to provide a three-year reinsurance facility through the Export Credits Guarantee Department to allow a new company, in effect, to balance its portfolio.
  To the Government, I make a plea that echoes one that has already been voiced today. We should not be too rigid about the size or, more important, about the duration of the insurance provision underpinning the new company. It is vital that we move to an entirely commercial market as soon as possible and that we do not, in the interim, put British exporters at a significant disadvantage. The way to match those two things is to make sure that the reinsurance facility is not simply closed-ended for three years but is capable of extension should the need arise.
  The Financial Times article that has been mentioned is very supportive of the move to denationalise the ECGD. It says that top-up may be necessary. I echo that sentiment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take it on board. The acid test is not dogma; it is the practical interests of British industry.
  Mr. Cousins: In the closing part of his speech the hon. Gentleman has been saying some extremely interesting things. That comment is not meant as a reflection on the earlier part of his speech. His remark that he does not think that the reinsurance facility should be closed-ended represents some criticism of the Government. Does he think that it should be closed-ended as to resources?
  Mr. Norris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that point. I made it for this simple reason. To the extent that it is necessary to move immediately to the commercial environment—that is to say, one in which the insured risk will show a profit—the new company will quite rightly wish to limit the facilities available, particularly as it will want to expand its book in certain markets as it develops experience. During that time, the provision of a reinsurance facility, effectively continually funded by ECGD, is entirely proper.
  At the moment, the proposition is that that should be limited in operation and in time. My plea to the Under-Secretary—to which, were he not in avid discussions with practically every other hon. Member in the House, he would no doubt be sympathetic—is that that facility should be open-ended in terms of both scope and time. I do not think that the Under-Secretary heard me, but I shall leave it on the record for him to read in his bath tomorrow morning.
  I shall now say something about projects group business. So far today, there has been no mention of the fact that the ECGD has a cash deficit with the consolidated fund of £2·5 billion, and I am given to understand that there are further claims of another £2·5 billion for the next few years. That puts me in mind of two cardinal principles. One was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, my hon. Friend—the Minister for Trade. I am sure that I merely anticipate the inevitable. From his commercial experience, he will know of that old golfing metaphor—one drives for show and putts for

  231
  dough. In other words, turnover is jolly useful, but nobody made a profit of turnover. One must show a profit on turnover.
  In the present environment, I doubt whether the taxpayer can be happy that, so far, we have spent £5,000 million making goods in Britain and then giving them to other people at, essentially, £5,000 million less than we ought to have given them. I am a simple person, as no doubt my speech will confirm, but the introduction of the portfolio management system is a welcome development, as it will introduce some management control in a part of business that is otherwise in danger of getting out of hand.
  It is right to have a system for pricing and controlling ECGD expenditure in relation to its support for project exports on medium and long-term credit, because that will allow the national interest reasons for supporting project exports. There is a good national interest reason, on occasion, properly to be weighed against the risk to the ECGD and the taxpayer that income from premiums and the ECGD reserves will not cover the underwriting losses that the ECGD may make on this type of insurance. Incidentally, it will ensure that the ECGD will continue to support United Kingdom capital and project goods exports, but at a greatly reduced cost to the taxpayer. That is an important criterion.
  I am advised that it will also ensure that premium rates charged by the project group match the degree of risk more closely, which means that rates for high risk markets may rise. I face that prospect with equanimity, because rates in the lower risk markets will fall, and that must be good news.
  If we do not press for other export credit agencies to charge more economic premium rates—something to which I hope the Government will pay attention—it will be pointless to be in a virtuous or a vicious circle by which everybody is subsidising business to pass goods around the world at prices that are inherently unrealistic.
  The best way of all in which the Government could assist exporters is by a simple mechanism that would have the virtue not only of making exports more attractive, but of making them easier to fund—that is, to reduce the domestic interest rate. That might even drive down the value of the pound and make imports dearer. That is how I see it, as a simple soul, but I am told that this is a highly unsophisticated analysis, so I leave it on the table. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry will see the wisdom of that policy, so that those of us in the small business section will have a tiny modicum of relief.
  This is a forward-looking Bill, which shows that Britain is determined to be the leader in the single market. It is in stark contrast to the policies of some of our European counterparts but, more particularly, it is in stark contrast to the views of the Opposition. We intend to make the single market work for the benefit of all European citizens. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I have no specific interest to declare about any company with which I am involved, but I declare a general interest in the well-being of the whole British manufacturing industry, for which the services that we are discussing should be continued. I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). There is a huge divide between
  232
  Opposition Members, who believe that the ECGD, in all its activities, has an important and at times vital role to play in the support of British manufacturing, and Conservative Members who, in their blind pursuit of the quixotic folly of the single market, do not mind what damage they inflict on British manufacturing, so long as they can say that they are unilaterally conducting this policy of industrial disarmament.
  It is no good saying, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, that the French, the Germans and the Japanese have their own ways of promoting their exports—in the latter case, for many years and perhaps even now, they prevented imports as well—but we shall have none of that, so translucent is our purity, so overriding is our determination, whatever the cost to British consumers and producers, to implement the single market with all that that involves.
  Governments of both parties do silly things from time to time, but I should have thought that this silly, tatty, messy Bill would have been dropped following the change in regime a little while ago. Unfortunately, we have had a continuation of policy under three Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry. The privatisation measures in the Bill result not just from silly dogma but from the determination of the Treasury, which now emerges triumphant from the long guerrilla campaign that it has waged against an outstanding Department of Government. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have done, I pay tribute to the competence and professionalism of those in the ECGD with whom I have had occasion to work.
  It is no argument—indeed, it is a slight—for Conservative Members to say that, by privatising this service, we shall put it in the hands of the professionals. It is in the hands of the professionals. It is in the hands of a group of people who have done the job for many years and who have always had as an overriding objective, the promotion of British exports and the interests of British manufacturing industry.
  Will the Under-Secretary look into a case for me? It concerns GEC-Plessey Telecommunications in my constituency, which has secured a most important contract with the Government of Kenya for £23 million-worth of exports of telecommunications equipment. I understand from the group's director that cover for Kenya has been removed. This affects the project group, which is based here in London. Will the Minister reconsider that decision and recognise that, after we lost many jobs in Coventry last year in this sector, we do not want unnecessarily to face the same problem this year?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has GEC considered taking the risk on its own books?
  Mr. Robinson: That not the issue today. Manufacturing companies are able to avail themselves of services which have been in place for many years; they have done a good job by British industry. In this debate we are discussing the dismantling of one of those services and the prospective rundown of other services. We are dealing today not just with the insurance services group, which is the first step. Who believes that the Treasury does not have its sights relentlessly set on project support? Clearly it must do so, and that is what the long-term argument is about. It is about efforts by the Treasury to get out of this whole

  233
  area of support for British manufacturing. This issue is not whether the company should take on this role. The issue today is why the Government are not doing so.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole commercial insurance experience in ECGD, which he rightly says has experts working for it and which has been in business for a long time, has come to the conclusion that this is a risk which can no longer be underwritten. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is saying that, despite the fact that they will not be able to pay the money, GEC should be able to export this, with all the consequences for jobs in his constituency and elsewhere in the country, and that the taxpayer should pay for it. Why should not the taxpayer just give the money straight to GEC?
  Mr. Robinson: I am not saying that at all. There is always a question of judgment in these matters. That must be clear even to the hon. Gentleman In this life, things are not black or white. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that, he cannot have been in the House long. There is a difference in the Government. I am sure that the pressure here, as always, is coming from the Treasury, which takes an extremely hard line. The Treasury's sole concern is always to limit Government expenditure, while the Department of Trade and Industry is pushing the manufacturers' case and the case of British industry, and I believe that it would be supported in that attitude by the project group. I ask the Department and the Minister of State to take a particularly close look at this aspect.
  It would be strange indeed to see such a Bill as this being pushed through in any other country. At a time when we were withdrawing subsidies right across British manufacturing industry, France, Italy, Germany and Japan were continuing in various ways to back their industries. I do not condone what they have done, and I do not particularly say that it is wrong.
  When the Government say that they will have none of that and that all we are interested in is the 1992 position, one must ask whether they have ever been in manufacturing industry. Do they not know what the score is when one gets into contract negotiation? Do they not realise how important it is in many big projects, and indeed within and outside Europe, to have the Government with and behind one's industry?
  All we are asking for on behalf of British manufacturing industry is a level playing field, but we cannot level the playing field at our end and fall off the edge at the other end. That makes no sense to anyone in British manufactory industry. We want a level playing field and on that basis we can compete with anybody, but there have to be reciprocal measures and actions for achieving that. We cannot have the British Government seeking to prejudice the interests of British industry.
  This Bill is ill thought out. We do not know who will buy this proposal. It would be absurd to sell it to the Dutch national company, and equally absurd to create a monopoly by selling it to Trade Indemnity in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that Sun Alliance could possibly undertake to do anything like the job on the scale and on the terms that we need.
  We need from the Government a total rethink of this mess to avoid getting themselves into a position in which
  234
  they have no buyer or the cover suddenly dries up. Even Conservative Members have said that there must be an open-ended guarantee for the supply of that reinsurance finance—an unconditional guarantee in terms both of the volume and of the conditions on which it is available. What sort of incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense is that?
  There is only one thing to do today. The most appropriate course is for the Government to withdraw the legislation, to go back to proper funding and support for ECGD as a separate independent corporation, funded by but separate from Government, in the way the French and others operate. But we cannot have this continued penalisation of British interests in the interests of a greater, quixotic monument which the Government are so anxious to build on the ruins of British industry which they are creating.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On behalf of a number of my colleagues, I make a formal request that the Government consider making a statement at 10 o'clock, or as soon as is convenient thereafter, about the attack on Tel Aviv tonight, about the tragic loss of another Tornado, and about the oilwells ablaze—a matter that was raised at 3.30 pm. Could that request be conveyed to the House authorities?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have had no request for a statement, but I am sure that the Treasury Bench has heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Having heard the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) who led for Labour this afternoon, and the comments of her hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Members for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), I make the point that ideologically they are just as committed to nationalisation and state control as I am committed to and believe in precisely the opposite approach.
  I make no apology for the fact that I am a totally unrepentant denationaliser. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who has gone to his well-earned supper, made a most delightful speech of serious content which was delivered in a way that only he could do. But throughout his speech he also used the word "denationalisation", and rightly so. I am not quite sure why we stopped using that word in favour of the word "privatisation", which seems to have all sorts of connotations in the public mind which confuse and diminish public support for the concept that industrial and commercial undertakings are better run and managed in the private sector than in the public sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said earlier—and it was not a criticism of this place or of hon. Members but a statement of simple fact—this House, which contains very able hon. Members but largely the wrong people, is the wrong venue to dabble in the day-to-day affairs of commerce and industry.
  We who are honoured to be here are primarily the guardians of the public interests. I believe that we can best do that if we are at arm's length from the various enterprises and if we ensure that they work within a

  235
  framework of minimum regulation to ensure and protect the public interest. That is our true role rather than the running of trade and industry.
  I welcome the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill as yet another step in denationalisation, even if the Government in their wisdom have felt able to float the Insurance Services Group as part of the present Export Credits Guarantee Department. If the Government feel at this stage that the wider public interest is best served by retaining public control of what is currently called the project group based in London, then for the moment I am content.
  Who would buy the massive losses and predicted losses that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest? Judging by the fact that ECGD may not support exports to the Community and that those exports are currently about half the total activities, it seems to me that a review of its format is called for, and certainly it is right that it should become two separate enterprises. If ISG covers short-term credit, surely it fits the normality of private insurance cover rather than the involvement of the state and the Exchequer. Its activities at present are not loss-making, so I presume that it has nothing to fear from the normal commercial pressures of competition.
  I do not like to hear of the deficit on the business that will stay in the public sector, but clearly it is the kind of business that could not be won by exporters without it. If its continued funding is in the public interest, at least for the time being, until we see how Europe and the rest of the world moves, I am content that that part stays in the public sector.
  All of us, as was said earlier, have heard of projects lost to other countries because the financial arrangements were not as good as those on offer by our competitors. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will say something about that. My instinct is that insurance services, like so many other areas of commercial endeavour, are likely to respond much more readily and effectively in the private sector under the increasing European rules. Unless denationalised, my understanding is that insurance services would be functioning, as my hon. Friend said when he opened the debate, with one arm tied behind their backs. We must anticipate 1992 and make the necessary changes.
  This is not the only example of where in the European context we must get out of the public and into the private sector soon. Hon. Members will recall that last week the British Technology Group had an excellent display in the Upper Lobby. That organisation too is finding itself constrained and is worried about the new format in Europe after 1992. I hope that it will not be long before we debate on the Floor of the House the setting free of that enterprise.
  I have been a member of the Committee considering one other denationalisation Bill, when the one legitimate concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides, not just the trade union sponsored Members, was for the protection of the staff involved. I understand that clear undertakings have been given that transfer to the privatised company will be voluntary and that the staff who transfer will be given terms and conditions at least as good as those that they currently enjoy. I also understand that, where that is not possible, those terms and conditions that cannot be transferred will be replicated. I do not
  236
  believe that the Government could be clearer than that, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is the Government's intention.
  Dr. John Marek: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. The staff terms and conditions will not be protected—especially the pensions. Perhaps, through the hon. Gentleman, I can ask the Minister to confirm that. However, I think that there is a serious question about it.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The reading that I undertook before the debate suggests that that is the case, but if that is not so, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clear that up when he replies.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that, if rates were not competitive, British industry would go elsewhere to other companies in the United Kingdom or to finance and insurance companies in Europe. So they should. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) has experience of industry and I am sure that he would agree that industry jolly well should go where it can get the best deal. What I hope will come out of the Bill is that there will be one other means whereby British manufacturing companies can find a British company that will give them the best deal in Europe. But it is no part of the Government's role to set a scene that virtually makes that impossible, driving companies abroad for their insurance cover, which is what would happen if we did not set up a framework in the United Kingdom to ensure a competitive scene.
  If the short-term business underwritten by insurance services is no different from much of business currently being dealt with by private sector insurers, and if the project group is to be allowed to continue with Government funding, to handle under the state umbrella those risks that cannot be covered by or are unacceptable in the private sector, we are approaching the matter in the right way, denationalising that which can be denationalised and retaining in the public sector that which cannot.
  This is an enabling measure. No date is set for any flotation. I echo the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I support the Bill but I express some caution. We should not move at a pace which puts any United Kingdom company at a disadvantage compared with any European competitors.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I speak tonight as the Member for Cardiff, West, not in my capacity as a n Opposition spokesman on energy. The ECGD insurance services group is located in the adjoining constituency of Cardiff, Central with the computer centre in the other adjoining constituency of Cardiff, North. Many of my constituents are among the 800 or so people who work for ECGD in the Cardiff area. Therefore, I feel particularly strong empathy with the battle against this rash, hurried and premature measure.
  All hon. Members seem to be agreed tonight that, if the measure is prompted by free market dogma, it is wrong, and if our opposition to it is based on Stalinist dogma, that is also wrong. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have managed to skate for at least five minutes on the thin ice in the belief that dogma is wrong and common sense is

  237
  right. I shall try to examine whether the measure is activated by dogma or whether it has a backbone of rationality and common sense.
  The Bill has two main purposes. One is to continue with the existing work of the ECGD, providing the Secretary of State with the powers to do that, and the second is to facilitate the privatisation of the insurance business of the ECGD. I am not a great fan of Anglo-Saxon proverbs, but that could be called trying to have one's cake and burn it.
  The Bill seems to have been prompted not so much by the needs of industry, the EC or 1992, but simply by the weirdo views of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who, to use a football field analogy, believed that one should equalise before the other team scored. It is true that some day the EC, in particular, via Sir Leon Brittan, a former Member of the House and the vice-president of the EC in charge of competition matters, might bring in a proposal which will then have to be negotiated with the 12 Governments to produce a level playing field in the area of export credit insurance free of subsidy, or at least the possibility of subsidy implied by the taxpayer backing for it, to cover internal trade after 1992.
  There is no sign of this on the horizon yet. No one is hurrying except this Government. That causes us to ask why it was necessary for the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to leap in with the measure when he did, in advance of all the other countries which had not made any moves in the same direction. Is that the best way to play the Euro game? That is the question we must ask ourselves when we apply the test of dogma or common sense to this measure.
  Mr. Janman: I remind the hon. Member that his own party often criticises us, albeit quite wrongly, for dragging our feet in the European Community, particularly in relation to implementing directives from the Community about the single market. The hon. Member will be aware that Brussels is taking a very keen look at the subsidies that are implicit in the way in which countries in the Community handle their export credit policies. Surely it is absolutely right and proper that this Government should take a lead in what, inevitably, everyone else will have to follow.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member has touched on the correct point, but he is interpreting it quite wrongly. How is the Euro game best played in the interests of United Kingdom plc? That is what we are asking. That is something this measure plainly does not do. All the justifications that have been given by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) who has now gone to his much delayed and very much deserved dinner, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), by way of intervention, simply display the fact that they do not understand how legislation is shaped at the European level in an attempt to produce, post-1992, the much desired level playing field.
  Let me tell the House what actually happens when the European Community shapes legislation to bring in the level playing field. The European Community is attempting to blend 12 entirely different systems—perhaps it is not as many as that; the Benelux countries, Spain and
  238
  Portugal may have similar systems. Nevertheless, it is trying to blend at least half a dozen entirely different systems. This does not mean that, on day one of 1992, everything that existed before that could possibly constitute an intervention in the free passage of goods, services and labour across community frontiers must be abolished.
  That is not the way the European Community operates; it never does things like that. It will recognise that, in Britain, we have a system which has existed for 70-odd years, and 90 years in domestic credit through trade indemnity. France has a different system; Germany has a different system again, and so on. How can all these systems be blended into a sensible compromise that does not favour any one country? If the Government are really interested in the well-being of this country, the last thing they will do is lay all their best cards on the table before any of the other countries in the Community have started to show any of their bargaining chips. Before the other countries in the Community even start to mould the legislation into the shape that suits them best, we have already shown our best hand.
  In effect, the Government are saying that United Kingdom plc can swim in shark-infested waters without any water wings or assistance or any swimming lessons at all. If it cannot swim, then it probably does not deserve to be in business anyway. That is a reasonable summary of the attitude of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He is effectively saying, "If I am not good enough to be Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, then British industry is not good enough to be looked after by me. It can either sink or swim, and if it cannot swim, it is probably a good thing it is out of the water instead of cluttering it up for everyone else."
  It is the same sort of attitude that we saw in the steel industry in 1980 when the Davignon crisis plan came in. Britain dived in straight away before any of the other countries. When Davignon said that we must lose 25 per cent. of our steel industry we closed plants even before we started bargaining. Then the other European Community countries caught up very slowly—the French Government did so in 1985; the Germans started in 1987 and the Italians waited until 1989. But we did it in 1980—no problem. This Government thought it was a good idea to apply the cold shower treatment and get rid of the so called weaker brethren, remove the fat and the surplus.
  That is what we mean by dogma. That is what we mean by not adopting a common sense and rational attitude. It is the Government's job to look after United Kingdom plc. It is the French Government's job to look after France plc and the German Government's job to look after Germany plc. If this Government does not look after United Kingdom plc then the French Government certainly will not do so. I am afraid that that is the nature of the failure of the British political establishment in this House and in particular in the Government party to understand how to play the Euro game in order to give United Kingdom plc a reasonable chance of competing on fair and equal terms in 1992. That is one of the reasons why we have a trade deficit of extraordinary proportions with our fellow trading partners in the European Community which bodes ill indeed for the onset in 11 months' time of the European single market.
  Tonight we are looking at two aspects of the Export Credit Guarantees Department. The first is projects, which is admittedly a subsidy racket. There are no two ways

  239
  about that and we all agree that this is so. It is a very difficult position to get out of and the Government have accepted that by not attempting to privatise the projects group—the long-term credit insurance for defence equipment, power stations, chemical plants and all the usual stuff that we have sold abroad to third-world countries and eastern Europe over the years. It is a bit of a racket. There is very heavy and competitive subsidisation of the export terms. The Government do not have a solution to that question and I do not have one either. I accept that it is a racket. Multilateral disarmament must take place over the years which may affect the work of the projects group, but the Government accept that they do not know how to get around the problem.
  Basically, this Bill applies to the unsubsidised part. It is a mutual reinsurance facility in many ways which has been in existence in respect of the OECD and the EC level export credit insurances, and it is unsubsidised. It involves a facility that is available from the taxpayer, but it is obliged to abide by the principle that it must not be subsidised. It must wash its own face, taking good years with bad. It is very similar to trade indemnity in this country through the backing of the big insurance companies.
  On the projects side, we are not talking about the removal of subsidy. I do not know whether the EC wants to go in for the kind of penny-in-the-slot, laissez-faire philosophising that we have heard from many of the Back Benchers who have supported this matter tonight. It is not a matter of saying that we should eliminate subsidies because that is the basic principle of the Community; it is merely a question of whether something should be done in the public sector or the private sector.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South said that he preferred the word "denationalisation" to the word "privatisation". Tonight we are looking at all the options whereby we can denationalise something without privatising it. In other words, are there any methods by which one can bring in private capital so that ownership is not transferred to the private sector but the public sector borrowing requirement problem is removed? In other words, one has a state-owned plc, either with or without private capital. These are all matters of detail which could act as forms of export credit which are guaranteed to work without finding a bidder who will actually purchase the company and place it in the private sector.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is not just the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement or arguments about 51 per cent. or 49 per cent. It is the fact that, when politicians, whether in this place or at local level, have control of something, they feel that they have to meddle. They are the wrong people to meddle. It should be left to those who are running the business.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman offers one of the best examples of penny-in-the-slot, laissez-faire theorising that I have ever heard. If that is not dogma, I do not know what is. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the ECGD cannot make sensible commercial decisions while in the public sector. Only among the free traders on the Back Benches and Front Benches of the modern Conservative party is there to be found dogmatic assertions of that kind without any facts to back them up. That allegation has never been made during ECGD's 70 years of existence, and the ISG has never needed a subsidy.
  240
  It is hoped that the group will be kept together when it is sold to a private purchaser. However, one must remember the management pyramid, chain of command and age spread that currently exists in the ISG. Many of those currently responsible for taking the key decisions that can equally well be effected in both the public and private sector are people in their forties, who may have worked in the civil service for 25 years, first in London and then in Cardiff, and who will have a large pension entitlement.
  If one asks someone who has spent all their working life in the ECGD, man and boy, woman and girl, whether they want to transfer to Trade Indemnity, Sun Alliance, Barclays, Nederlandsche Credietverzeuring Maatschappij, or whoever purchases it, or would prefer to spend the next 10 years still employed in the civil service or take early retirement, a large proportion will prefer to move to another Department rather than take their chances with a private employer. At 47 years of age, or whatever, their pension entitlement is important to them.
  That stark choice will confront many people in senior management positions in the ECGD. The pension entitlement which has accumulated for many of them is bound to be a major factor in deciding whether to join the private purchasers' own pension scheme and sacrifice a civil service pension, or to take a job elsewhere in the service.
  I take a close interest in anything affecting the ISG's headquarters in Cathays park in Cardiff, not least because I worked as a civil servant in the same building for five years and was involved in the negotiations that brought the group to Cardiff in 1975–76, when I was the industrial development officer for south Glamorgan. In the mid-1970s, we made a major attempt to attract to Cardiff Government Departments that were moving out of London. Companies house moved in 1974, and the business statistics office moved to Newport in 1975. The ECGD itself moved to Cardiff in 1976. In the private sector, the Automobile Association's insurance division moved from Basingstoke, and the Chemical bank of New York relocated to Cardiff in 1981. Over a five-year period, a critical mass was achieved in financial services in the Cardiff area, so that it now offers a choice of jobs in both the public and private sector that would be attractive to existing ISG employees.
  When the group is privatised, its main building will be in breach of its covenant with the Marquis of Bute, which specifies that all buildings in Cathays park must remain in public sector use as universities, local offices, Government Departments, and so on. On privatisation, the group will be without a home. One can understand the concern felt by the ISG's 750 employees, because the Government are placing their jobs on the block by transferring the group to a new owner and leaving it without a headquarters. I understand that the Marquis of Bute's legatees have promised to be reasonable and will not insist from day one of privatisation that the group will have to move out of Cathays park, but then it will be down to rather one-sided negotiation with Cardiff property developers if the company is to find a new home. If the negotiations turn sticky, there may be cause to worry about the future employment of those concerned, who may be forced to move from the area that has been their home since 1976.
  I appeal to the Government to be as non-dogmatic as it is within their philosophical capabilities to be. They may find good reason for abandoning the Bill. They do not

  241
  have to stick to it for the sake of the memory of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, never mind scoring brownie points with the Adam Smith Institute. Instead, they should look after their 750 civil servants in Cardiff, and look after UK plc.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: I shall be as brief as possible, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) may have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I confess that I am standing here tonight partly because of the arm-twisting of my Whip a few hours ago, when he approached me about speaking in this debate.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is on firmer ground when he asks my hon. Friend the Minister to address the practical questions and the difficulties that must be overcome in physically moving the group out of its existing offices in Cardiff and transferring the business to a new owner, than when he spoke of Labour's interventionist, nationalising philosophy of the 1960s and 1970s.
  The Bill is a small but precise step forward in the programme of rolling back state control—and a very welcome step it is. I hope that it gives a clear message to both Labour and the British people—that, even though there has been a change of leadership in our party, there has been no diminution or watering down of our clear intention to continue implementing the Conservative principle of denationalisation for the future health of our people and economy.
  Tonight, we have heard a lot about the ECGD's deficit, although I believe that most of it is within the projects group and not the ISG. However, I wish to dwell upon ISG and its denationalisation. Within the European Community, it is illegal to subsidise exports from one member state to another. Given that 50 per cent. of the ISG's work is within the Community, and that it is part of an organisation which is clearly used to subsidise exports, it is quite evident that action has to be taken. The keenest and most appropriate method is to transfer the ISG into the private sector, which is what the Bill seeks to do. It also seeks to improve the cost-effectiveness of the projects group, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned.
  Within the next few years, the European insurance marketplace will be in a considerable state of flux, and the Bill gives the ISG the commercial flexibility required to operate within that marketplace. Bureaucratic sloth, which is inevitable in any nationalised operation, will be replaced by competitiveness and commercial awareness. Denationalisation of ISG will inevitably give that edge to its entire operation. The Bill carries out the fundamental recommendations of the Kemp report, which is an objective and non-doctrinaire assessment of the requirements.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said, denationalisation is a better way to describe what we are doing than privatisation, and I shall summarise the main reasons why I think that it is important for us to proceed with it.
  There will be increased competition in the credit insurance marketplace within the European Community. The marketplace will be framed by national law and by
  242
  directives from the European Commission, which will preclude state-subsidised or state-owned companies from having access to markets in other member states. Therefore, the first reason is that the commercial environment is changing, due to our membership of the European Community and to the single market, and the Bill reflects that changing environment and will allow ISG to compete within it.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that, although there may be practical problems because of the changes, it is far better to have those problems than to lose large numbers of jobs in Cardiff because the ISG in its present state would not be able to gain access to the European marketplace as a result of those changes.
  A private company, rather than a publicly owned body, will be able to refine its product range, and will have more commercial freedom. For example, it may want to combine domestic and export credit insurance, without subsidy from the taxpayer. In other words, the products that it offers the marketplace within which it will have to operate will be far more commercially competitive.
  ISG will need to be non-subsidised if it is to be effective within the European Community, and the services that it offers must be competitive. The continuation of state subsidy would hamper ISG in the modern European marketplace. Increasingly, multinationals will want one-stop shopping when buying insurance in the European Community, and the Bill will enable the ISG to diversify the services that it offers multinational operators within the Community. The ISG will not be able to do that if this change is not made.
  Continual state backing is probably illegal, as I said earlier in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), whether it is overt state control, as in Britain today, or the more covert arrangements developed in France, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned. Whether they are overt now, or covert during the next few years, such arrangements are illegal under article 92 of the treaty of Rome. Given the Opposition's uproar when there was that little controversy last year about the sale of Rover—the Opposition were very annoyed then about the use of injudicious state subsidy in Britain in the motor industry—it is interesting that Opposition Members now defend French actions in this part of the insurance industry.
  Another good reason for denationalising ISG is that it is absolutely right to free it from the interference of politicians and civil servants. Given his experience in the civil service and the world at large, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has not observed that there is an overwhelming temptation for bureaucrats, civil servants and politicians to meddle when they have the opportunity. The best way to prevent that is to ensure that the service is offered by the commercial world, under private ownership.
  I believe that the Bill will enable the ISG to provide a better service for exporters, especially small firms. I welcome the mechanism whereby the ISG will be transferred to the private sector—competitive tender—and also the criteria to be applied to that mechanism. Let me say in conclusion—for I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) wishes to speak—that the Bill is good for the ISG; good for the employees, as it will be far more likely to guarantee employment than the present system; good for exporters;

  243
  and good for the taxpayer. It is, however, bad for the Labour party, which is still wedded to the philosophies of the interventionist 1960s and 1970s, which tonight's debate has exposed for what they are.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The repetition by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) of the word "good" does not make good a had piece of legislation.
  This has been an interesting debate, in which a number of constructive speeches from both sides of the House have exposed the weakness of the Government's case. The Opposition have maintained from the outset that the Bill is dogmatic and pointless. It will weaken the Government's support for private enterprise and do yet more damage to the export trade that is so important to Britain's economic future. Today's debate has shown that we are right. The Minister should listen to the voices of his hon. Friends as well as those of Opposition Members, and withdraw the Bill.
  Our plea is simple—protect exports. The Cardiff and ISG operations are not merely a concentration of staff—which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I value, because we see it operating in our city and our constituencies, and especially in the constituency of the Trappist hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). This is a concentration of staff with expertise, whose work has won respect and who have given tremendous support to manufacturers throughout the United Kingdom.
  I accuse the Government of a lack of pride in the achievements of an important public enterprise—a lack of pride in the contribution made by an arm of Government in helping the private sector, and small businesses in particular. The Government, indeed, show a certain lack of patriotism, allied to the lack of understanding of Europe that is patent in their approach.
  Perhaps we should not be too surprised when we consider where the Bill started its life. Its birthplace was the Department of Trade and Industry, where the inner policy-making sanctums were presided over by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). South Wales Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and myself—were appalled when the decision leaked out in a written answer. Some of us went to see the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, and asked him why he was taking such action. He replied, "Well, we may be forced to do it anyway." We asked, "What action by the European Commission forces the panic?" The response was a toss of the head; we received no answer.
  We pointed out that, in his previous post at the Department of the Environment, the right hon. Gentleman had had a reputation for refusing to listen to Europe—not only in regard to law and regulations: he had had to be dragged to the door of the European Court before showing the slightest twitch of interest or intention in relation to environmental and water industry issues, let alone action. We received no answer that day to our question, and have received no answer since. No evidence has been produced to support the Government's decision. It is an example of appalling misjudgment to promote a
  244
  measure to undermine Britain's export drive, and an example of even worse judgment to press on when the case has been blown apart and everyone is against it.
  The debate has produced a number of red herrings—not least from the hon. Member for Thurrock, who suggested that the ISG would be unable to compete in the European marketplace. It would be able to do so if the Government showed the necessary flexibility, and considered the options recommended in the Kemp report instead of being mesmerised by their own single solution. One of the problems that confront us now is the dead hand of the Treasury, which is clearly heavier than ever under the present Prime Minister.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) offered us a curious argument which ignored the alternatives set out in the Kemp report. He argued that the existence of European regulations which have nothing to do with this Bill and nothing to do with any part of the ECGD somehow leads to an imperative for the Government to take action in this piece of legislation. This is complete nonsense. The Government's most enthusiastic supporters have been reduced to gobbledygook in this debate in trying to defend Government.
  We have had the whole question of the EC. This was dealt with by Mr. Kemp in his report. I would point the Minister to the paragraph on page 52 when, having considered the European legislation and regulations, he points out that the Government have not accepted the argument that the arrangements gave unfair advantage to the exporters using their national schemes compared with exporters in other member states. There would thus, he said,
  "appear to be strong grounds for arguing that the Commission has de facto given its approval to state support for export credit agencies as at present practised by member states, with the exception of those activities that have been specifically declared unacceptable under the Treaty."
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and his straight man, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), both of whom have fled the Chamber, exposed the weakness of the Government's case, because, when they were asked to point to regulations, they could point to none, not even draft regulations, on the issues covered by the Bill. The best that they could do was to refer to article 92, signed in 1957, and it is clear that there is no pressure from Europe for us to move towards exposing our export industry. The EC is being used by the Government as a scapegoat for this piece of indefensible legislation.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is there not the non-life directive which means that the European marketplace is now open for competition in credit insurance, among other forms of insurance, throughout the European Community? Is there not therefore a necessity at least to provide some new structure for ECGD because Europe will be the home market? Does not this measure give us an excellent opportunity to bring about that restructuring?
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) follows his colleagues by using a piece of EC legislation which has no relevence to this Bill to try to give it some sort of relevance in defence of the Government. I admire his persistence in doing that, but I can neither admire nor respect his logic. There is no logic in his argument.
  Not only is there no regulation to which the Government can point, but, even if new regulations or

  245
  legislation were introduced in the EC, ample time—at least two or three years—would be allowed for credit insurers to change to the extent necessary. There is therefore no hurry.
  Even more helpfully than other colleagues, the hon. Member for Epping asked the House the simple question: does the Bill help or hinder exporters? It is a simple question and it has two simple answers: it will not help and it will hinder. He had to call in aid a curious logic that led him into home affairs and an anonymous quotation in order to make the accusation that the Opposition are ineffective on this issue. I remind the House that it is the Government who refuse to look at any option but one at the present time.
  I would also remind the House that we have reason to be concerned about the future. The Treasury will make an input to the review of ECGD in 1992–93, and it is bound then to press its preference for the zero option. The Minister must state categorically how long the Government will continue the support which was promised at the beginning of this debate. When introducing the Bill, the Minister failed to answer that question put to him very simply indeed: how long? It must be answered when he winds up, or we shall know that the answer to "how long" is "too short".
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge went on to quote today's Financial Times. Selectively he quoted the most extreme paragraph of the only article, while these matters have been under debate anywhere in the press, to show any real favour to the Government's line—and even that article had to admit, rather weakly, that
  "privatisation has not yet been forced on the government by the European Commission. Simply changing the ECGD's charter might allow it scope to compete in the single market."
  So even that article—the one supporter of the Government's curious approach—condemns the very case that a few hon. Members, a minority of hon. Members, on the Government Benches have sought to sustain today.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Teignbridge has read other articles in the Financial Times. Did he see, for instance, the article on 10 January with the headline:
  "Exporters fear fresh drain on their credit."
  A sub-heading read:
  "Resentment at the way British companies are denied the support enjoyed by continental rivals has prompted an unlikely alliance between City, industry and Labour."
  That is not an unlikely composition, because the City and industry are becoming increasingly aware of the solid and responsible way in which Labour's team is dealing with these matters, which is leading them to an increasing consensus with Labour on the importance of having a Labour Government to deal properly with these issues.
  I will cite two aspects of that article in the Financial Times. It quotes the London Chamber of Trade as saying:
  "It is imperative that the existing level of service to exporters from Cardiff, both in terms of the markets covered and the credit period available, should not be diminished."
  Could we be clearer than that? The article also said:
  "Other European governments show no sign of winding down this kind of government support, but Whitehall has decreed that after a three-year transition period it will be withdrawn in the UK.
  The government line that private reinsurers will quickly step in to fill the gap is hotly disputed in the marketplace, where withdrawal of support is seen as unilateral export disarmament. Adding to the exporters' alarm is the declining appetite for political risk reinsurance which the Gulf crisis has inspired in the Lloyd's market."
  246
  It is clear that the arguments of my hon. Friends, reinforced by gentle queries from Government Back Benchers, are correct, and that the case against the Bill is overwhelming.
  The Financial Times article pointed out that the service of ISG in Cardiff is particularly valued by exporters in high risk countries. No hon. Member would deny that there are too many high risk areas in the world in which we have to compete if Britain's export record is to be restored from the dismal levels to which it has sunk under the Governnment. The Financial Times accurately reflects the views of the Labour party, of those who work in the ECGD and of exporters in the United Kingdom.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), in a characteristically thoughtful contribution, referred to the need for regional networks. Of course, the ISG has that network and a strong contact with all parts of the United Kingdom. Those of us who have battled locally against the Government's neglect of the regions will endorse his remarks wholeheartedly.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) gave a series of warnings to the Minister and approached the question of competition within Europe in a sober and considered manner, much in contrast with the confidence shown outwardly by Ministers. He rightly identified the insistence of Ministers on not answering questions as highly suspicious. I suspect that their refusal to answer questions is more in their nature than in the brief. I do not think that it is fair to blame the civil servants. It is Ministers who have been refusing to answer straight questions put to them, not only today but in written questions, in discussions and in private meetings ever since the privatisation measure was first considered.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who represents a part of Wales with relatively small industry and where Government help and support are much needed, did an excellent demolition job on the Government's case. Like many of us, he wants to know why the Government are responding to EC signals which are as covert as a smuggler's lamp, but from Back Benchers and Government alike, answer comes there none.
  I state it simply: Europe has not pressed the Government to change in the way set out in the Bill. State-supported operations, such as those in France, have not fallen foul of European law or regulations. Time and again in parliamentary questions, Ministers have been offered opportunities to provide evidence for their claim that Europe is pushing us in that direction, but they have been no more successful than the hon. and motley Member for Teignbridge in producing the faintest iota of fact to back that claim. I shall be most surprised if the Minister, in his reply, does more than skirt around that attitude. It is a simple question. Let him, if he can, give us a simple answer.
  The Minister, intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), asked what we would say if the Government failed to take action in good time. If they did that we would say that they were wrong, neglectful and stupid, but it is not what is happening with this Bill. I must again insist that Ministers, encouraged by Back Benchers of an extreme disposition, are jumping like lemmings when no one with any interest in encouraging exports is pushing them to take the actions outlined in this Bill.

  247
  It is a matter of fact that almost 80 per cent. of the insurance cover with existing customers is with customers having a turnover below £1 million a year. That is an extremely important part of our export industry. I draw the House's attention to the large number of jobs created in recent years—often not acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—through joint enterprises, work by local authorities, joint enterprises with private industry, such as the Cardiff and Vale enterprise in my own constituency, to build up the economy and help people start up in business, stay in business and expand. In the last two years, ECGD has been constrained by the Government to make swingeing increases in the premium rates it charges to businesses with £1 million turnover or less. That situation will be much worse after privatisation and the Government are wrong to place those businesses and the business that they bring to this country at risk.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) expressed concern that over 70 per cent. of businesses do not currently export. He was right to express that concern. The Minister's response that it would be useful for those firms to insure with one body is mischievous nonsense. These are just the types of businesses which need the security and confidence that come from a Government-backed institution and need an efficient public service to support them in their intitiatives and provide them with fresh encouragement to that end.
  Mr. Sainsbury: In his very categorical statement the hon. Gentleman has said there would be, definitely, swingeing increases in premiums for small businesses. He says that small businesses have to have Government-backed insurance. Does that apply to all their other insurances? Can he produce facts to justify those allegations?
  Mr. Michael: I can certainly state categorically, as I did, that there have been swingeing increases for small businesses which insure through ECGD. We know from the views of private industry, which have been expressed on the business of reinsurance, that this is an unpopular area which they would not take on board without increases in the insurance. That is far less of a surmise than the load of waffle that we have had from the Government Benches, both ministerially and from Back Benchers, since the beginning of this debate. If the Minister is so keen to be challenging on this issue, let him answer the simple question that I have asked him again and again: where is the evidence of EC regulations that bring about the requirement for any change? I see that he does not wish to.
  In a written answer last week, the Secretary of State stated two principles. He said:
  "The Government continue to attach great importance to United Kingdom project and capital goods exports and to maintaining a viable and stable framework of ECGD support."
  Secondly, he said:
  "the international debt crisis, and more recently the events in the Gulf, have shown the risks which are assumed by ECGD to be potentially very significant." [Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 359.]
  That is important. The problem is that the second one is so important that it is overriding the first one in the Government's mind, not because they want to help industry but because they are worried about the financial commitment involved in giving support to private
  248
  industry. I regret that the Ministers seem to have lost their battle with the Treasury in seeking to balance, those priorities.
  I point again to the confirmation in the Kemp report that there is no pressure from the United Kingdom exporting community or from the commercial sector generally for this changing status in any part of ECGD. The Kemp report also showed that the private sector does not and cannot provide services equivalent to those currently provided by that department.
  Kemp also said—this is directly relevant to the question that the Minister asked me a moment ago:
  "It was also stated frankly by some brokers that small policy holders, were not commercially interesting to them and that there was no prospect of the private sector providing the counselling and service that such policy holders received at present through the ECGD regional organisations."
  Not only will there be increases in premiums over and above those forced by the Government's dogma, but the service will deteriorate.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West rightly challenged the Government's view that the private sector is waiting in the wings to take the risk. He was equally right to discuss the partial view that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood put forward. No sound business case exists for this privatisation. The decision to privatise is purely political. We accept that there would be increased competition for ISG services but consider that it would best be met by extending the scope of ECGD's activities so that it could insure exports from other EC countries and possibly United Kingdom domestic trade.
  If implemented, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, the privatisation of the ISG would directly affect more than 600 civil servants based in Cardiff and the regional network. At this stage, the proposal is for transfer to the Government company to be voluntary, but the most likely outcome, as he rightly said, is that insufficient staff will volunteer and coercion will prove necessary. Their transfer would be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which merely impose the offer by a purchaser of an overall employment package which is no worse than that available in the civil service. All that that means is that those conditions apply on day one. There is no guarantee for employees on day two.
  Why break up an efficient and successful operation? Why remove the conditions and security that employees have? Why attack morale in a department and an operation important to our national interest? Those questions must be answered, but have not been answered in this debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West made a modest plea for staff in Cardiff. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) offered a promise, which he asked the Minister to reinforce, that staff conditions will not be adversely affected by the change. I share his hope that the Minister will clear that up but, even better, we shall hold the hon. Member for Nottingham, South to his promise when we consider these issues in Committee and seek to improve the protection of staff. There is no change on day one, but change on day two and thereafter offers no guarantee of hope for the future of those staff.
  The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) emphasised that he was not a whingeing exporter and underlined the importance of backing our

  249
  exporters. In effect, he agreed that there is no evidence of competitor countries rushing in the same lemming-like way to undermine their industrial capacity to export.
  We know that there has been a renewed wrangle in Government in recent weeks, with the Chancellor wanting a clear break with no future commitment for finance from the Government on activities with which competitor countries are helped by their Governments. We know that small exporters are angry that the Government propose to hand political risk insurance to the private sector, making it less likely that United Kingdom manufacturers will be able to get protection for contracts where there is political instability. It is difficult to imagine circumstances which more graphically illustrate the importance of political risk insurance than the situation today, when our country is at war and when the political situation in eastern Europe and many other parts of the world offer a major challenge to our economy.
  I highlight the comments of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the autumn statement. It underlined again and again the importance of exports to our economy. Paragraph 22 of its report stated:
  "Exporting may become increasingly difficult. An economic recovery based on increasing the growth of exports in the second half of 1991 is therefore far from assured. If the United Kingdom's export performance should falter, in the absence of some offsetting support from other components of domestic demand, the forecast for resumption of non-oil economic growth will not be achieved."
  That is put at risk by the venture on which the Government are foolishly embarking. They were warned by the Select Committee that the outlook for the next year is, if anything, even more uncertain, with the consequence that potential errors could be greater than those implied by the average of past errors. We appeal to the Minister not to compound those errors by pressing ahead with this legislation.
  We ask the Minister to defend British interests. He must surely accept the progression of events which will be inevitable once the Bill becomes an Act. He must accept that important issues need to be addressed. He must tell us how the Government will continue to meet their obligation to encourage United Kingdom trade once ECGD is privatised this year. Currently that is part of the work of ECGD. Has the Minister taken full cognisance of the recommendation of Ernst and Whinney in which it said that it
  "would not advocate the sale of ISG into the private sector in the absence of historical financial information. The absence of that information makes the raising of capital in the private market at best difficult at present, and could, in any case, significantly reduce the sale proceeds obtainable by Government for the business"?
  That was a warning given by Ernst and Whinney. The Government have not responded by providing the House or those who are anxious about the future of ISG and our export industry with the financial facts. I suspect that that failure will be compounded by the Minister failing to give an answer today.
  I urge the Minister to accept that, if he fails to defend British interests as we seek—especially in view of the Treasury's intransigence—it will be only a matter of time before decisions are taken on purely financial grounds and no attention is paid to public policy or national interest. Then it will be only a matter of time before overseas ownership dilutes still further the increasingly tenuous link
  250
  between our national interest and our export trade. It will then be only a matter of time before the pressures of commercial logic squeeze out trade which involves risk but is important to our national economy. It will be only a matter of time before jobs become less secure, high-quality senior staff in the ISG move elsewhere, conditions of work deteriorate and an important national asset is wasted.
  Like the leech in the middle ages, the Government's cure is more painful than the condition that they seek to cure. The reasons put forward sound remarkably similar. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood suggested that ECGD was not dying but going to another place. That sounds mealy-mouthed. Misplaced faith is the main characteristic of the No Turning Back group, a breed which seems to be a curious cross between a lemming and a rottweiler.
  I urge the Government to accept that privatisation is a high-risk strategy. It is a sobering thought, but it is a fact, that if the insurance services group had been privatised two or three years ago, it could have been made insolvent purely as a result of the stock market crash of October 1987.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said that industry wants a Government who care about its difficulties and about exports. He is right. We need a Government who want a fresh strength in British industry and who care about our manufacturing base and our need for future success in export trade. For that, and for a determination to return to common sense on the issues debated today, British exporters will have to wait for a Labour Government. The Opposition will vote against this ill-considered and short-sighted legislation.
  9.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): We have had an interesting debate on this important legislation. Several points were raised and I shall try in the time available to answer the main questions. I shall reply in writing to any points that I cannot answer because of time constraints.
  I apologise if I cannot reply to everything that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said in his machine-gun delivery. I am sorry that he thinks that I am a cross between a lemming and a rottweiler. I like to think that I am rather a gentle sort. But I shall disappoint him in one respect. Contrary to his suggestion, I have not decided at this stage to withdraw the Bill. I have made that decision for good reasons.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said—he has apologised for the fact that urgent business elsewhere has unfortunately taken him away from the closing speeches—we all have a common aim. If we disagree on everything else in the debate, I hope that we can agree that our aim is to improve the services to our exporters. That is the key point in the debate. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that our aim is simply to speed up the response rate and efficiency of ECGD.
  In closing the debate, I should first make absolutely clear what the Government propose to privatise and why we believe it to be necessary. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade explained, ECGD's operations fall into two distinct categories. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) emphasised

  251
  that distinction. First, there is the insurance of project exports, such as aircraft, process plant and construction projects, involving credit terms of a least five years and often as long as 10 years. Secondly, there is the insurance of mainstream exports—anything from confectionery to cars—where credit risks of not more than six months need to be insured.
  The first category of business, averaging more than £2 billion of exports each year, is handled by ECGD's project group based in London. Let me assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) that the Bill will not affect in any way ECGD's support for project exports. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that there is no wish among Treasury Ministers to weaken ECGD's contribution to the support of project exports.
  Support for such business requires ECGD to underwrite large value payment risks, usually in developing countries, which can persist for as long as 20 years. Clearly, that requires some extremely difficult judgments to be made about the future. There is obviously a risk that, despite using the best information and best efforts to arrive at a right decision, events sometimes do not turn out as well as anticipated and ECGD has to face a claim.
  Of course we want to support our exporters, contrary to what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) suggested in her opening speech. No one involved in the financing of international trade predicted that we would have a debt crisis as severe as that which arose in the early 1980s. ECGD shared that experience, and the results have shown up in the large deficits that have emerged in its financial results during the past few years.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that privatisation has nothing to do with ECGD's deficit, which is due entirely to the project business.
  Dr. Hampson: Is it not fair to say that ECGD has done considerably less badly than most of our competitor countries' systems?
  Mr. Leigh: Yes, it is fair to say that. Clearly, we are in a difficult position, a point that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West made most powerfully in his speech. The aim of the system that we are introducing is to address a problem that undoubtedly needs solving.
  The experience of the debt crisis in the world prompted the initiative that resulted in the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last week of the introduction of the portfolio management system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade dealt with that in some detail in his opening speech.
  I accept that the portfolio management system contains some elements that our exporters would prefer not to see, which is unremarkable. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said, ECGD's support for project exports has, in recent years, proved to be an expensive business for the taxpayer, largely as a result of the debt crisis. However, by no stretch of the imagination can our policy response in the face of the mounting cost of that support be characterised, as some have tried to do in the debate—particularly the hon. Member for Gateshead, East—as its effective withdrawal. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made that clear today.
  252
  We have not withdrawn support, because we recognise that, without it, our exporters' prospects of winning business in the face of fierce international competition would be seriously damaged. But we also recognise that, even if others should want to do that, there is no point in supporting exports that stand little chance of being paid for—a point made in the Financial Times article today. It is all a question of trying to draw a sensible balance that recognises not only the competitive needs of exporters but also the risks of the taxpayer. PMS is simply the risk-analysis framework that helps us in that task. There is nothing sinister about it. It does not take decisions for us; that difficult task will quite properly rest with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the understanding of the ECGD itself is that premium rates in the United Kingdom are higher than those of major overseas competitors?
  Mr. Leigh: Rates vary from market to market, but I can confirm that, on average, United Kingdom rates are high. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that one advantage of PMS is that it will result in higher risks requiring higher premiums, and in lower risks requiring lower premiums. That seems to be entirely sensible. My hon. Friend, in his contribution, raised some very interesting questions. I hope that he will accept that, given the debt crisis, we had to introduce PMS for the sake of the taxpayer as well as of the exporter.
  The first fruits of PMS have been to demonstrate, first, the risk posed for the ECGD scheme of its being unduly exposed on high-risk markets and, secondly, the extent to which its current premium rates are not sufficiently matched to the risk. In response to the latter point, the ECGD will be increasing its rates on the higher-risk markets. Overall, its premium income is expected to rise by about 10 per cent. This must be seen as a minimum response to the problem, and to represent it as an unnecessary or serious blow to our exporters' competitiveness is both to mislead and to exaggerate.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I have been listening carefully to the Minister's reply. Can he assure the House and the large textile companies, particularly those in Yorkshire, that what the Government are proposing will not adversely affect the ability of those companies to export throughout the world?
  Mr. Leigh: Textile exports will be covered by Insurance Services, but I have noted my hon. Friend's question.
  I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West that there is no question of short-termism, that premium rate subsidies will be eliminated only on the basis of multilateral international agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said that we must not go down the road of unilateralism. We have no intention of so doing.
  I should like to deal now with individual markets. Decisions on the volume of ECGD cover on individual markets are both more difficult and more important. Clearly, given recent experience, it would be quite irresponsible of the Government not to adopt a prudent and disciplined approach to arriving at these judgments. However, this does not mean that, on the more difficult markets, cover will be withdrawn. I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West,

  253
  who also raised the point. What it does mean is that we shall need to look more carefully at the balance between national interest and risk.
  The starting point will obviously be a wish on the part of the Government to help our exporters to win worthwhile export contracts. The constraint will be the assessment of the financial risk in doing so. There will be extremely difficult judgments to make, but we are confident that the result will be ECGD's continuing to give our exporters the support they need to compete successfully for overseas projects that represent a not unreasonable credit risk.
  The suggestion that the Government are not committed to support for project exports is simply not borne out by the facts. The suggestion that more could be done and that PMS should be abandoned is beguiling and may win friends in some quarters, but it is an irresponsible denial of the hard lessons of the recent past and the debt burden that we face. I believe that the difficult decisions we have taken represent the only way forward and a good deal for our exporters.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend knows that successive Governments have come under enormous pressure from contractors and others engaged in projects overseas for support from the taxpayer—from ECGD—on account of the fact that certain countries do not represent a good long-term risk for the contractors. Is it not the case that the Government, throughout their lifetime, have solidly demonstrated their maximum support for industry—particularly through the aid and trade contingency provision when exporters claim that they are up against unfair competition, especially from the French? This provision was designed by the Government to ensure that exporters would be able to go out and win contracts.
  Mr. Leigh: I am glad that my hon. Friend for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who is a banker and knows about these things, has had an opportunity to make the point that he has been waiting to make all day.
  By contrast, the second category of the ECGD's business—exports on short-term credit totalling some £14 billion each year handled by the insurance services group in Cardiff—presents underwriting risks that can be managed much more effectively, and where the meeting of a given financial objective is much more achievable. Hundreds of thousands of export transactions are involved each year and about 75 per cent. of this business concerns commercial risks in the EC and OECD countries. It is already run by ECGD as a commercial activity and without Government subsidy. Even if there were not overriding reasons to want to change its current status, it would be a strong candidate for privatisation.
  I emphasise that the prime motivation for privatisation arose from an assessment in an expert and independent review commissioned in 1988 by the then Secretary of State, and known as the Kemp report, which has been referred to several times. It concluded that, if Insurance Services were to be able to continue to provide our exporters with the service they need, it simply had to go through a change of status.
  I make it clear, in response to a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), that,
  254
  according to the Kemp report, a financial track record should be established. This track record can be created retrospectively out of Insurance Services' past activities. This is being done so that investors will immediately have relevant information. Therefore, early privatisation is both possible and desirable for that reason.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade referred to the competitive and legal challenges confronting Insurance Services and the risk that, without a change of status, these challenges could deprive the ECGD of the best 75 per cent. of its business. It would clearly be a denial of the Government's responsibility both to our exporters and to the taxpayer to allow a situation to develop where the short-term business of this fine organisation was reduced to the status of an insurer of last resort, focusing only on exports to the developing countries.
  I must repeat that these are the considerations that have led us to the conclusion that privatisation is essential and that maintaining the status quo is simply not an option. The other benefits that we can expect to flow from privatisation in terms of greater flexibility are icing on the cake. I shall deal now with some more specific issues. Some have played down the competitive pressures to which the insurance services business is subject. They have also challenged the Government's view that, even if it were a credible option on other grounds, which it is not, maintaining the status quo for the insurance services business will, in due course, become an option that will face serious legal challenge from Brussels.
  The competitive challenge was mentioned in particular by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. We know, although some Opposition Members seem not to accept this, that competition is vital, and we cannot pretend that it does not exist. That is a luxury in which business managers cannot afford to indulge, and they certainly do not wait until they have lost their best customers before deciding that, yes, they do have a bit of a competitive problem about which they should do something. I accept that, at present, Insurance Services is the dominant supplier of short-term export credit insurance in the United Kingdom, but only a few years ago it enjoyed a virtual monopoly. This process of greater competition can only accelerate as the single market becomes a reality.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. New entrants from the continental and American markets are already in the market in the United Kingdom and the ECGD no longer enjoys a monopoly. It has 70 per cent. of the market, and is under threat. Therefore, the Bill will provide the ECGD with an opportunity to restructure so that it can meet the challenge.
  Mr. Leigh: That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend knows about the competitive environment in which the ECGD exists, and is right to emphasise that point. British companies will cease for credit insurance purposes to compartmentalise their business into domestic, EC and OECD work. They will see, indeed are seeing, the advantages of a single insurance policy covering all their needs. They will be able to look at a wider range of insurers—companies throughout Europe which have been freed from the insurance directive to market their services throughout the community.
  Where will Insurance Services be in all this if we do not change its status? Almost certainly, it will be struggling to maintain market share against a tide of new competition

  255
  with one hand tied behind its back. This would be disastrous for the business, its customers—our exporters—the staff and the taxpayer. A privatised insurance service will be able to compete fairly and equally.
  The legal challenge was lightly dismissed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). Although the Kemp report was written some years ago, increasing attention is being paid in Brussels to the problems associated with the single market and state subsidy of export insurance. We recognise that this work is being carried out. It is right to address that problem and to act in good time.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said most clearly, the treaty of Rome says all that is needed on the subject. Where state involvement distorts competition, article 92 makes it clear that this would represent state aid, which is incompatible with the Common Market.
  Ms. Quin: I have article 92 in front of me. There are several exceptions in the article, which makes it quite clear that aid can be granted in specific areas and areas which can be agreed at any point by the European Council of Ministers. Would the Minister also accept that there is a tremendous variety of levels of state aid given in the European Community? In fact, both Germany and Italy give more than we do, and those aids are deemed compatible with the Common Market. Therefore, to rely on article 92, as the Minister and his hon. Friends have done, is a delusion in this case.
  Mr. Leigh: It is not a delusion. If the hon. Lady reads article 92, she will see that those exceptions do not apply to exports to EC and OECD countries. Therefore, her point does not apply. There is almost universal recognition within the relevant expert working group in Brussels that much short-term export credit insurance is an area of genuine competition between private sector and state insurers, and that the latter enjoy advantages which make for unfair competition under the treaty of Rome. Discussion is centering on how to make the playing field level, but while the debate goes on, virtually all EC Governments are considering steps to distance their official agencies from the state as far as cover for short term export credits is concerned.
  Examples were quoted, particularly by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) about what is happening in other European countries. In Germany and in the Netherlands, the structure which we are trying to achieve, involving a private company handling short-term business but benefiting from Government backing in respect of the more difficult risks, already exists. In France, state reinsurance of the bulk of short-term political risks has been transferred to the commercial reinsurance market.
  Denmark is considering the privatisation of its official agency. Portugal is moving partially to privatise its agency, and we know that the Belgians are reviewing the status of theirs. If that is not a picture of our competitors in the EC taking action to address his problem, I do not know what is. I do not believe that we could accept a halfway house. It is dangerously misleading to suggest that there is some safer, no-change haven which the Government are deliberately trying to ignore.
  Some myths have been perpetrated in this debate. First of all, let me deal with exporters. At every stage in the process culminating in this Bill, there has been
  256
  overwhelming endorsement by all interested parties of the Government's analysis of the threats confronting insurance services.
  Contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, the response has been overwhelming. I hope that exporters listen to the facts and are reassured. I cannot emphasise enough that the motivation behind the exercise has all along been a desire on the Government's part to ensure that the ECGD was placed in the best position to meet exporters' needs after 1992.
  The truth about the alleged lack of interest is that some parts of the press, particularly The Guardian, have speculated and got it badly wrong. The fact is that serious interest has been and continues to be shown—[Interruption.] It is a pity that Opposition Members are not listening. Serious interest has been and continues to be shown in buying the business on the part of a good number of institutions from a variety of backgrounds. That should hardly be a surprise, given the expertise and experience of the business which is on offer. It is more surprising that the more pessimistic scenario should be given any credibility. Perhaps it suited the book of those opposed to privatisation to peddle such myths.
  On staff implications, I pay particular attention to the comments made by the hon. Members for Warrington, North, for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). First, I emphasise the importance that the Government attach to maintaining the commitment and skills of the staff concerned. That is vital for the company's future success. The new owners will readily understand that when offering the transferring staff terms and conditions of employment to replace those that they currently enjoy in the civil service.
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I still have some points to make, so I must continue.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked for certain assurances.
  To the extent that the Government can do so through the Bill and other arrangements, they will give staff the reassurance that their terms and conditions would be at least as good as their present ones. Once a final package has been negotiated with the new owners—
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to have the assurance that I am now giving to the staff of the ECGD.
  Once the final package has been negotiated with the new owners, the staff will be given a clear month in which to assess it and to state their final preferences as to whether they wish to join the new company or to remain in the civil service. It has throughout been the Government's intention that the eventual allocation of staff to the company and the ECGD should reflect the final preferences—I emphasise those words—expressed by staff, where that is consistent with the business needs of the new organisation.
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No.
  In this debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I have succeeded in showing that the impetus for the measure has not been imposed from above as a matter of

  257
  ideology. It has come up from below, to meet the competitive challenge facing the industry and because of the legal position facing our exporters.
  During the past 10 years, the Government have transformed the economic climate for our exporters. We in this Department are determined to ensure that the demands of society are met by the business environment. We have made that business environment possible by cutting taxes, by privatisation measures and by deregulation.
  Contrary to what has been explained and claimed in the debate by Opposition Members, there has been an enormous interest in the privatisation measure. We must not disappoint those people who are interested in buying what will be a successful first-rate company and a major private institution standing up for Britain and for our exporters.
  The Labour party's do-nothing approach is typical, but it ignores the real world. It simply will not wash. It ignores the legal and competitive challenge facing the industry. We are used to the Labour party doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, but it seems to be suggesting today that we should be doing the wrong thing for no reason at all.
  The Government are determined to create a business environment in a changing export world where our exporters are fully supported. We intend to see the Bill through to its conclusion, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 223.

  Division No. 43]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butterfill, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Amos, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifte)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eggar, Tim

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Evennett, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fallon, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brazier, Julian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

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

  Fry, Peter

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gale, Roger

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  258

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hague, William

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Harris, David

  Mudd, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Raff an, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knowles, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Knox, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lang, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sims, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  259

  Stevens, Lewis

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, Sir John

  Watts, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trippier, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Walden, George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, Bob

  Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alton, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alistair

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Beggs, Roy

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Bellotti, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

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

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benton, Joseph

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Blair, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyes, Roland

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Galloway, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Buckley, George J.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carlile, Alex (Monf'g)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clay, Bob

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Crowther, Stan

  Hinchliffe, David

  260

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howells, Geraint

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Illsley, Eric

  Redmond, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Robertson, George

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rogers, Allan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lambie, David

  Rooney, Terence

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McKelvey, William

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McLeish, Henry

  Snape, Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meacher, Michael

  Trimble, David

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wilson, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Nellist, Dave

  Worthington, Tony

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Hara, Edward

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Patchett, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Just a moment—I am on my feet.

Export and Investment Guarantees Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments or defraying his administrative expenses under the Act and the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not paid out of money provided by Parliament which are required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling his liabilities under the Act, and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

10.13 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am sorry about the point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I had to get in, or the money resolution would have gone through on the nod, and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House would not like that. It is rather strange that the Government are making such a fuss over this Bill instead of renewing it, because every stage of the original Bill, the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978, which is mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum, went through on the nod on 13 June 1978. Where were the Tory Opposition in 1978, if such legislation is now so unnecessary tht it was allowed to go through without protest? The only difference that I can see is this: whereas we had an export surplus then, we now have a £20 billion deficit, and the Government are proposing to jettison an important component of assistance.
I hope that the Government will not be prejudiced in favour of the Bill, and the financial support for it granted under clauses 5 and 6, by the fact that, as recently as March 1989—unaware, apparently, of the true character of the Iraqi regime—they increased ECGD provision for Iraq from £175 million to £340 million. You will be surprised to learn, Mr. Speaker, that that was done shortly after the regime gassed the Kurds.
It is a bit startling that the Government should use money for that purpose. I hope that the privatisation provisions in clause 8 have not been brought about by prejudice as a result of political decisions in favour of the Iraqi regime that were made by the Government of which both Ministers were officers.
Mr. Nellist: Is my hon. Friend aware that the same thing happened on another occasion? In October 1988, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—now Secretary of State for Health—reported to the House that people known colloquially as "marsh Arabs", living in villages north of Basra—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the ECGD?
Mr. Nellist: I am explaining that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well, try and explain it to me.
Mr. Nellist: I am not making a point of order, Mr. Speaker; this is an intervention, and you would see its relevance if you allowed me to complete it.
Mr. Speaker: I am anxious to find out whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.
Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—without being challenged on the ground that he is out of order—has mentioned an occasion when a certain event in Iraq resulted in a reward: the doubling of trade credits by the Government, under ECGD provision. I was reminding him that a similar event took place in October 1988, when the present Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that thousands of people were being killed in Iraq. Nine days later, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was responsible for the Department that we are discussing tonight, increased trade credits to Iraq by another £440 million.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks might have been very relevant to the main debate, but the House is now debating the money resolution.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Before the Minister points out that I missed his opening speech, let me explain that I have been chairing the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and then attending the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and was therefore unable to listen to what he had to say. He may have given a comprehensive explanation of the position; when winding up, however, the Minister failed to do so, so it is fair for me to raise these points. I know that the Minister is anxious to provide an explanation.
What concerns me is the amount of money under clause 6, which limits our commitments in sterling to £35 million; this figure cannot be exceeded. In the case of commitments in foreign currency, special drawing rights must not exceed 15,000 million. I take it that the 15,000 million is in any specific currency that the Secretary of State may choose, because no currency is defined in the Bill. It would seem reasonable to do so. I hope that the Minister can give that explanation.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the changes at ECGD and the proposed privatisation are matters of concern to our exporters who seek Government assistance. As has been made clear during the debate, the premiums charged by ECGD are far from the lowest in the Common Market; they cannot therefore be regarded as state assistance and hence in breach of the treaty of Rome. On balance, the charges for the United Kingdom are generally higher than in other countries, so surely the ECGD cannot possibly be criticised as state assistance and therefore a distortion of competition under the lunatic treaty of Rome.
The Secretary of State is given powers under clause 6 to increase the limits of various subsections, and they are set out clearly in the Bill as being under affirmative order. In clause 15(3), the powers to make orders under clauses 5 or 6—that includes increases of money and so comes within the financial resolution—come in the form of an affirmative resolution. Everyone welcomes that, because it gives us the opportunity to debate the issue.
But there is another important part which is affected by the money resolution, because it relates to the costs to the Minister arising out of this Bill. Under clause 8, the Minister has the power to provide a scheme to transfer or delegate ECGD functions. This is the privatisation part.

263
I have looked at the legislation, because it uses rather strange language in clause 8: it apparently gives the Secretary of State power to issue certificates. The clause is written in such a way that it sounds as though it is a statutory instrument issued by the Minister, but it is not; it is a scheme to
"transfer to any person or persons such property, rights and liabilities as are specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme".
Do I take it from this that the Minister is being given power to produce a scheme without further reference to the House, because the provisions in clause 8 have the ring of delegated legislation-making powers? If that is the case, surely clause 8 should also be subject to clause 15(3). If I look at clause 15, however, I can find no reference to clause 8 of the Bill. In this question of delegated powers, it is very important that the Minister be accountable to the House and that, in a scheme like this, which gives the Minister power to hive off a perfectly proper, efficient and, in one part, profitable provision for our exporters—we have an enormous balance of payments deficit and need every possible assistance—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The war will make it worse.
Mr. Cryer—the Minister should come to the House and provide an account of the scheme, so that we can approve or reject it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out, our economic position will not be improved by this war, but rather made worse. That means an even more important obligation on the Minister, who is being given power under the motion to pay the costs of the scheme, and to bring the scheme back to the House for approval on an affirmative resolution. I hope that he will say that the point will be considered in Committee, and that he will accept that the House should have proper accountability, so that he does not do just what he wants with the money in the privatisation proposal.
10.25 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am sure that the House appreciates that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has had extremely important things to do in connection with the business of the House and the Committees to which he has referred. We share his regret that he could not be present for any of the proceedings on Second Reading of this important Bill. If he could have been present, in spite of his other commitments, I suspect that he would have found that many of the points that he has raised were answered in the debate. When he reads Hansard tomorrow with his usual care, I am sure that he will find that to be the position. If there remain any points that he feels have not been answered, I shall be happy to answer them.
Mr. Cryer: The Minister has been misinformed about my not being present for any part of the debate. That is not true. I was present for the latter part of the debate and, had there been time, I might have spoken earlier. I listened to the whole reply of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will accept that correction.
Mr. Sainsbury: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. lie missed an excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which he might have found helpful.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matters before us have no connection whatever with Iraq. The increases in clause 6 to which he referred follow normal procedure. Incidentally, I may point out to him that the amount involved is not £35 million but £35 billion, which is a fairly substantial sum. The clause follows the normal procedure.
These matters will be examined carefully in Committee. I hope that we may have the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's presence in Committee to ensure that they are so examined.
Question put and agreed to.

The Gulf
10.27 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During your careful reply to my request at 3.30 pm for an adjournment under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss the detonation and ignition of Kuwaiti oilfields by Iraq, you said that it would indeed be a serious matter if it could be shown to be true. Alas, it is only too true, as pictures have shown the Al Wafra oilfield blazing and billowing out the blackest of smoke.
The House might also expect some response to the tragic loss of a fifth Tornado and, most urgently, because it is self-evidently a matter of extreme urgency, to the attack on Tel Aviv tonight. The Leader of the House or another senior Minister may be able to outline what the Government's response will be.
The Leader of the House (Mr. John MacGregor): It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is premature to make a statement now. I am advised that there is no firm evidence to confirm media reports. I suggest that we make a judgment tomorrow, in the light of confirmed facts, as to whether a statement is justified.
It might be helpful if I add that we are obviously keen to keep the House fully informed. We have already amply demonstrated that. Equally, it is not realistic to expect a statement on every new incident in the Gulf as it occurs. It will be necessary to make judgments as and when the need arises to justify a specific statement. We can discuss that matter as appropriate through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that any points of order can arise out of that, but I will call Mr. Ewing.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has generously said that statements will be made as the occasion arises, but that the Government cannot make a statement on every incident. The attack on Tel Aviv is not just any incident. I do not need to spell out to the House or to those beyond the House the consequences which may flow from that attack. We could be overnight in the most catastrophic and serious position of all time. I hope that the House of Commons is not being denied a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary while at the same time they are holding press conferences outside. If that practice is adopted, in my judgment the House will wholly reject it.
Mr. George Galloway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the point. The entire world this evening is discussing the incredibly dramatic developments in this affair. There are flames from Tel Aviv to Saudi Arabia. There are dead people in the streets from Tel Aviv to Saudi Arabia. Why cannot the House of Commons hear from the Government their perception of what has happened, and debate it, as the whole world is doing this evening?
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the key point is that it is clear from statements by the Israeli ambassador to Britain that Israel reserves the right to respond to the attack undoubtedly made upon it in recent hours. It is clear also
266
that the British Government are making representations to the Israeli Government, presumably urging that they do not retaliate, because if they did this would be an extremely serious escalation of the war in the Gulf.
Secondly, surely, as this is a United Nations-authorised war, the Security Council should be in permanent session to consider—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps that is so, but it is not a matter for me on a point of order. I repeat what I said this afternoon, that these are very serious matters, but the whole House has heard what the Leader of the House has said—that he will carefully consider whether a statement should be made about this tomorrow. I have nothing further to add; it is not my responsibility. Mr. Hood.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House tells the House that he is not in a position to confirm any of the stories that have been going round this place all day. I can tell him that American television has been running and confirming the same stories all day. It is a bit unbelievable when our Government say that they cannot confirm stories that have already been confirmed by American television. We want to know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot come to the Dispatch Box and give us some explanation of what has happened.
Sir David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who spent some hours the other night speculating on television about a chemical attack on Tel Aviv, can I say that it really is quite wise for the Government to wait until facts are confirmed rather than this House joining in general speculation on television and radio reports that may turn out to be unjustified? In return for that, would the Leader of the House assure us that such statements will be made regularly, daily, as required, to the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I appreciate the opening comments of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that we have to judge all these developments as and when they occur and the need arises. It would be a mistake to say that we will make daily statements to the House, because I think it is necessary to judge each of the incidents. But I should have thought that we had made it very clear by what we have done in the past week that the Government are taking every step to keep the House fully informed both of the facts and of our attitude towards them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think there is anything more that can be said about that.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If it is a completely different point of order.
Mr. Nellist: I do not intend to refer to the substance of any points raised, Mr. Speaker, but you will recall that, on a number of occasions, when a Minister of the Crown has responded to a point of order in this way, particularly on a second occasion as in this case—first to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and then to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir David Steel)—and given substantial answers at the Box—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nellist: No. Let me finish my point. You have treated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I invited the Leader of the House—for the benefit of the House—to state exactly what the position was. That was not a statement; it was for the benefit of the House. We have very important business in front of us, and I think we should now move on. I will take one final point of order: Mr. Tony Benn.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates not to you, Mr. Speaker, but to what the Leader of the House said. There is no doubt from television reports and from statements by the Prime Minister on television that the attack on Israel is taken gravely by the Government. The Leader of the House could well have said that he will make a statement tomorrow, in which case the matter would have been disposed of. He did make a statement—that he could not guarantee a statement. Therefore, you are inevitably brought into this, because it is your task to defend the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Benn: Please do not prevent me from making my submission.
Mr. Speaker: I know, but at great length. There are other ways of getting a statement. If the Government do not volunteer a statement, applications can be made to me.
Mr. Benn: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to make a serious point on a day when great events have occurred, yet the Leader of the House has declined to give us an assurance that there will be a statement tomorrow.
268
Apart from anything else, what has happened in Tel Aviv tonight is a threat to security under the United Nations charter. There can be no doubt about that, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement. All I ask is that the Leader of the House takes seriously the points that are being made and undertakes that, tomorrow, he will invite the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister to make a statement. All we are asking is that a statement be made tomorrow in the light of what has obviously happened.
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. I was not seeking to be discourteous to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If the Government do not make a statement, there are other means of obtaining information from the Government—applications made to me.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We have had enough of it. [Interruption.] Finally—Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen: Back Benchers have the right to question the Executive, and that becomes more important, not less, in time of war. There should be a statement on important incidents such as happened today. I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of Back Benchers' rights, that we have a statement every day in the House on the events of this war, so that Back Benchers have an opportunity to question the Government about them.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that will have been heard by those who are responsible.

European Standing Committees
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected amendment (a), but I have selected amendment (b) in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and amendments (c) and (d) in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and his hon. Friends. I suggest that the two motions and all the amendments are debated together and, after one and a half hours or earlier, I shall invite the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments and divide the House on them if that is their wish.
10.38 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following Amendments be made to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees):
in paragraph (1), line 1, leave out 'three' and insert `two';
in paragraph (3), line 15, leave out 'ten' and insert `thirteen';
in paragraph (6), line 34, leave out 'several' and leave out the table following paragraph (6) and insert the following table:

European Standing Committees

Principal subject matter

Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments—

A

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Transport; Environment; and Forestry Commission (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices);

B

Other Departments

I should like to start by explaining to the House why this matter has been brought before it for the second time in less than three months. On 24 October, the House debated and approved several amendments to Standing Orders. Those amendments were made in response to recommendations from the Select Committee on Procedure and were intended to improve our system of scrutiny of European Community legislation.
The main change agreed was the establishment of three new European Standing Committees, whose members would be appointed for a whole Session and in which scrutiny debates would be held.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Select Committee on Procedure recommended five Standing Committees, not three? It agreed to the Government's proposals only on the strict assurance that the Government would consider increasing the number.
Mr. MacGregor: The Procedure Committee proposed five Committees, but I should like to explain why I am bringing forward these proposals tonight.
Mr. Taylor: Please do.
Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I have hardly started and I am coming to his point. We have only a brief time for the debate, so I would like to explain as quickly as possible the Government's attitude to the amendments.
270
Unfortunately, as hon. Members know, the Committees have not yet been appointed. The effect of that has been that since the start of the Session all scrutiny debates have had to be held on the Floor of the House, directly contrary to the Procedure Committee's intention that fewer debates should be held on the Floor of the House and more should be in Standing Committees. That point is highly relevant to another issue that has been raised with me by a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—the hours of the House and, in particular, late-night sittings.
Three months ago we ran into some difficulties about the composition of the Committees as originally agreed by the House. As it is a House matter and I was keen to proceed on an agreed basis, I engaged in further consultations. It is as a result of those that the Government have now revised some of the proposals which are the subject of this debate. I very much hope that those will find favour on both sides of the House as I am keen to put an end as soon as possible to the delay in establishing the new system for both the reasons that I gave.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the opinion of the Leader of the House, is the division of responsibilities between Committees A and B a fair division of labour?
Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that. It is the best division of labour that we can establish at this stage. I shall also make it clear that we shall review the position in the light of some experience of the working of the system.
The revised proposals are that, instead of three Standing Committees of 10 members each, there should be two Committees of 13 members each. Under the formula for having regard to the composition of the House, each Committee will comprise seven members from the Government side, five members from Her Majesty's Opposition, and one from the minority parties. The Chairman will come from the Chairmen's Panel.
As the Committees are subject-based—here I come to the hon. Gentleman's point—this change necessarily entails a reallocation of subject matter between the Committees. Standing Committee A, which under the original proposals dealt with agriculture, fisheries and food and environment, will now also cover transport. The second Standing Committee will include trade and industry with the other Departments already covered.
That is the extent of the Government proposals before the House today. The other motion on the Order Paper is in effect consequential on the main motion. It simply reallocates those documents which currently stand referred to one of three Standing Committees between the two Committees that we now propose. I recognise that, with only two European Standing Committees, there will be a heavier work load on each of them than under our earlier proposals. That is something that I shall monitor carefully, and at an appropriate time we might take stock. In the light of—
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I may finish my sentence first. In the light of what the Procedure Committee recommended, the facts that it considered and the experience of the previous two parliamentary Sessions,

271
and making a judgment about the documents which are considered on the Floor of the House and those which go to a Standing Committee, it seems likely that each Standing Committee will have about two sittings per month. But that is a matter that we shall monitor.
Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his explanation of these matters. Does he not find it ironic that, although certain hon. Members shrieked hysterically about the importance of scrutiny and thorough coverage of these matters, the generality of hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown so little interest in the exercise that it has been impossible to continue with the original plan and structure? Does he further agree that that also inevitably means that the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member—and of which other members are present on both sides of the House—will refer fewer matters for debate in the Standing Committees because of the reduced structure?
Mr. MacGregor: I have brought forward revised proposals, not because of lack of interest in the House but because, in the light of further consultations with various parties in the House, it seemed that that was the best way to proceed on the composition of the Committees and other matters.
I do not think that more will be taken on the Floor of the House. I have just given the type of work load that I think that Committees will have. The proposal will mean closer and more expert scrutiny of some of the documents that come before the House, because not only will the membership of the Committees be able to build up expertise over a period, but it will be posssible for any hon. Members with a particular interest in a document to participate in that Committee's work. Therefore, taking this step will enable those who wish to take an even closer interest. Under the proposal, the relevant Minister will be subjected to an hour of questions in the Committee before the one and a half hour discussion by the Committee. That is something not available to the House at present, which is why the steps will aid those many Members who take an interest in such matters.
Work load is one of the issues that we shall monitor carefully and, at the appropriate time, review.
Dr. Godman: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. MacGregor: It would be better if I moved quickly now, because I want hon. Members, particularly those who have tabled amendments, to have the opportunity to make their case.
As there are only six months or so remaining in the current Session, I am anxious above all that the Committees should start their work as soon as possible, so that we can get some experience of how the new system works and also because the Committees will help to relieve the pressure for late-night debates on the Floor, as many hon. Members have been urging me to try to do in recent weeks.
It may be helpful to the House and assist our discussion if I now turn briefly to the amendments accepted for debate tonight. Amendment (b), tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) proposes raising the quorum for the Committees from two to three. Since the Government are proposing increasing the size of
272
the European Standing Committees, I recognise that it is reasonable to raise the quorum. I therefore propose that we accept the amendment.
Amendment (c), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), seeks to give any hon. Member the right to propose amendments to motions debated in the Standing Committees, whether or not he or she has been nominated as a member of the Committee. I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary, because all hon. Members already have that right. The Standing Order says that those not nominated to the Committee may not vote, move a motion or be counted in the quorum, but it does not stop them from moving amendments to a motion. I hope that my clarification is helpful to my hon. Friend. I can reassure my hon. Friend that even if he or anyone else is not appointed to one of those Committees, he or any other hon. Member will be entitled to attend, speak, and move amendments. I hope that on that basis and with that reassurance my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.
However, the Government cannot accept amendment (d), also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, which would completely change the character of the new Standing Committees. The Standing Committee meetings will allow the Committee members, and any other hon. Members who wish to attend as I have stressed more than once, to question the Minister and to participate in the debate thereafter. The Committee may also amend the motion before it. But there is no mechanism for it to arrive at a separate set of conclusions, and it would be quite wrong to expect any Standing Committee—as opposed to a Select Committee—to be able to do that. Such an arrangement could not be contemplated without re-drawing the whole system. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendment, because I cannot accept it.
The new arrangements will allow more effective scrutiny in Committee, so it is crucial that they are now able to get under way and have a chance to work. The Government have undertaken to review the new arrangements at the end of the first Session of operation, and unless they are set up soon, there will be rather limited experience on which to base our review. I commend the motions and amendment (b), in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South, to the House.
10.48 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I appreciate that the Government faced a dilemma and that, after consultation following the previous debate and votes on 24 October 1990, it became necessary to reconsider the matter, although I may have reservations about the conclusions drawn. After the detailed and worthy deliberations of the Procedure Committee and the alternative recommendations proposed, the House may be disappointed at the way in which the experiment has turned out. However, that sadness should not be allowed to delay the matter any further. The important thing is that the Committees be up and running as soon as possible so that we may be able to examine their effectiveness in the light of experience.
Although events outside this House—indeed, outside this country—preoccupy us, we should be conscious of the fact that we are considering matters that are of acute

273
importance to the country and to the future well-being of many of its people. That applies especially to European legislation.
I accept that we should now go ahead with this experiment. We must make it as successful as possible and, in the light of experience, come back to the matter, perhaps with guidance from the Select Committee. We might then consider whether there were better ways of proceeding.
The number of Committee members is not the important matter, nor is the subject matter to be dealt with; the important matter is the depth of scrutiny. All too often it is forgotten in the country that much of the European Community legislation that comes before this House—often obscured by technical descriptions—is primary legislation affecting the daily lives of citizens. We get excited, quite rightly, about primary legislation in the form of Bills, but we should recognise that European Community legislation can be just as important, and its implications just as direct.
The key to the success of these two Committees and of whatever results from their deliberations will be the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers in respect of their wide and pivotal role as European legislators. Indeed, the experiment will stand or fall by the ability of the Committees to make Ministers accountable in respect of that role. That being so, I want to put to the Minister questions about a number of matters that still puzzle me. He may care to return at the end of the debate to these matters.
Non-members will have the right to attend and now, the right to move amendments. What right will they have when it comes to questioning a Minister? Will priority be given to members? Will others be accorded equivalent rights during cross-examination? My particular reason for putting these questions is that I am concerned about the role of Front Benchers. It is not entirely clear to me whether Ministers will be full members of the Committees. If not, who will be responsible for the legislation? Currently, a Minister is responsible for each item of European legislation and has to steer it through. If the Minister is not to be a member, who will carry that responsibility? On that will hinge the role of Opposition Front-Bench members.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, as much European legislation is of a technical nature, the technical expertise of both Front Benches will be needed. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that important matter.
My second question is about the servicing of the Committees. We are creating a new organism. At the moment, we have Select Committees, the members of which are given an expert and able service by the Clerks Department, on an all-party basis, and that makes their effectiveness much sharper. We also have Standing Committees, in which, apart from the procedural aspect, all servicing is provided for Ministers and hon. Members of the party in government, and nothing is offered to the Opposition. How does the Leader of the House see the Clerks Department being involved in the servicing of the Committees? Will it be provided on a basis closer to that of the Select Committees than that of the Standing Committees?
In the sequence of cross-examination, will measures come before the Committees following recommendation
274
from the Select Committee on European Legislation, or will there be opportunities for the wider issues, involving the subject matter of these Committees, to be debated, bringing Ministers before them? Will that be precluded by the Standing Order, or is it within the province of the Select Committee on European Legislation?
Having reduced the recommendation from five to three Committees and now to two, we are within one Committee of the concept of a European Grand Committee, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and me in our evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure. It did not find favour in the Committee, but it is interesting that, in the practical world, we are almost down to that, although the suggested membership of 26 is too small to do justice to the concept that we designed.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is already starting an initiative designed to consult Members of Parliament and others about various matters, and this should be welcome. We should not stop with one means of scrutiny, as this matter is of enormous importance. We should continue to look at ways in which the House can examine European legislation in much greater detail.
As a Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency, and knowing the strength of feeling in Scotland and among my colleagues representing Scottish constituencies about the fact that the Leader of the House is spending so much time trying to find a useful and relevant model of Committee to consider European legislation, I express my personal regret that we are now embarking on this experiment before forming the Scottish Select Committee, as the House has an obligation to do.
It is right and proper that we should be looking at the European experience and creating institutions to mirror its importance to the House and the country, but it is a scandal that we still have not managed to deal with the domestic problems foisted on the Leader of the House by his right hon. and hon. Friends. That means that the House of Commons still does not have that important Select Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That has nothing to do with the matter before the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are discussing amendments to Standing Order No. 102, and his points have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Robertson: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was relevant to draw a contrast between the successful experiment and the failure. If you say that that is not in order, you must be right.
I draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that while we may have regrets or reservations about the way in which the debate is going, it is the light of experience that will guide us. The sooner the experiment is up and running, the sooner we will have the facts on which to make a judgment.
11 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The proposals that the Government are advancing after the very short debate that we had on 24 October are an insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons and a grave insult to our democracy and our right to consider legislation.

275
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put forward only two arguments in favour of what he wants to do. First, he said that people were complaining about the late-night sittings on European legislation. I am sure that people do complain about having to come here after 10 o'clock, sometimes after midnight, to debate important Euro-issues, particularly when the public have not the slightest idea what is happening because tonight none of the organs of the press is present to hear what we are discussing. That may indeed have been one of the reasons.
If my right hon. Friend wishes to ensure that more Members pay more attention, if he wants the people of Britain to know what is going on, would it not be possible for the Government to have, say, one day a week to consider these vital Euro-measures? It is difficult to say that, because they are considered after 10 o'clock, we have to find another opportunity, when the Government know that they could take action in other ways.
The second matter is rather important. It concerns the way the Government have treated the issue in appointing two Committees. The Minister said that the original proposal was for three Committees. I have the pleasure of pointing out to him that the excellent Select Committee led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) had said that one needed five Committees to look at this issue. The Committee looked at the matter objectively, sat for a long time, and came to the conclusion that five Committees were needed to do this kind of work. The Government on reflection, having considered the matter, said no, they wanted three Committees. It seems that this was accepted reluctantly on the strict understanding that the Government would consider increasing the number. Now the Government have come back proposing just two Committees to consider a full range of desperately important legislation affecting every one of our constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained that there had been consultations between the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is always helpful on these matters, said the reason was that nobody appeared to be interested in taking part. Who was consulted? I can assure the Leader of the House that, on the basis of those whom I know to be true democrats and who are interested in looking after the liberties of this country, I could have filled up five Committees simply by asking my friends. I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East whether anyone else in the House has been approached about this. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is sitting next to me, been asked? I am sure that she has not. Indeed, has anyone on this side been asked? Has anybody in the Labour party been asked?
Mrs. Fyfe: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to make the same effort in relation to forming a Scottish Select Committee?
Mr. Taylor: There is certainly a case for having more of these Committees. Today we are discussing the European Committees, which examine legislation that affects us all. The repeal of legislation is also required.
Mr. James Wallace: I should put it on record that there were sufficient Members from the minority parties willing to take up the one place
276
allocated to them on each of the Committees, to such an extent that some members of the minority parties were disappointed that they could not get on them.
Mr. Taylor: I can understand why some Members from the minority parties are disappointed. No doubt they have tried to serve on Committees. This is a sickening aspect. The House should be aware of the only occasion in my 25 years here when I asked to be a member of a Committee. I wrote asking to be on the Committee dealing with consumer protection because there were important matters affecting my constituents. The Minister knows to whom I wrote and that I regarded the matter as important. I was told that it was very sad but as there was a huge demand to attend that Committee, it was not possible to fit me in. Nevertheless, I went to the Committee and sat through every sitting. Three members came to me and said that they had been press-ganged to go onto it.
What sickens me is that, instead of this legislation, which vitally affects all our constituents, being properly considered by the House of Commons, it will be shoved into Committees, on to which no doubt once again Members will be press-ganged. To show balance, we shall probably have one of the delightful people from the Bruges group.
Dr. Godman: Given the customary sparseness of attendance at debates such as this, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman could find enough right hon. and hon. Members to staff five Committees. Is he not being a little idealistic, and is there not much more sense in his proposal that one day a week should be devoted to EC matters?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is ridiculous to shove these matters into quiet Committees composed of people press-ganged into serving on them who will simply go bang, bang, bang and approve things. Everyone else will say that they know that the European legislation is important but because two important Committees are looking at the matters first they will switch off and say that they have done their democratic duty. If the Leader of the House wanted to ensure that the British people knew what was going on, if he wanted to ensure that democracy would be preserved, he could have allowed one day a week to discuss these measures in prime time so that people would know about them.
Mr. Haselhurst: Is not my hon. Friend overlooking the fact that any hon. Member is entitled to attend the Committees, so if his view is correct, a whole gang of people could turn up, play a full part and carry out the scrutiny that they felt might not be carried out by those officially appointed?
Mr. Taylor: That is the most ridiculous argument that I have ever heard. My hon. Friend says that any Member can go along, and the Leader of the House says that any amendment can be moved, but I am not sure exactly how that will be done when other amendments will no doubt be pressed. Will all hon. Members be able to go along and have status without the ability to vote or to take a meaningful part in the discussions? How will we be notified of such Committees? Has my hon. Friend ever looked at Euro-legislation? There are 30 documents awaiting consideration now. Is it suggested that every hon. Member

277
will go to the Table of the House, get all that information and look at it? My hon. Friend knows that all we are doing under this proposal is switching off.
If my hon. Friend doubts that, he should consider what has happened under the leadership of the Leader of the House to hon. Members' ability to get information. The Leader of the House was formerly a Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I am sure that he looked after farmers well. In the old days, we had food mountains and people asked questions about them. Happily, because of a Conservative initiative, they were wiped out. Now, unfortunately they are going up again, and people might want to know about that.
If any hon. Member tables a question today about the size of the food mountains he will find that, instead of being given an answer, he is referred to the database in the Library—a new development, which simply means that the information is not made available to the public. The database people will then say that there are different ways of looking at the matter. What about the trade figures? They are very important to our democracy. Last year and the year before, we used to be able to ask questions about trade with Germany or the EC. Try doing that today. Again, hon. Members will be referred to the database.
What really worries me, as every hon. Member here tonight must know, is that all these vital issues affecting all our constituents, important issues about the control of EC spending, will simply be referred to two quiet Committees and everyone else will be able to switch off. That is terribly wrong.
I have tabled an amendment which I thought might be helpful. If those public-spirited Committees are to look at all the legislation, they might want to tell us something. For example, they might think that an agricultural policy document was heading us for a crisis. They might take the view that the law was not being observed. They might take the view that proposals on equal treatment for men and women would create a problem for British industry. How would they make their views known? The Minister said that that would not arise in a Standing Committee because detailed amendments are moved, proposals are put forward and arguments are made. The core Committees cannot move amendments to European legislation. They do not have the same power at all.
What on earth is wrong, after the Committees have deliberated for two or three months, in their saying that they have come to certain conclusions about which they want the House to know? What on earth is wrong with that when these are not normal Standing Committees?
We are doing a shameful thing tonight. The Leader of the House may remember that, on 24 October, this motion and four others were discussed for one hour. Mr. Speaker told the Government that, if they felt that the time available was too short, they did not have to move all the motions. Now we are having a debate again at a time when no one will be aware of it, in which we are simply saying that this mass of legislation will go to two Committees which will have to cover all their work—an impossible load, considering that we have been told that we ought to have five Committees to cope with it. I honestly believe that what we are doing tonight is shameful. It means that we can all switch off. It takes away our role in examining legislation.
278
We know that European legislation is not always considered on its merits. Sometimes there is horse trading. We have a duty to let people know what is happening.
Mr. Tony Favell: If the Executive suggested that legislation emanating from the Government rather than from Brussels should be treated in this way, the idea would be laughed out of court.
Mr. Taylor: That is so, as the Minister knows. Things happen in fishing, but what can he do about it? What questions can he ask? We do not have the right to switch off. Most of us will forget about this; we do not need to trouble about it any more. We do not need to ask ourselves whether it is our duty to come along at 10 o'clock to talk about these matters. We have a social charter. We did not sign it, but, as hon. Members know, all the matters are going through under the Single European Act and it will affect every firm in our constituencies. Do we not have a duty to offer advice? We have that duty, and if we are to be fair to our constituents, we must therefore consider this matter.
We should reject the motion and ask the Government to give us a day—any day of the week—when we can discuss these issues, and not after 10 o'clock at night. We must tell the Government to stop encouraging us to switch off, and to stop preventing the people of Britain from knowing what is happening. The Government must stop the conspiracy of silence which is almost becoming part of Government policy, as the Leader of the House well knows. Let us reject this ridiculous proposal and have a day to discuss the important issues which affect us all.
11.12 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment (b). On behalf of the Scrutiny Committee, I thank the Leader of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it would be inappropriate for him to move his amendment now in the light of the advice given by Mr. Speaker. It might be more appropriate for him to move it at the end of the debate.
Mr. Spearing: I apologise for that procedural slip. Sometimes one sees in Hansard such words that are not actually said, so I thought that I would say them. I will nod at the appropriate moment at the end of the debate.
I was about to thank the Leader of the House for his gracious acceptance on behalf of the Committee. I shall show in a moment how amendment (b) reveals some of the difficulties to which he alluded, but before I do so, I should make one or two points about the speech by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I understand his concern, but I think that the forebodings are rather different and are shared by Members on both sides of the Scrutiny Committee, and not simply by those with one particular view of the European Community.
For the past 15 years it has been up to any hon. Member of the House to attend such Committees, and unless the Standing Orders have been changed—I do not think they have—any hon. Member can move amendments. Amendments can also be moved when the matter comes back to the Floor of the House, albeit forthwith. If the amendment is selected, there can be a Division.
It is up to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends to go to Committees and to table amendments which take a view

279
of the document concerned. Those amendments can be accepted on the merits of their effect on particular constituencies, and can result in a motion on the Floor of the House. Indeed, for the first hour, an hon. Member can question the Minister on that document. That is the main feature of improvement in this package.
Having said that, the package—apart from the hour for questions, on which we are all agreed—is a step backwards. The Select Committee thought the same. The idea of having a quorum of three for a Committee of 13 illustrates my argument. Such a small quorum would show that something was wrong.
We told the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that the changing of the polarity or automaticity of putting everything in Committee unless moved by a Minister of the Crown on the Floor of this Chamber was risky and taking things too far. In particular, instead of having one-off Committees as we do now—horses for courses, chosen by the Selection Committee—we are to impose an extraordinary load on the members of two Committees, or of the five Committees originally proposed by the Procedure Committee, whose Chairman may catch your eye shortly, Mr. Speaker. We are not clear about better scrutiny in toto, because there will be two eyes to the needle, which will be restrictive to some extent.
Whatever views right hon. and hon. Members may have on the merits of the proposal, they should be aware of the question of publicity, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southend, East. The Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong, but 1 recall that his predecessor gave an undertaking that the Thursday business statement would contain an additional statement on the Committees due to sit the following week. Let us hope that the media, who are rather variable in their attendance at Committees, will publicise that information. It would also appear on the Order Paper, which would serve to inform right hon. and hon. Members, who could enter the dates in their diaries. That would be of added help, and it is a pity that that procedure is not followed already.
We may sometimes think that Bills are complicated, but they have a logical order. However, some legislation is not easily understood at first sight. There might appear in the middle of a document a table containing an alteration that could have an enormous impact on an individual industry, firm, or type of crop, yet that might not be immediately discernible. That is why the Scrutiny Committee attempts to report to the House the likely impact that such a proposal might have, without necessarily saying whether we think it is good or bad.
The Government's new procedures will be improvements only in so far as the questioning of Ministers is concerned. With television coverage and improved publicity, it is just possible that it may offer a net advantage over the existing conventions. However, I sense that there will still be personnel problems. The Select Committee on European Legislation expressed concern about that aspect right from the start. We conveyed that concern to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. The Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Proceedure, Cmd. 1081 of May 1990, stated, in recommendation 19, in respect of the recommendation for five Committees that
280
"it would be difficult to find sufficient Members with the relevant interest or expertise to man five Special Standing Committees. The Government therefore propose initially that three Special Standing Committees should be established".
We know that proposal has run into trouble.
When the Leader of the House undertakes the review promised by his predecessor, I hope that he will consider not just the procedure that may operate in Committee in respect of questions and the attendance, no doubt, of the hon. Member for Southend, East and his hon. Friends, but the question of membership. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has indicated his interest, as have other noble volunteers, in serving on such Committees in order that the necessary quorum can be reached.
I am not sure that it would redound to the credit of the House if 20 or 30 right hon. and hon. Members turned up at such a Committee and, quite rightly, started questioning the Minister and he failed to give satisfactory answers. Is that not what Parliament is all about? The Minister then runs to earth in some foxhole, people literally jump up and down, and the Chair must maintain order. Then the Question is put, and it is carried by two votes to one. Imagine how that would look on television. I am not. saying that that will happen, but under the present Standing Orders it is possible.
Perhaps in the review we should consider not merely what has happened, but what could happen. I advocate consideration of the idea of a one-off Committee for each batch of documents—we try to batch them together so that we can get through a lot of them as efficiently and effectively as possible. If these Committees work reasonably well, the Selection Committee may not run into the sort of timetable and selection troubles that they have run into so far. I hope that that is true, because, when questioned by our colleagues in the EEC, we have already had to admit that, as a Committee, we had the power to make recommendations on the Floor of the House or in Committee and the Government accepted that but the power of the Committee to make recommendations has now gone.
Until these amendments are made, there will be a decision at 3.30 pm on whether the Committee is held on the Floor of the House or upstairs. That decision will now lie wholly with the Government. In another Parliament, or if there is a balance of hon. Members on a particular document, it will be possible for a number of hon. Members to stand up and ensure that the matter is dealt with on the Floor of the House. These may not necessarily be party political matters, or anything to do with the merits of the EC establishment.
Mr. Favell rose—
Mr. Spearing: I shall be courteous and give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert in his field. Can he tell the House how wide a trawl there was in his party about whether it was possible to man three Committees as opposed to two? I and other Conservative Members are not sure why there was a sudden change of mind from three Committees to two. Was it because there were not enough Opposition Members to man the Committees and if so, can the hon. Gentleman throw some light on that?
Mr. Spearing: I have no knowledge about that. The difficulties about numbers were foreseen by the Select Committee on European Legislation. We have been monitoring what Committees have been doing for 15 years. The hon. Member for Stockport, and various other hon. Members, considered the problem and foresaw the difficulties, which may or may not be within one party. Perhaps there would be such difficulties under any Government and with any Opposition. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question is relevant to me, or that it tackles the real problem, which is whether all Committees are made up of volunteers to make up the necessary quorum, or whether Committees are selected for the job in hand. I should have thought that, in principle, and wherever possible, the House would have preferred the latter.
We look forward to supporting these new arrangements, although they fall short and, in some respects, step backwards. Let us hope that experience will enable the House, at some future date, after the review and possible further adjustments, to take two steps forward.
11.23 pm
Sir Peter Emery: Please excuse me if I croak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have a rather severe cold.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, has tabled the amendment about the quorum. I should have had great pleasure in supporting it with him, and I am delighted that his wisdom has persuaded the Government to move in that direction.
I welcome the desire of both the Government and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), that the Committees should be up and running as soon as possible.
The wisdom of the House must obviously be greater than the judgment of the Select Committee, but if the House is to adopt the Government's recommendations tonight—these Committees need to start working in some form or another—we should study some of the bases upon which the recommendations were made by the Select Committee, as they are being overlooked.
When the Procedure Committee suggested that there should be five Committees rather than one large Grand Committee, as suggested by the hon. Member for Hamilton and his colleagues, we were keen to establish a number of points. First, we wanted to ensure the involvement of specialists—people with a specific interest in the subjects with which the Committees would deal—and also of volunteers who would be willing to spend at least a year considering such issues.
We judged that, if a host of subjects were dealt with by a single Committee, the volunteers would not be interested; the establishment of five Committees to deal with agriculture, trade and industry, Treasury, customs and excise, transport and the environment, would attract specialist volunteers, and we would not have to incorporate pressed men.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Would the specialists include MEPs? As fellow parliamentarians, they are interested, as we are, in the procedures of democratic scrutiny.
Sir Peter Emery: We did not make such a recommendation, because giving MEPs exactly the same role as British Members of Parliament would mean
282
changing the whole structure of the constitution of the House of Commons. The approach of the Procedure Committee is fairly pragmatic: we try to make recommendations that have a chance of being accepted by the House, rather than recommendations which may in theory be desirable but which would fall at the first hurdle.
We were also anxious not to give the Committees too much work. That may sound strange, but we wanted to attract volunteers. Paragraph 68 of volume I, dealing with the scrutiny of European legislation in the Session 1988–89, suggested that no Committee would have to meet more than about 10 times a year. We thought that even busy Members of Parliament could be persuaded to volunteer, and to take an interest in the subjects with which they were dealing. We gave consideration to the questions of expertise, numbers, work load and the time that would have to be spent; we believed that a link could be established between the departmentally oriented Select Committees and the European Standing Committees, with a member of, say, the Agriculture, Treasury or Transport Select Committee also serving on a European Committee.
In the debate before Christmas, the Government suggested starting the experiment with three Committees rather than five. I said then that we would go along with that, but suggested that, if it did not seem to be working, we should have the option of returning to the original idea. What worries me is the likelihood that we shall not achieve the degree of specialisation that we want, that the work load will be too heavy and that the desired relationship with the departmental Select Committees will not be achieved. All those factors may well mean the failure of the experiment. That worries me very much indeed.
Mr. Favell: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he has had any explanation of why the Government are now moving from three Committees to two?
Sir Peter Emery: I am afraid that that is a question that the Government must answer, not the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I know of no other reason than those given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House this evening.
We will therefore have two Committees which are really quite different from those envisaged by the Procedure Committee. Having said that, I want to return to what I said at the beginning, that it is better to get some Committees up and running and to deal with this matter rather than to delay it any further.
May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he replies to the debate, to restate his assurance that, at the end of the Session, in the summer or perhaps in October—
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is suggesting is that the membership of these Committees could usefully be much larger. There should then be a rule that not more than a certain number could sit at any one time. This would allow the specialists to be called in on specialist subjects. Would this not be one way of dealing with the very real problem that my hon. Friend has outlined?
Sir Peter Emery: I partly follow what my hon. Friend has said: that is another line of approach, and not one

283
taken by the Procedure Committee. As I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I will not go down that particular valley at the moment.
I would, however, ask my right hon. Friend to give us an absolute assurance that, at the end of the summer, when we have seen some of the work of these Committees, he will look at them again, because when we compare two Committees of 13 members each, making 26 in all, with three Committees of 10 members each, making only 30 members in all, the membership argument seems to be slightly weak—although I accept that there may be some problems with the division of members of the Committees as regards the different parties in the House. We need the absolute assurance that, if this experiment appears not to be working as well as it might, the whole concept will not be rejected, because we have moved so far from what was originally recommended by the Procedure Committee.
11.32 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Both the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) put a very difficult question tonight concerning the quality and quantity of consultations which had taken place within the parties about the membership of these committees. It may be the case that the only party which has had such a series of discussions is the Liberal party—and, characteristically, its Members are absent from this debate. I have not been involved in any such consultations, and that is a problem common to both major parties in the House, whatever may have happened in some smaller parties.
Mr. John D. Taylor: In reply to the hon. Member's query, I can say that there has been full consultation with all the minority parties, including the SLD.
Dr. Godman: I am pleased to hear that. I look forward to regular attendance by these hon. Members at the Committee meetings. That will be the proof of the pudding when it comes to their interest.
Initially, I sympathised with the idea of five. Committees, but I just cannot believe that we could find in this place the hon. Members with the qualifications outlined by an earlier speaker. In my seven and a half years in the House, I have always noted the sparse attendance at these debates.
While I have some sympathy for the proposal by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that we devote a day each week to European Community matters, I still do not believe that there would be a large attendance unless we were dealing with controversial issues. There is still massive indifference here to the European Community, despite the fact that we now have in Brussels, among other things, a supreme court where the English and Scottish legal systems are covered, and that this House, along with the other 11 national legislatures in the EC, cannot impose upon the decision-makers in Brussels the necessary democratic checks and restraints.
All hon. Members, whether pro-integration or anti-integration, should be demanding checks and balances to be instituted formally in this House and in the other 11 legislatures. Failure to do that will accelerate the continuing diminution of power. We should be doing something about that. I am not speaking as someone who detests the European Community. In my part of Scotland,
284
we have benefited considerably from some Brussels decisions, but it is essential for us to acquire the power to which I have referred.
The proposal for five Committees is a fine ideal but utterly unattainable, given the massive indifference to which I have referred. We should be talking of three Committees. Again, that might be a difficult objective to achieve.
Earlier, I asked the Leader of the House about the fair division of labour between the two Committees. Considering the spread of responsibilities, I have difficulty in accepting the provisions on the qualifications of members. I suspect that members will be chosen on an ad hoc basis and that there will not be tough selection criteria for membership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked the Leader of the House about the precedence to be given to hon. Members in the questioning of Ministers. That privilege should be given to the members of the Committee. If it is not, come a controversial subject and the appearance of a Minister to be cross-examined, hon. Members who are assiduous attenders of sessions may be pushed to one side by a gang of hon. Members who are anxious to be picked up by the television cameras.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Privy Councillors.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend suggests Privy Councillors. Priority must be given to members of the Committee.
For the reasons already outlined, I sincerely hope that the two Committees are a success in the very important work which they have to carry out on behalf not only of the House and its largely indifferent Members but of the people whom we represent in our constituencies.
11.38 pm
Mr. David Harris: I strongly support the Leader of the House in his motion tonight, because I want to see the House scrutinise European legislation far more effectively than it has tried to do in the past. I make common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on that point. How many times have I sat in this Chamber when we have had the late night debate about which he has complained and said that the whole process was a farce?
There will, of course, be problems with the new Standing Committees. I should like to go further than the proposals we have tonight. I have always thought that these Committees should have their own Chairmen rather than these being drawn from the Chairman's Panel. That would give them greater coherence and enable them to have a much bigger public impact, just as Select Committees are having a bigger public impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was crude enough, perhaps, to say that some people would be press-ganged to serve on these Committees. I have certainly made it known to certain people that I should be very happy to serve, and I think that others would do the same. But there would be a problem here. You would quickly rule me out of order if I referred to last night's debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a problem about manning the Committees of the House which has perhaps been ignored up to now. Without going into details, perhaps some hon. Members were rather surprised to find

285
themselves being nominated for a particular Select Committee, possibly in contravention of Standing Order 104. I will not weary the House or labour the point, but there is a problem.
I therefore think that the proposal before the House tonight that we should have two Standing Committees, although I would like to see three, is a realistic one.
Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend think it is a good idea that members of the EC Scrutiny Committee should not be members of these two Standing Committees, even if they choose from time to time to attend them?
Mr. Harris: I am quite happy with the present proposal to exclude them, because they are not being debarred from giving these new Standing Committees the benefit of their considerable experience. I envisage a situation in which, for example, the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, given his intense interest in these issues, will come along to one of the Standing Committees and make known his views and the views of his Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is absolutely right: we have not got a perfect situation by reducing the number of Standing Committees to two, but it is a darn sight better that what we have had up to now, and I think that the House, at the end of this debate, should give the authority for the establishment of those two Committees and let them make a good job, in spite of all the difficulties, of the very important task in front of them.
11.43 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take careful note of what is being said in the debate, because he is acute enough to realise that there is a degree of questioning right across the House about whether we are anywhere near getting our procedures right for scrutiny in all its aspects.
I want this proposal to go forward tonight. It is more modest than I would have liked and I think that, if it is to work, and if we are to have confidence in the improvement of scrutiny, a great deal of good will is required on all sides. Good will is needed on the part of hon. Members, to attend if they are appointed to these Committees and if scrutiny is to be effective. Good will is also needed on the part of members of the Scrutiny Committee itself to ensure that we are operating in the right spirit in the recommendations that we make as to where debates should take place.
It requires good will from the Government to recognise unease in the House. Major issues may arise from documents that merit debate on the Floor of the House. Were the Government to take a restrictive view of the number of documents that could be considered on the Floor of the House following a recommendation by the Select Committee, it would create some dismay among hon. Members. We must try to achieve the right balance. I hope that the Government will be prepared to experiment and quickly reconsider the proposal if it does not appear to be working out.
The debate has been enlarged from the modest proposal that is before us. The proposal is worth supporting if it is seen as only a start. It is at least an improvement and I am glad to speak in support of the hon. Member for Newham,
286
South (Mr. Spearing) who is my Chairman in the Select Committee on European Legislation. It should be better to have a Committee that has continuity than one that is appointed ad hoc to consider particular documents, and it will have the added benefit of being able to question a Minister about a document. The mechanism to improve scrutiny is available. Much will depend on the good will of hon. Members who are appointed to do the job properly and in the right spirit.
There has been a credibility gap floating like a bubble over the debate on whether hon. Members will be prepared to do their duty in carrying out scrutiny on behalf of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and his 149 friends, if he is to be believed, must be a stock that can be drawn on. Is there, by contrast, some doubt among hon. Members that the reality of attendance at debates in the Chamber and in Committee is not always what it should be? There is no point in deluding ourselves. As one or two of my hon. Friends have pointed out, much as we complain about the system, we have not always distinguished ourselves in operating the systems that are available to us.
Some adverse comment has been made about tonight's attendance, but it would do credit to some debates held earlier in the day. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take it in the right spirit and will be prepared to see it as a further chapter, and not the last word, in the way in which the House deals with scrutiny.
11.46 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). To some extent, that indicates the natural wish of hon. Members of the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which he is a member—its Chairman, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), like the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), has contributed to the debate—that this experiment should be successful. That is important, and not for the ironic result of trying to apply strict and more profound scrutiny to EC legislation than to domestic legislation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden implied, it is somewhat suprising and ironic to reflect that, on major financial legislation, the House can vote billions of pounds of new Government expenditure and Supply with only a few hon. Members paying the slightest attention, while a Commission proposal costing a couple of million ecu produces an over-excited reaction from more hon. Members, as if yet another act of rape is taking place by European Community institutions of the hapless British body politic. We must keep that in perspective.
Members of the Scrutiny Committee agree with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and are particularly anxious that the new Select Committees succeed. We share the disappointment that has been expressed that it is a watered-down and reduced structure, although we acknowledge that the Leader of the House and his predecessor did their best in trying to get this together.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that members of the two Committees would be selected ad hoc. I surmised that he meant Members in the Tea Room who

287
could not get out of the door before being pounced on and having their name added to the list. I assume that the selections that are made through the usual channels, in sophisticated conversations and consultations, are more scientific and subtle than that. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends suggest that that is not the way in which we will work. I am disappointed, because we should have a Parnassian procedure to achieve the right composition of the two Committees.
Although he rejected the affectionate overtures of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was wrong to assume that we do not share his objectives. That is where hon. Members from both sides of the House and from different parties come together. It is not true that those who have a slight sceptism at the margins about some elements of our membership of the Community—if I can put the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in that way—are the only people who are enthusiastic about thorough and profound scrutiny.
Mr. Ron Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dykes: Not for the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I know that my hon. Friend wants to have thorough scrutiny because he wants to improve the Community's legislation and make us a stronger and more integrated member of it. Thorough scrutiny is a common objective of all Members of Parliament.
In a way, we are burdened with the original, somewhat artificial, constitutional political objective. Scrutiny was introduced for different reasons from ours. We are now lumbered—if that is the right word to use—with a procedure which is on some occasions too profound for the material under consideration, if that is not too much of an irony.
Mr. Ron Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dykes: May I continue for a moment?
Precisely because of the original objective, we must make the Committees work. Therefore, it is essential that members of the Committees—and those who are not members, when they choose to attend—do not attend only for the ministerial interrogation and then disappear. I hope that a good number of people will attend, especially if the Committees are televised and broadcast, which would be a good thing.
If members disappear for the rest of the sittings of the Committees, the Committees will be like Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, which hon. Members attend to do their correspondence and leave as soon as possible. There is sometimes a game to see how short the Committee can be. Everyone then agrees that the Statutory Instrument has been considered. If that happens, the Committees will be run down and will not have the significance that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues wished when they drew up the procedures.
At least the suggestions of the Committee on the European Standing Committees were taken up by the official channels in the office of the Leader of the House more quickly than other suggestions made by the Procedure Committee over the years. That is a good sign, but it is an uneasy mixture. It is as uneasy as the mess with the
288
telephones. We are still waiting for the office of the Leader of the House to respond on that matter. I do not want him and his colleagues to rush excessively, but we have been discussing it for five years. It is a recklessly short period, but people are gradually coming to the conclusion that if possible—the engineers tell us that it can be achieved and they do not rush to conclusions either—we should have dedicated lines so that we can interrogate officials in the Commission and elsewhere, both British and foreign—although, of course, it is more difficult and dangerous when one is talking to foreigners—about aspects of proposed and putative Community legislation. That would also be good for the members of the Committees.
11.52 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I preface my remarks by saying that I am one of the people who abhor the concept of the European Community loading our already overburdened legislative programme with many more regulations, which, if the Community has its way, will set in concrete almost every aspect of our national and private lives. I am torn between examining this stuff in detail in several Committees, or doing as the French do—nodding it through and then operating it to suit ourselves—or as the Italians do—nod it through and then ignore it. But we always like to do things properly in this country, so we must examine this stuff and in some respects modify it. I entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his desire that it be properly scrutinised.
I am worried by the idea that we should staff the Committees with experts. It was suggested that the reason why we could not have as many Committees as originally planned is that we cannot find enough experts. Heaven forbid that we should have these regulations, which a re bureaucratic nightmares, scrutinised by teams of experts. Surely the whole concept of this place is that it should be a jury of everyman, putting a common-sense view of what the legislature would thrust on us.
Dr. Godman: I must have explained myself in an obscure way. I am cynical enough to believe that we would never find enough volunteers for three Committees, let alone five.
Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am one of a number of people present to whom the idea of serving on the Committees has never been mentioned. It may well be that I am known for my temperamental dislike of Committees, which take up a great deal of our time when we might be more usefully occupied, but I support the idea that there should be an opportunity for those of us with particular concerns to go and discuss them at some length.
The most interesting point to be raised in the debate, apart from the informative description of the Procedure Committee's idea that we should have five Committees, was the remark made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who proposed a Grand Committee. Perhaps he can say whether the Government's inability to proceed with the Procedure Committee's suggestion has something to do with Opposition Members pushing for a Grand Committee. By failing to co-operate with the idea of producing enough Members for the Committees, perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton is actually trying to move towards one Grand Committee to consider the enormous amount of legislation. If that were so, would he not agree

289
that the Grand Committee would have to sit as often and as long as the House to pay proper attention to the amount of legislation that the European Community puts our way?
Mr. Robertson: I do not think that this is the time or place—particularly not the time—for a lengthy debate on the idea of a European Grand Committee, which I think is sound. However, for the sake of accuracy and so that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) can return to other aspects of her speech, the Grand Committee proposal is not the reason why the Leader of the House is here today with his suggestion for two Committees. That was not the motivation behind the workings of the usual channels.
Mrs. Gorman: 1 thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As my hon. Friends have suggested in their interventions, I am still intrigued to know how the Government came to their conclusion that two Committees were enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say whether there must be 13 people on the Committees or whether, instead, there could be three Committees of eight, nine or even seven, especially as the quorum is only three, presumably the Minister, the Opposition spokesman and A. N. Other—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Whip."]—and the Whip. All those details have yet to be made clear, and I am concerned that the Government should pay due attention to the need to scrutinise the information adequately.
Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend has addressed the issue of the number of Committees, which is important, and I have asked about it. Will she consider amendment (d), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on the necessity of the Committees, no matter how many of them there are, reporting back to the House? If they do not, the power will not lie with the scrutineers, but with those who choose them. The power will be with the people who decide the make-up of the Committees, rather than with the House, and the power of the House will be taken away.
Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly well. I will not continue with my remarks, as I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House anxiously looking at the clock, but I hope that, when he winds up, he will make clear the reasons for the Government's decision, as I am not clear what their motives really are.
11.58 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall make three quick points. First, I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in his disquiet at the choice of Chairman for the Committees. They would benefit greatly from permanent Chairmen, not ones chosen ad hoc from the Chairman's Panel. There has been plenty of talk about that, so I will not pursue the matter, but I believe that there is a need for permanent Chairmen.
The automaticity of the proposed procedure will make it very difficult for the House to intervene, despite the fact that very serious issues, with political ramifications, ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House. The report-back situation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), is very important. If one of the Committees disagreed with the position that a Minister intended to take at the Council of Ministers, a
290
difficult situation would arise. It would be very difficult indeed to proceed with a measure with which Parliament disagreed.
Lastly, I want to know how a Minister, having been ignored or defeated by the Council of Ministers, would report to the House.
12.1 am
Mr. MacGregor: In the few remaining minutes, I shall respond to as many points as possible.
This has been a very interesting debate. I am glad that so many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members support—albeit sometimes with reservations—the course on which we are embarked.
My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) all agree that it is right to get on with these proposals, as they represent a considerable improvement. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives that scrutiny will be improved and intensified. I am grateful for his support.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked whether non-members of the two Committees would be able to question Ministers and, if so, what priority their questions would have. Indeed they will be able to put questions. The degree of priority will probably lie with the Committee Chairmen. No doubt the Committees will evolve their own ethos. The hon. Gentleman asked whether Ministers would be full members. No, they will not. However, they will be questioned in the hour's session, and they will be able to sum up and respond to points in the normal way.
The servicing of these Committees—another point that the hon. Member raised—will be similar to that of other Standing Committees. Indeed, these will be Standing Committees, not Select Committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of points, with which I shall deal as quickly as possible. He made several critical comments about the number of hon. Members involved. I repeat that any hon. Member will be entitled to attend and participate in Committee meetings. Clearly, Members will want to hear the debates on documents in which they are interested. Scrutiny of documents will be longer than it is under the present arrangements.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden wondered just how many Members would attend for some of these scrutiny operations. Their doubts may well be justified: that is why we set the quorum at a reasonable level. I hope that we are wrong; I hope that 149 of the colleagues of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will attend each Committee meeting. We shall have to wait and see, but I doubt it very much. Certainly we are providing more opportunity for participation. In any case, this is one of the matters that may be subject to review in the light of experience.
The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the point that this would not enable the House to examine European issues. Indeed, he went way beyond the documents, to deal with such issues as agricultural surpluses. The House, he said, would not be able to examine these matters sufficiently closely. He knows as well as I do that there are many other means of addressing wider issues. They can, for instance, be dealt with by Select Committees and on the

291
Floor of the House, as is done pretty frequently. For instance, on Thursday we shall have an all-day debate on the important subject of economic and monetary union.
It is a substantial misrepresentation of the situation to suggest that the major European issues will be dealt with solely by these Committees, or that the House's general scrutiny of European matters will be confined. Far from it —the Committees will be concerned with particular European Community documents that the Select Committee recommends for further consideration. The documents that are most important politically will still be taken on the Floor of the House.
I spent about four years attending intense debates in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and I experienced the decision taking, the policy making and everything else. The House probably scrutinises most of the European proposals more than most, if not all, of the other European legislatives. This is a great help to Ministers, and I believe that this proposal will be an even greater help. The Minister who has been questioned and has listened to views for an hour and, following that, to a debate for an hour and a half in Committee, will have his hand strengthened for when he goes to the Council of Ministers, because he will have a greater knowledge of the views taken by Parliament. That opinion is based on my experience.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) knows, in the Council of Ministers, decisions are often taken on a majority basis, and if we cannot make our view prevail on any issue, there is not a great deal that the scrutiny Committees can do. Il was never intended that these Committees would deal with that issue.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I intend to announce forthcoming Committee debates in the weekly Business Questions. That will strengthen the position of the Committees, and will alert hon. Members who are not on the Committees to what will happen, and enable them to adjust their diaries accordingly. As he rightly said, it will also bring the Committees more publicity.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised, both in an intervention to me and in his own speech, a point about the division of the subjects between the two Committees. This is also something that can be adjusted in the light of experience, and each session will be different. In the last Session, 23 scrutiny debates would have fallen to Committee A, and 19 to Committee B, so I hope that we shall get balance right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has great knowledge of these matters, so I listened to his speech with great interest. I accept that the Committees that we are proposing are different from those proposed by the Procedure Committee, of which he is Chairman. There can be a number of views about how we set up these Committees, and about their membership.
I hope that the fact that any hon. Member will be able to come to these Committees—I keep stressing this point because it is an important feature—will mean that some of the worries about their being simply confined to the 13 members of each Committee will be overcome. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that it is better to get the Committees up and running so that we get the experience, because they are an improvement on the
292
present system. I am also grateful for all the work that he and his Committee have done in enabling us to get to this point.
I am happy to restate my assurance that I am prepared to review this at the end of the Session—a point about which my hon. Friend asked. Many of the hon. Members here tonight will wish to express their views in the light of the experience of the next six months. I hope that we can get on with these Committees so that we can gain that experience.
Amendment made: (b), after 'thirteen', insert
`in paragraph (4), line 24, leave out "two" and insert "three".'. —[Mr. Spearing.]
Amendment proposed: (d), at end add
`in paragraph (8), line 65, at the end add "The Committee shall also have power to report to the House its conclusions on any matter arising out of its consideration of documents referred to it under the provisions of the Order.".'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]
The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
Amendment negatived.
It being more than one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 January], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, as amended, and of the motion relating to European Community documents.
Ordered,
That the following Amendments be made to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees):
in paragraph (1), line 1, leave out 'three' and `two';
in paragraph (3), line 15, leave out 'ten' and insert `thirteen';
in paragraph (4), line 24, leave out 'two' and insert `three';
in paragraph (6), line 34, leave out 'several' and leave out the table following pargraph (6) and insert the following table:

European Standing Committees

Principal subject matter

Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments—

A

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Transport; Environment; and Forestry Commission (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices);

B

Other Departments

Ordered,
That—

(1) European Community Document No. 6701/90, relating to pollution from diesel engines, which stands referred to European Standing Committee B, shall instead stand referred to European Standing Committee A; and

(2) the following Documents which stand referred to European Standing Committee C shall instead stand referred to European Standing Committee B:

European Community Documents Nos. 8353/90, relating to customs controls on baggage, 8073/90, relating to organisation of working time, 9025/90, relating to nuclear fusion research, 6703/88, relating to burden of proof in the area of equal pay and treatment for men and women, 8461/88, relating to import duties on weapons and military equipment, 8162/90, relating to procurement procedures of water, energy, transport and telecommunications undertakings, 8075/90 relating to safety on temporary work sites, 8792/90, relating to protection of pregnant women at work, 8460/90, relating to protection of individuals in relation to processing of personal

293
data in the Community and information security, 10149/90, relating to the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community, and the Commission Report on the benefits and costs of economic and monetary union.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Jeff Rooker be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. Norman Hogg be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

BROADCASTING, &c.
Ordered,
That Joan Ruddock and Mr. Brian Wilson be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c., and that Mrs. Lin Golding and Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

ARMED FORCES BILL
Ordered,
That Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and that Mr. Julian Critchley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

PETITION

  Opencast Mining (Rigside)
  12.12 am
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I wish to present this petition on behalf of the community of Rigside, a small village in my constituency, which objects to the imposition of a public inquiry by the Secretary of State for Scotland to again consider the planning application of L. A. W. Mining Company to mine opencast on the Townhead site near Rigside.
  The Clydesdale district council unanimously rejected this application in the first instance, but was overruled by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the court in Edinburgh ruled that his decision to overrule the council's objection was flawed and in breach of planning law. In presenting this petition, I express my full support to the local community of Rigside, and in particular the Rigside community council, for their unstinting efforts to prevent such a disastrous development.
  I commend the petition to the House. It reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the people of Rigside and others sheweth.
  That the Community of Rigside is opposed to L. A. W. Mining planned extraction of fire clay and coal by open cast method at Townhead Farm in its midst.
  That a clear reason for refusal of planning permission for this development has been identified during Court of Session proceedings.
  That the planned development is unreasonable when National Guidelines are observed.
  That it were an ill precedent for future development in this valley, with its high reserves of coal and rich with its mining tradition, should instance of this sort of mineral extraction be approved.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House now seek a determination from the Secretary of State for Scotland in acknowledgement of the Judges' findings without recourse to further inquiry.
  And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Police (Derbyshire)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
12.12 am
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I rise to call attention to the difficulties faced by Derbyshire police force, currently under the management of Derbyshire county council. I am pleased to recognise the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) here tonight. I have no complaint against the police themselves. Derbyshire police officers, men and women, uniformed, detectives and civilians, are outstanding people and perform their difficult task in that county with good humour, courtesy and competence. Indeed, police at all levels are well respected and trusted by my constituents. I am also glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) here tonight.
The problem is that the police in Derbyshire are forced to do their job hampered and hindered quite deliberately by the county authority. The results are truly appalling, as demonstrated in the recent savagely critical report by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary published in December 1990, based on an inspection carried out between 16 and 20 July 1990. For example, in paragraph 1.8, the inspector says:
"The picture of Derbyshire police force portrayed during the inspection is mixed, but all too often one of deterioration of infrastructure and morale."
More than 40 urgent recommendations are listed in that report.
Derbyshire covers 1,000 square miles and the police force has to look after 1 million people. Officially, the establishment is a full one. We have 1,791 officers in post out of an establishment of 1,793. But first of all, the establishment is not enough. Each Derbyshire police officer polices 63 more people than the national average. The last time that there was any increase in police numbers was in 1987. Since then, the police committee has refused to guarantee its part of the funding for increases, so we have lost all the increases.
Nor does the problem relate only to uniformed officers. In Derbyshire, we are particularly dependent on civilians, with a higher than average civilian establishment to population size. But worse, the civilian posts are not filled either and there is a continual shortfall. The uniformed officers then have to do the job of the civilians. For example, there should be 309 traffic wardens. That is the official establishment. In post at the time of the report there were 84. As a result, police officers are frequently required to carry out traffic warden functions. Similarly, there should be 14 more control room operators, who are supposed to be civilians according to official Derbyshire police force management policy—but there are not, so the job has to be done by uniformed officers.
Many civilian posts have been outstanding since 1988 and the average length of time taken to fill a civilian post is six months. That is expensive, it withdraws beat officers from their duties and it means that police are frequently not visible at all on the streets of Derby and in the Derbyshire villages.
That also increases the strain on all the officers. As the report shows, the number of days lost through sickness has been increasing steadily—an increase of more than 19 per

295
cent. between 1987 and 1989. More worrying, the time lost through injury on duty jumped by 38 per cent. in a year. The situation is a matter of considerable concern to all our constituents and most of all to those serving in the force.
The report quotes many similarly worrying features about staff, equipment and buildings. The fingerprint bureau should have 13 officers, but it has an establishment of nine with only six in post. As paragraph 4.30 of the report says, the
"position is untenable and the department teeters on the brink of complete collapse."
We have only 16.4 marked vehicles per hundred officers, whereas similar forces have 20.5—25 per cent. more. There are no armed response vehicles. There are no trained accident investigators. There is insufficient protection for the police in cases of public disorder. The police computing facilities are inadequate, unsafe, inefficient and obsolescent. The main processes on the command and control system failed 128 times in a year. The inspector says:
"The normal workload of the computer grossly exceeds the design capacity by 227 per cent."
The casualty bureau is totally inadequate and we are told that the
"system would fail under any realistic pressure".
Some 45,000 crime reports have to be read and analysed manually, which is almost unbelievable in a force this size. There is no female police surgeon. There are inadequate facilities for rape and child abuse cases. No drug squad member is trained to nationally recognised standards. Derbyshire constabulary lacks surveillance capacity and has only limited access to vehicles suitable for covert operations.
It is not just personnel and equipment that create problems, but buildings as well. The last new police station was completed in 1981. The county failed to submit any building plans from 1987 onwards. One station in Derby, Peartree, which was intended to have a 20-year life when it was erected in 1945 but is still there, is
"nearing the point of total decay"
and
"is an insult to police, civilians and the public"
with foul toilets, a temperature in the office at the time of inspection of 98 deg F, a badly leaking roof and various other major problems. The inspector says that the
"state of repair of police buildings is generally quite extraordinary."
But it is not that money is not available. Indeed, he goes on to say:
"The fact that moneys allocated and approved for building maintenance have been consistently underspent for the past four financial years seems irreconcilable with the building deterioration evident during the inspection."
In fact nearly £168,000 has been underspent in those budgets in the past four years. The inspector is also extremely critical of the state of police housing. In fact, savings are made on the police budget and the report says very cautiously in paragraph 2.72 that these savings
"may be spent in another area of County Council concern."
In other words, the county has the money, but it chooses not to spend it on the police.
In one area, Derbyshire county council is very careful with money—other people's money. It charges £22 for a neighbourhood watch sign or £112 if it comes with a pole. In the HM inspector's words, this
"appears a direct disincentive to this priority crime prevention initiative."
296
As a result, complaints are up by 22 per cent. and only 57 per cent. of respondents to Derbyshire county council's own survey in 1989 reported satisfaction with the police. I must say that I think it is the height of cynicism for Derbyshire county council to spend public money doing a public opinion survey on attitudes to the police when the main problem comes from the county's failure to spend money allocated to the police.
Worst of all, crime rates are climbing in Derbyshire, in 1989 crime was up by 13 per cent. on the previous year. That is higher than in similar forces. In the six months before the inspection in 1990, crime climbed by a further 22 per cent. and the detection rate was falling. Indeed, the detection rate was well below that of similar forces. This is partly because we do not have enough police and partly because they are not well equipped. It is also partly became they are forced to do the wrong jobs. Most of all, it is because the police do not have the support of those responsible for the Derbyshire county council and the police authority.
The problems mainly arise because of the control systems exercised over the police, which are unbelievably bureaucratic and cumbersome. I quote the report again:
"In Derbyshire budgetary control has yet to be devolved to the Chief Constable."
That is normal practice elsewhere. Constant interference by councillors means that the chief constable has no opportunity for virement or to manage his budgets efficiently.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mrs. Currie: No, I will not give way.
Any purchase of more than £3,000 must be approved by the police committee. The same applies to any purchase of more than £300 if it is a piece of electronic equipment. Such a thing as a new telephone line must go back to the police committee for reapproval. It is noticeable, of course, that these committees are extremely well staffed, and their staffing has increased. "Management" means holding reviews and producing dozens upon dozens of reports, turning the police body over and poking it until it is red raw. The reports are then put on the shelf and remain stuck in the system for years. These include urgent items which are 100 per cent. funded by the Home Office.
According to the inspector, the bureaucratic requirements of the county council and the police committee are
"a major obstacle to the efficient management of the force."
He talks about the
"parsimonious fettering of police management"
which has taken its toll of both innovation and morale. I believe that it is more than parsimonious and more than a major obstacle—I believe that it is reckless, dangerous and unbelievably stupid.
It is nothing to do with capital controls or expenditure limits—these affect every police authority in the country and none has the mess that we have in Derbyshire. It has nothing to do with charge capping, which was brought in after the inspections which led to this report. The problems have been going on for a very long time.
"There has been a virtual standstill in developing the constabulary and its resources for the last eight years."
That is a direct quote from paragraph 1.9. In those eight years other overall staffing in the county rose by more than 8,000, and the county budget topped £500 million—one of the largest in the country. There is no shortage of money in Derbyshire.

297
The fact is that certain key people in our county hierarchy are deeply hostile to the police for political reasons. They believe that the police should be accountable. They want a police force and a chief constable who will do their bidding. All the financial and administrative procedures are designed to that end. We saw it during the miners' strike, when I had to insist to the Home Secretary that my working miners had full protection in order to exercise their right to work. We saw it during the hounding from office of Chief Constable Alf Parrish. The expenditure row was blown up out of all proportion and led to his early retirement, his subsequent breakdown, and his tragic early death—a broken man—just a few months ago. That death should be on the consciences of Councillor Bookbinder, leader of Derbyshire county council, and his henchmen, for the rest of their lives.
When Mr. Parrish's replacement—an internal appointee who did his best—retired last year, Mr. Bookbinder attempted several times, with complete cynicism and great determination, to impose his chosen candidate as chief constable. He was another internal candidate, and no doubt a very good policeman, but he was not approved by the Home Office. Mr. Bookbinder tried, but at last—thanks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State—he failed. We now have a new chief constable, John Newing from the Metropolitan police, to whom I and my hon. Friends offer our best wishes and support.
Armed with the report, and with the continued backing of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I hope that we may now see progress. Tonight, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say what action has been taken to put matters right since the report was published. A recent Home Office letter stated that certain measures had already been put in hand. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will say what they are. What further action is in the pipeline? When will the next inspection be made, because the present situation cannot be allowed to continue much longer? The county says that the previous Her Majesty's inspectorate inspections were favourable. If that is true, it is scandalous. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that claim.
When the Government have a role in setting and monitoring police standards but the powers to run the establishment are delegated by law to a local authority, may we have an assurance that the Government will do everything necessary to guarantee proper maintenance of standards in relation to the police and crime prevention in Derbyshire so that my constituents, those of my hon. Friends, and everyone in the fine county of Derbyshire, will be properly cared for?
12.26 am
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution. The overview given by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was so comprehensive, and her indictment of Derbyshire county council's political interference in its police force so devastating, that I have little to add.
298
When Derbyshire county council has been criticised over the years for wasteful spending on a variety of pet political projects, such as the now defunct millionaire's playground, into which the council invested an unknown amount of money, and publicity such as—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What does that have to do with Derbyshire police?
Mr. Oppenheim: When the county council has been criticised for such expenditure, it has argued that it at least runs its administration efficiently. The report blows a large hole in that rickety argument. It is probably the most devastating indictment of a council's administration. It is certainly a devastating indictment of its interference in the police force.
The report says that the way that the council acted verged on the unconstitutional, and reveals that Derbyshire county council, far from being an efficient authority, is grossly inefficient and has no regard for administration and value for money.
One of the claims made by those who defend the council is that the situation all has to do with underfunding, under-resourcing and poll-tax capping. The truth is that Derbyshire county council is one of the highest-spending authorities per head in the country. County councils such as Surrey spend less, yet it has the same problems in administering its police force.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unfair to the House for an hon. member to use another hon. Member's Adjournment to widen the debate beyond the subjet that is on the Order Paper. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now address his remarks to the question of Derbyshire police force.
Mr. Oppenheim: Funding relates directly to Derbyshire police force, because one of the arguments is that the force is underfunded and that that has caused the problems which have given rise to this devastating report by the inspectorate.
I seek to refute that argument by asserting that Derbyshire has been extremely well funded and is one of the highest spenders per head. Therefore this has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with priorities. Other counties spend far less per head, yet manage to spend more on their police force or have fewer problems with its administration. This has everything to do with priorities because Derbyshire county council has been more than happy to put its money into many other areas but the police force has been starved of funds. The council has been willing to put money into Insight and is considering putting Insight on to video, yet too often simple requests for extra funding for the police have been turned down in a manner which has been prejudicial to the well-being and the running of Derbyshire police force.
An early-day motion on this subject mentions the need for democratic accountability. The problem with Derbyshire police force is not that a lack of democratic accountability is undermining the police force, but that local councillors, who are using their democratic role to politicise the force, are undermining it.
The county council has consistently run Derbyshire county constabulary in a fashion that verges on turning it into a department of the council, which is virtually unconstitutional and an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman referred to is in my name and it points out that the report is a hatchet job, which attempts to undermine the police committee and democratic operations in the area. The report lacks professionalism and the evidence that goes with it is full of inconsistencies and takes no account of any of the financial problems under which the authority has to operate. Derbyshire has a fine county council and a fine police force, and I am sorry to hear the hon. Member attacking both.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is acting his role as the poodle of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his absence and is way over the top in his support of the council. People in Derbyshire do not think that they have a fine county council—they are sick and tired of it and cannot wait for the day when we get rid of Councillor Bookbinder and his motley crew, who have done so much damage to Derbyshire police force. They have also immensely damaged the people of Derbyshire.
The report, which is not a political report but was compiled by a highly respected independent inspectorate, makes it clear that the police have been politically interfered with by the local councillors who run Derbyshire county council, in a way which is prejudicial to the well-being and the good policing of the county. The sooner the hon. Gentleman accepts that fact and stops defending Councillor Bookbinder and his crew, merely because they happen to be in the same party, the better. Derbyshire county council is an absolute disgrace and the way in which it has tried to interfere with the police force is also a disgrace.
If a Labour Government got in and tried to increase what they term the "political accountability" of police forces, we would end up with an even worse situation. There would not merely be the sort of political interference which we have at present, but police committees and elements of the police force would be packed with the political friends of the likes of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East and Councillor Bookbinder. If they had their way I should not be surprised if people like David Skinner, the chairman of Derbyshire Labour party, who has already been given one plum county council job, did not find their way into a police authority job.
That is the danger of the sort of political interference which has taken place within Derbyshire constabulary, and which we should see even more of if Opposition Members had their way. Such politicisation of the police force is immensely dangerous, and I suspect that the majority of Opposition Members, who have a modicum of sense, do not want it.
This report is undoubtedly the most devastating indictment of the way in which a police force is run that has ever been produced in this country. It behoves Opposition Members to take some note of that and to be concerned about it, instead of blindly defending their political mates in the county of Derbyshire. I believe that the day is dawning when we shall be shot of Councillor Bookbinder and his motley crew, and I have a suspicion that we have not much longer to wait.
12.34 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on securing tonight's debate. She is rightly concerned
300
about the state of policing in Derbyshire; so, clearly, are a number of my hon. Friends who represent Derbyshire seats and who are present tonight. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—who has just spoken to considerable effect—and my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) a re worried about the recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which presented such a bleak and disturbing picture, as they took the trouble to tell me so beforehand. Although I note that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is also interested in the matter—I have read his early-day motion—he did not contact me; nevertheless, I listened carefully to his intervention.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Lloyd: I will give way briefly, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have little time. On the last occasion when I faced him from the Dispatch Box in an Adjournment debate, his remarks took up almost all the time available.
Mr. Barnes: The Minister says that I did not contact him about the issue. I contacted the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to ask whether I could be allowed a short period in which to make a speech—
Mrs. Currie: And I said no.
Mr. Barnes: The hon. Lady said no: obviously, she was frightened of what she might hear. As it was her debate, there was no point in my approaching the Minister to discuss the issue; but I will certainly approach him I o discuss the content of that disgraceful, unprofessional report. The person who produced it is also disgraceful: he used it to undermine a police committee, and it is inconsistent with all the earlier reports.
Mr. Lloyd: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but this is my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate, and it is her privilege to determine who should contribute to it.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when the report was published, it was without doubt one of the worst reports on any police force; but before I discuss the report itself, and the action that we are taking, I must draw an important distinction between the Derbyshire constabulary and the police authority.
The members of the Derbyshire constabulary have done an excellent job in maintaining standards of service as well as they have in what can only be described as the most difficult circumstances. My right hon. Friend and I have great admiration for the way in which it has managed to maintain a high standard of professional policing while buildings deteriorate around it and the police authority imposes absurd levels of bureaucratic control on the police budget.
It is with the police authority that the responsibility lies. Under section 4 of the Police Act 1964, it is the police authority that has the duty
"to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area",
and, as the inspection report shows, it has come perilously close to failing in that duty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South has already drawn the House's attention to the manifold failings of the police authority—the failure to devolve any significant financial responsibility to the chief constable;

301
agreed expenditure having to be reapproved through a labyrinth of council committees; civilian posts left vacant, or taking six months to fill; trained police officers being taken off the streets to cover for civilian vacancies; 19 additional posts approved by the Home Secretary for 1990, but turned down by the council; maintenance budgets consistently underspent while broken windows remain unrepaired—and so on, and so on. The report is a published document, as all HMI reports now are, and the details are set out in it by the regional HMI better than I could hope to do tonight. It repays careful reading—particularly, I suggest, by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
Let me pull out just one chastening detail. Paragraph 3.5 points out that the casualty bureau is antiquated and that the four incoming telephone lines would be inadequate to deal with the demands of a major disaster. The HMI concludes that
"the system would fail under any realistic pressure".
The House has listened too often to statements from Ministers detailing the horrific disasters which have befallen us in recent years. None of us can say that it will not happen in my county, and we know the pressure of thousands of phone calls from anxious relatives. Therefore, I find the complacency of Derbyshire frightening and inexplicable.
What is the response of Derbyshire county council? It is to blame the Government for cuts in funding. Well, I suppose they would say that. But what puzzles me is this: if it is all the fault of the Government, as they say, why is it only Derbyshire that faces such extreme problems? The same funding principles apply across the country, but Her Majesty's inspectorate reports for other counties present a very different picture, with an effective partnership between the police authority and its police force. There is no magic that uniquely puts Derbyshire in a worse position than its neighbours. The issue is simply that Derbyshire county council, through its police authority, exercises a very different set of priorities on policing.
It is instructive to look closely at how Derbyshire adjusted its budget for 1990–91 in response to capping. The
302
county council's total original budget was 40 per cent. above the standard spending assessment, but the original police budget of £29 million was marginally below the police SSA of £29.6 million. No cuts at all need have been made in the police budget, but the council imposed a uniform cut of 3.5 per cent.—nearly £2 million—to finance its overspending in other quarters. The council was well aware of the damage that would do to the police: last August, the chief constable, the clerk to the police authority and the county treasurer wrote jointly:
"The reductions for the constabulary will cut deeply into the level of service provided to the people of Derbyshire."
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East would no doubt complain about the effect of reduction in capital provision, but the reduction in capital provision applies to forces across the country, not just to Derbyshire. Derbyshire's protests sound a little hollow when one remembers that the authority has not seriously attempted to upgrade its police building stock for many years.
Derbyshire tells us that the inspectorate's criticism has come out of the blue and that things cannot have deteriorated so swiftly since the previous year's inspection. Indeed they did not. That is why letters to the chairman of the police committee in 1987, 1988 and 1989 drew attention to a range of serious concerns about delays in filling vacancies, the budget review process and the absence of a building programme. It is the sustained failure of the police authority to take action on these matters that has led to the present deplorable situation.
It is clear that I shall not have time to finish the remarks that I wanted to make in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. In summary, the inspectorate is staying closely in touch with Derbyshire. A number of measures to improve efficiency have already been put in hand. The responsibility for meeting these criticisms rests firmly with the Derbyshire authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be receiving reports on the matter. If the situation does not improve, he has a responsibility to make sure that in the end it does; but I hope that it will not come to that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in the FCO. Details of the average cost involved throughout all Departments was given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury in her answer to the hon. Member on 18 December at column 112.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the past 12 months how many entry visa applications have(a) been received and (b) granted in respect of (i) Poland, (ii) Yugoslavia, (iii) Czechoslovakia, (iv) Romania, (v) Albania, (vi) Hungary, (vii) Bulgaria and (viii) the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures for entry clearance applications of all types processed in 1990 in the countries concerned are:

  Received

  Granted

  Poland

  44,912

  42,694

  Yugoslavia

  1,354

  1,133

  Czechoslovakia

  23,258

  23,184

  Romania

  9,911

  9,226

  Hungary

  19,452

  19,391

  Bulgaria

  7,712

  7,625

  USSR

  45,752

  45,585

  There is no entry clearance post in Albania.

  Mr. Roman Mronov
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian Government about their failure to grant an exit visa to Roman Mronov of Kharkov to allow him to join his wife, son and in-laws in Israel.
  104
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can certainly raise this case with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

THE ARTS

  Libraries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when the inter-library loan scheme, operated by the British Library at Boston Spa, changed its procedures in respect of books loaned to other libraries in respect of charges made for(a) late return and (b) non-return of items; what other changes have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  In October 1990 the British Library introduced changes to its system for reminding customers about long overdue loans and charges for lost items. This followed a review in the light of increasing numbers of such items which were causing inconvenience to other customers, and discussions with representatives of other libraries.

  The principal effect of the changes is to introduce a non-refundable administrative charge on long-overdue items following the issue of three reminders. The separate charge towards the cost of replacement of non-returned items will continue to be credited if they are subsequently returned within six months. Another change is to allow renewals on demand of items on loan if not required by another customer.

  Antiquities
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will provide additional resources to the national museums to fund research on antiquities using the work of Professor Alec Jeffreys, FRS, of Leicester university in relation to stable DNA.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that Professor Alec Jeffrey's work on developing DNA probes involving genetic fingerprinting has been undertaken not only in university departments but in museums, often utilising material from national museums.

  The natural history museum has been developing DNA studies over the past five years and has recently constructed a special laboratory for this type of work. This work is supported through the museum's grant-in-aid arid also by funding from research councils and private funding agencies. The museum's bid for funding from my Department in 1991–92 has been met in full.

TRANSPORT

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do
  105
  so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. The measures are kept under review.

  Lindane
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the container of Lindane lost in the channel in 1989 has been located; and if it remains unbreached.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 6 March 1990, at columns 559–60; the container of Lindane has not been located by the French authorities in whose area of responsibility it was lost and in consequence it is not known whether it has been breached.

  The French authorities have not detected any increase in background levels of the substance in the course of their programme of sampling and analysis of seawater and fish. Sampling by our own fisheries department confirms this.

  Nuclear and Toxic Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last 12 months for which he has figures the tonnage of(a) nuclear waste and (b) toxic waste that has been (i) shipped and (ii) discharged from vessels within the limit of the Port of London Authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am informed by HM inspectorate of pollution that no nuclear waste has been shipped or discharged from vessels within the limits of the Port of London Authority during the last 12 months. Imports of toxic waste discharged from vessels within the Port of London Authority amounted to 1,189 tonnes between April 1989 and March 1990. No toxic waste was shipped for export. No information is collected centrally on domestic movements of toxic waste shipped or discharged at sea ports.

  Child Pedestrians
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the child pedestrian casualties in Britain in 1989 occurred in a street where they lived; and in how many of these cases were the motor vehicles involved travelling at above the speed limit at the moment of impact.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard report form, STATS19, sent by police to the Department of Transport for all road accidents, does not have information on the addresses of casualties or an estimate of the speed of vehicles involved in accidents.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for a change in the law so that when a child pedestrian is knocked down in a residential street the burden of proof is on the driver that due care was taken rather than on the child.

  Mr. Chope
  We have no proposals for such a change in road traffic law which would be contrary to the general principle of the criminal justice system that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. We are however taking other steps, including encouraging the introduction of 20 mph zones and traffic calming measures and launching a major publicity campaign, which will improve child road safety in residential areas.

  A13
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements to the A13 between the North Circular road and Butcher row are currently being undertaken; at what cost; and when they will be completed.

  Mr. Chope
  Departmental schemes currently under construction are:

  Scheme

  Works cost £ million

  Estimated date of completion

  Leamouth Road Junction Interim Scheme

  2·0

  Mid 1991

  West India Dock Road Junction Advance statutory undertaker's works

  3·1

  Late 1991

  The following schemes are due to start this year:

  Scheme

  Works cost £ million

  Estimated date of completion

  West India Dock Road Junction phase 1

  1·2

  Spring 1992

  Canning Town Flyover/Ironbridge widening Advanced Works phase 1 Bridge over A102

  0·5

  Late 1991

  Other schemes in preparation are:

  Works cost £ million

  Estimated date of completion

  Cotton Street/Blackwall Tunnel

  3·5

  1994

  West India Dock Road Junction phase 2

  0·6

  1993

  Butcher Row Junction

  0·7

  1993

  Canning Town Flyover/Ironbridge widening Advance works phase 2

  9·2

  1993

  Canning Town Flyover/Ironbridge widening

  21·0

  1997

  A13/A112 Junction Improvement

  44·4

  1996

  A13/A117 Junction Improvment

  35·6

  1995

  Progress on some of these schemes will be dependent on the completion of statutory processes which could be subject to public inquiry. Completion dates are therefore provisional.

  Chief Inspector Transport Security
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the duties and activities of the chief inspector of transport security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The chief inspector of transport security was appointed on 1 November 1990. His duties are to develop the necessary programme on the maritime side and oversee the implementation of aviation and maritime security measures. He also provides a source of advice on security matters in other forms of transport. In particular, he contributes advice on the security of channel tunnel operations.

  Dangerous Loads
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are issued to British Rail regarding co-operation with other agencies in planning
  107
  emergency liaison procedures in case of accident during the transportation of (a) radioactive waste, (b) nuclear warloads and (c) toxic waste.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the safety of staff and the public rests primarily with the railway operator and advice is given on request. British Rail liaises at all levels with the emergency services. Emergency procedures are regularly rehearsed both as theoretical and practical exercises to ensure that the emergency services are in a position to deal effectively with any incident that may occur.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest developments in making RAF Finningley a joint military/civil airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The operation of joint military/civil airfields is not possible under United Kingdom aviation regulations. Civil aircraft may use military airfields subject to such flights being compatible with operational considerations. I understand that civil aircraft are already allowed to use RAF Finningley by prior permission, but the scope to accept additional civilian traffic is severely limited by the needs of military flying. Use of RAF airfields is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in the Department of Transport. Estimates are however made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold—currently £250. However, following an interdepartmental exercise in 1972 an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Britannia Airways Boeing 757 which lost a wheel after taking off from Gatwick airport on 15 January was given a complete overhaul and service check; and if he will make a statement.
  108
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The air accidents investigation branch is carrying out a field investigation into the incident and will publish a report in due course. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the report.

  Coaches, Central London
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coaches are estimated to visit central London on an average day during the summer; how many coach parking spaces are available(a) on-street arid (b) off-street; and if he will make a statement on proposals to increase the available number of such spaces.

  Mr. Chope
  Latest figures indicate that there are some 1,000 coach movements in central London each weekday. Parking provision is primarily the responsibility of local authorities. There are approximately 80 on-street and 450 off-street spaces, mostly used by tourist coaches. This excludes off-street provision solely for commuter coaches of which there is no record. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will shortly host a further meeting with interested parties to consider initiatives for improving the provision and use of parking spaces for coaches.

  Airports
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made to examine the options put forward by the Civil Aviation Authority on new runway capacity in south-east England; if he will list the membership of relevant working groups; when he expects to announce a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on 26 November 1990,Official Report columns 272–73, when he announced the terms of reference and subgroup structure, and those he had invited to become members, of the working group which he had announced earlier was to be established to build on the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on runway capacity.

  Responses to those invitations have now been received. On the main group, in addition to the relevant Government Departments and the CAA, are the London and South East Regional Planning Conference—SERPLAN—the Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups—FHANG—the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign—GACC—the North West Essex and East Hertfordshire Preservation Association—NWEEHPA— the Airfield Environment Federation—AEF—the International Air Transport Association, the International Air Carrier Association, the British Air Transport Association—BATA—the Airport Operators Association —AOA—the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, BAA plc, the Association of British Travel Agents, the British Tourist Authority, and the Air Transport Users Committee.

  The members of the subgroup which will examine environmental and developmental issues are SERPLAN, FHANG, GACC, NWEEHPA, AEF, the Kent training and enterprise council and the chairmen of the airport consultative committees for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Bournemouth, Bristol Lulsgate, Southampton and Lydd airports. On the surface access subgroup are British Rail, London Regional Transport, SERPLAN and BAA plc. On the noise subgroup are the CAA, FHANG,

  109
  GACC, NWEEHPA, AEF, AOA, BAA plc and BATA. On the airport development subgroup are the CAA, BATA and the airport operators at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Bournemouth, Bristol Lulsgate, Bristol Filton, Southampton, Lydd and Manston airports. The subgroups will also include the relevant Government Departments.

  To ensure the working group has access to a wide range of views, its considerations are to be supplemented by a written consultation. A consultation document was issued on 20 December.

  Until the group has completed its work and has presented its advice to my right hon. and learned Friend, it is not possible to indicate the timing of further steps. The group is to meet for the first time on 1 February.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to enable British airlines and others directly affected by the economic impact of the Gulf crisis to weather the financial problems facing them at the present time.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to offer financial assistance. He has, however, taken steps to provide certain reinsurance facilities under the terms of the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Act 1952, to help ensure that British airlines maintain services that otherwise would not have been operated. These services provide an opportunity for members of the British community in the Gulf region to leave if that is their wish.

  Scheme

  Successful tenderer

  Contract price £ million

  A42

  Castle Donington North, Contract 2

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  16·8

  A6

  Quorn and Mountsorrel bypass

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  31·8

  A16

  Louth bypass

  Clugston Construction Ltd.

  4·9

  A47

  Castor and Ailsworth bypass

  Roadworks (1952) Ltd.

  7·7

  A604

  (M1/A1 Link) Contract 5S

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  30·7

  A523

  Macclesfield relief road

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  18·7

  A140

  Dickleburgh bypass

  J. Breheny (Contractors) Ltd.

  2·2

  A23

  Brighton bypass, Sayers Common to Muddleswood

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  10·5

  A650

  Drighlington bypass

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  4·9

  A1079

  Market Weighton bypass

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  3·3

  M62

  Closed circuit TV installation, junctions 26, 27 and 29

  Serco Ltd.

  1·2

  A43

  Blisworth bypass

  Galliford (UK) Ltd.

  15·1

  A47

  East Norton bypass

  Midland Oak Contractors Ltd.

  1·2

  A30

  Plusha to Bolventor improvement

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  10·7

  A595

  Hensingham bypass

  Eden Construction Ltd.

  4·3

  A27

  Brighton bypass, Hangleton to Dyke Road

  M. J. Gleeson Group Ltd.

  8·8

  A38

  Marsh Mills junction improvement

  Hochtief Ag.

  22·5

  A1

  Bramham to Wetherby improvement

  Monk Construction Ltd.

  14·9

  A10

  Brandon Creek to Southery improvement

  J. Breheny (Contractors) Ltd.

  1·0

  A47

  Norwich Southern bypass, Contract 4

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  29·9

  M40

  Widening junctions 4 to 5

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  35·9

  A42

  Castle Donington North, Contract 3

  Redland Aggregates Ltd.

  2·8

  A282

  Dartford—Thurrock Crossing, Northern approach improvement

  Cementation (Major Projects) Ltd.

  8·3

  A30

  Penhale to Carland Cross improvement

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  9·1

  M4

  Junction 12 improvements, (Section 278 agreement)

  Associated Asphalt Co. Ltd.

  1·3

  A35

  Axminster bypass

  Farr Plc

  8·1

  A41

  Whitchurch bypass

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  8·9

  M40

  Longbridge maintenance compound, provision of new roundabout

  Midland Oak (Contractors) Ltd.

  1·1

  A11

  Red Lodge bypass

  J. Breheny (Contractors) Ltd.

  4·8

  A303

  Mere to Wincanton improvement

  Wimpey Construction Ltd.

  15·3

  A30

  Zelah bypass

  Dean & Dyball Ltd.

  2·6

  A23

  Purley Cross junction improvement, (Section 278 agreement)

  Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.

  1·5

  M42/M40

  Umberslade junction improvement

  Monk Construction Ltd.

  1·5

  M5/M6

  Closed circuit TV installation, Contract 5

  C. M. R. Electronics Ltd.

  2·4

  Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to apprise local authorities of the Department's new proposals for 20 mph speed zones in association with the installation of road humps; and if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities are encouraged to make use of these new regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  We have issued a new roads circular—4/90 —on the guidelines to be followed by local authorities when considering new schemes. We are encouraging local authorities to establish 20 mph zones, and have allocated over £31 million for local safety schemes within the minor works allocation of the transport supplementary grant settlement.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the road transport sector.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from road transport is outlined in chapter 5 of "This Common Inheritance"—Cm. 1200.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the trunk road improvement schemes in England for which contracts were awarded in 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: Contracts for the following schemes, valued at over £1 million were awarded in 1990.
  111

  Scheme

  Successful tenderer

  Contract price £ million

  A27

  Brighton bypass, Patcham to Coldean

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  14·8

  A3

  Liphook and Petersfield bypasses

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  35·8

  A23

  Brighton bypass, Muddleswood to Patcham

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  14·3

  A20

  Folkestone to Court Wood, Contract 1

  Balfour Beatty Ltd

  27·3

  A47

  Norwich Southern bypass, Contract 3

  May Gurney & Co. Ltd.

  14·8

  A49

  Weaverham Diversion

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  4·2

  A65

  Draughton bypass

  Shand Construction Ltd.

  2·1

  A47

  Norwich Southern bypass, Contract 2

  A. F. Budge Contractors Ltd.

  8·6

  A423

  Maidenhead Thicket to Burchetts Green improvement

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  8·4

  A516

  Etwall bypass

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  2·7

  A59

  Mellor Brook bypass

  Eden Construction Ltd.

  1·9

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the trunk road improvement schemes in England for which his Department plans to award contracts during 1991.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]:] I shall make an announcement soon.

  Coach Drivers
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to take steps to increase the observance of the 70 mph speed limit by coach drivers on motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: Enforcement of the law on speed limits is a matter for the police. Coaches first used on or after April 1984 are already required to be fitted with speed limiters to prevent them from being driven at more than 70 mph. From 1 April this year, coaches first used between 1974 and 1984 will also need to have speed limiters. From the same date we shall be including a speed limiter check in the annual roadworthiness tests of coaches.

  Motor Vehicle Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received about the possibility of setting MOT motor vehicle emission standards based on individual manufacturers specifications; whether he will discuss with the European Commission whether variable standards would conflict with EC legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: Setting emissions standards based on vehicle manufacturers' specifications would result in a more demanding in-use standard than the one which has previously been allowed by the relevant EC type approval directive. We therefore propose to set carbon monoxide testing standards on the basis outlined in our consultation letter of 20 September 1990. I hope to be able to sign enabling regulations shortly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Manpower
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North dated 19 December 1990,Official Report, column 177, on public sector manning, if he will list those parts of central and local government which have (a) increased and (b) decreased manpower since 1979, giving numbers in each case.
  112
  Mr. Mellor
  I have placed the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the price of the most widely selling category of cigarettes is accounted for by excise duties, including value added tax; what are the comparable percentages on petrol, spirits, beers and wines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The percentage of price accounted for by excise duties and value added tax for the goods specified in the question is as follows:

  Total tax as percentage of price

  Cigarettes - 20 king size

  72·8

  Petrol - 4 star - per litre

  59·4

  Petrol - unleaded - per litre

  55·3

  Spirits - 75c1 bottle

  68·9

  Beer - pint

  31·3

  Wine - still table - 1 litre bottle

  52·9

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any proposals to alter the tax treatment by the Inland Revenue of United Kingdom banks which make provision against Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

  Tobacco Excise Duty
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the effect on the retail prices index had tobacco excise duty, inclusive of the value added tax, been index linked for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that the impact on the retail prices index of an indexation of tobacco excise duty in 1990–91 would have been to increase the index by 0.15 per cent.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the gross domestic products of the United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic of Germany was attributable to manufacturing industry in(a) 1979 and (b)
  113
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: Figures of gross domestic product analysed by industry, including manufacturing industry, are shown in the annual OECD publication on national accounts. The most recent edition, entitled "National Accounts, Detailed Tables, Volume II (1976–1988)", gives these figures in table 12 for each country.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in Exchequer income during the financial year 1991–92 resulting from(a) maintaining the married couple's allowance for those aged 65 to 74 years at its current cash value of £2,145 and (b) maintaining the married couple's allowance for those aged 75 years and over at its current cash value of £2,185.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: It is estimated that at 1991–92 levels of income the revenue yields in a full year would be (a) £40 million and (b) £10 million, compared with statutory indexation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beer
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the price of hops and barley and of beer in the last 10 years for which records are available.

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

  Hops—Growers' Prices (average farmgate)

  £/Tonne

  1981

  2,636

  1982

  2,754

  1983

  3,140

  1984

  3,307

  1985

  2,297

  1986

  2,233

  1987

  2,299

  1988

  2,417

  1989

  2,395

  1990

  12,400

  1 (Provisional).

  Source: MAFF.

  Malting barley—Ex farm purchases made in England and Wales. Calendar year simple averages calculated as specified in the Corn Returns Act 1882 (as amended). Prices are gross of the co-responsibility levy where applicable.

  £/Tonne

  1981

  106·5

  1982

  110·5

  1983

  131·1

  1984

  126·7

  1985

  116·7

  1986

  121·7

  1987

  126·1

  1988

  120·0

  1989

  125·9

  1990

  122·6

  Source: MAFF.
  114

  Beer—Retail prices across all outlets

  pence/pint

  1980

  45·5

  1981

  53·5

  1982

  59·5

  1983

  64·9

  1984

  70·4

  1985

  76·9

  1986

  81·5

  1987

  85·2

  1988

  90·4

  1989

  96·3

  These figures are based on current prices from consumers' expenditure and volume of production figures from the Brewers' Society and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Source: CSO.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE by county in England and Wales in the months to(a) 17 December 1990 and (b) 17 January 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for England and Wales is as follows:

  County

  Month ending 17 December 1990

  Month ending 17 January 1991

  Avon

  40

  17

  Bedfordshire

  5

  1

  Berkshire

  12

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  25

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  6

  Cheshire

  48

  37

  Cleveland

  2

  0

  Clwyd

  12

  24

  Cornwall

  90

  90

  Cumbria

  40

  24

  Derbyshire

  14

  5

  Devon

  41

  129

  Dorset

  84

  81

  Durham

  4

  1

  Dyfed

  60

  43

  Essex

  4

  2

  Glamorgan, Mid.

  6

  1

  Glamorgan, South

  2

  2

  Glamorgan, West

  2

  1

  Gloucestershire

  45

  18

  Gwent

  7

  1

  Gwynedd

  2

  4

  Hampshire

  29

  26

  Hereford and Worcester

  23

  10

  Hertfordshire

  5

  0

  Humberside

  7

  1

  Isle of Wight

  4

  10

  Kent

  14

  15

  Lancashire

  22

  29

  Leicestershire

  20

  7

  Lincolnshire

  11

  8

  London

  1

  0

  Manchester

  2

  1

  Merseyside

  3

  0

  Norfolk

  27

  16

  Northants

  9

  8

  Northumberland

  6

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  2

  Oxon

  19

  11

  Powys

  12

  19

  Salop

  33

  23

  Somerset

  118

  80

  Staffordshire

  31

  18

  Suffolk

  8

  6

  Surrey

  12

  2

  Sussex, East

  12

  15

  115

  County

  Month ending 17 December 1990

  Month ending 17 January 1991

  Sussex, West

  37

  17

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  10

  2

  Wiltshire

  67

  57

  Yorkshire, North

  55

  51

  Yorkshire, South

  6

  1

  Yorkshire, West

  8

  3

  Total

  1,168

  938

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expenditure has been incurred by his Department in ensuring slaughterhouses in England meet EC standards.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department does not provide any special financial assistance for compliance with EC standards in slaughterhouses. Advice on these standards is available from the Ministry's veterinary staff.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Ministry's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by civil servants outside his Ministry's offices.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures are kept under review.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the restricted areas in England and Wales where there are still controls in force on the movement of livestock, due to the fall-out effects of the Chernobyl disaster; and how long these will remain.

  Mr. Maclean
  Some reductions in the size of the post-Chernobyl restricted areas in England and Wales were made on Monday 14 January 1991. Details of the areas still under restriction, in parts of Cumbria, Clwyd, Gwynedd and Powys, can be found in the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (England) Order 1991 and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (Wales) Order 1991. The situation will be reviewed again at the end of the 1991 marketing season with a view to releasing further areas from controls as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the continuing safety of the food chain.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to speed up the payment of grants and subsidies to farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The timing of payments depends on a number of factors, including the determination of the 116
  relevant rates, rules of eligibility and the availability of resources to carry out detailed administrative checks. Subject to these constraints, payments are made as quickly as possible. I fully recognise the importance of early payments to the farmers concerned.

PRIME MINISTER

  War Graves
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to co-ordinate the activities of the different departments and agencies involved in the maintenance of war graves to ensure that a memorial will continue to exist to honour the memory of men killed in HMS Amethyst on the Yangtse River, China, in July 1949.

  The Prime Minister
  The memorial will remain in St. Nicholas' church and it will be looked after and maintained for anyone wishing to view it or pay tribute.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken in formulating coalition military policy in the Gulf to avoid damage to cultural and religious sites; and what protection is being afforded to Ur of the Chaldees and to Babylon.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks made on this matter during the debate on the Gulf situation yesterday.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are taken to co-ordinate action by relevant Government Departments regarding the problem of unemployment amongst the disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has the lead responsibility within government for policies to assist unemployed people with disabilities back to work. There are frequent discussions between the Department of Employment and other relevant departments at ministerial and official level to ensure that policies are properly co-ordinated.

ENERGY

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list year by year since 1980 the sources of petroleum coke burned in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will list by year since 1980 his estimate of the tonnage of petroleum coke being burned in domestic appliances in the United Kingdom; and what is the level of sulphur content per tonne burnt.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All petroleum coke supplied to the metal refining industry is produced in the United Kingdom. All petroleum coke reaching the domestic market and used as an industrial fuel for refractory and cement manufacture is imported. Figures realting to the amount of imported petroleum coke used domestically and its sulphur content are not available.

  Petrol Supplies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from independent petrol retailers about allocation of supplies of petrol under contingency plans for rationing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received one such representation which is now receiving attention. Under the allocation schemes which the Department could activate in the event of fuel shortage there is no differentiation between retail outlets operated by the oil companies and those of independent operators. Both would be subject to the same restrictions on their supplies.

  There are ample oil supplies at present. The International Energy Agency has, in addition, brought into effect a contingency plan which will make available an additional 2·5 million barrels of oil per day to the market. This should further reassure the market and the public that, if shortages do occur, additional supplies will be available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Leasing and Rental Agreements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his Department's request to Sir Ron Dearing to investigate leasing and rental agreements.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has written to the Accounting Standards Board drawing attention to the problem that the accounts of some companies appear to have paid insufficient regard to potential future liabilities inherent in the business such as the impact of early termination of leases or continuing maintenance obligations. This may be a question of judgment in applying existing requirements or it may suggest a need to strengthen accounting standards. The Accounting Standards Board has confirmed that it will consider this problem.

  Knitwear Industry
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies, units and departments of the knitwear industry have ceased trading during the last two years; what action he intends to take to arrest this decline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no Government statistics available that relate directly to such closures. However, a recent report in the trade journal,Knitting News, suggested that 143 companies, units and departments in the knitwear industry have been affected by closure, closedown of an operation, or change of ownership in the past two years. Decisions on such matters are for the commercial judgment of the firms concerned.

  The Department encourages growth in all markets by promoting enterprise and by creating a climate in which all sectors of industry can flourish. There are no plans for any new initiatives specifically for the textile and clothing industries. The Department's general regional, export and consultancy services are, however, already available to these industries.

  Textile Industry
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the level of representations at the recent international textile manufacturing exhibition in China by(a) German, (b) Italian and (c) United Kingdom machine manufacturers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Exact information is not available, but it is estimated that there were about 80 exhibitors from Italy; a further 50 or so from Germany; and at least 10 from the United Kingdom.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take proceedings under the Companies Act 1985 against Stock Land and Estates, formerly called J. A. and M. A. Carter Developments, for failure to disclose the recipients of political donations in the financial year ended September 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  In accordance with its usual practice in response to specific allegations of non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements, my Department will look into this and, if there has been a failure to comply with those requirements, it will take appropriate action.

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research has been and is being carried out, and at what cost, to determine the dangers of petroleum coke used in domestic appliances.

  Mr. Leigh
  My predecessor has met suppliers of petroleum coke. In addition, my Department is looking into what evidence there is from those who have sought controls on the supply of petroleum coke for domestic use, as well as existing research work on the burning characteristics of this fuel.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to advise members of the public as to risks associated with the use of petroleum coke; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is discussing with suppliers of petroleum coke the instructions for use of the fuel for domestic purposes, the form of these instructions and how they can be best conveyed to consumers.

  Sensitive Technologies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives have been taken by his Department to explain to companies wishing to export sensitive technologies, the current regulations and risks involved in such exports.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Department makes available to exporters a range of guidance booklets and information describing controls on the export of sensitive goods and technology and how they are implemented. We have in addition organised a major programme of seminars to increase awareness of the risks of clandestine attempts to procure such goods for use in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programmes, or missile delivery
  119
  systems, and the steps that need to be taken to prevent this. My officials stand ready to provide advice to any exporter seeking guidance on matters relating to export controls.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with manufacturers of computer hardware to make equipment more accessible to disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  No discussions for this specific purpose have taken place since the end of the Concerned Technology campaign in 1989. Concerned Technology was part of the Department's programme to raise general awareness of information technology. The general awareness programme has now ended, and the Department's efforts are directed towards the broader needs of business and commerce through promotion of the use of information technology in accordance with best practice and through support for basic research to strengthen industry's technological capability. My Department's role in serving the interests of disabled people is through encouragement of the develolpment and use of basic technologies which will improve the capabilities and adaptability of all products that utilise them. It is now for those in the industry to respond to demands expressed by the disabled and caring agencies when designing their products.

  The Employment Department is responsible for a range of special aids, including special computer equipment, to help the disabled to obtain and keep employment.

  Photocopying Companies
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) about which photocopying companies he has received complaints of malpractice;

  (2) what action he is taking to investigate the complaints he has received of malpractice by photocopying companies;

  (3) when he expects to report on the conclusions of his Department's investigation into malpractice by photocopying companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  As I made clear in the Adjournment debate on 12 November 1990, at column 423, I am willing to consider any evidence that might warrant an inquiry under the Companies Act. I have now received information from the hon. Gentleman and from other sources. I continue to liaise with the Director General of Fair Trading to whom the complaints have been copied and who has a duty to consider the continued fitness of licensees to retain licences granted to them under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But, as I explained on 12 November 1990, I will not be able to confirm whether we or any other authority are conducting an investigation.

  Insurance Act 1982
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulatory inquiries have been carried out by his Department or its inspectors under the Insurance Act 1982 in each year; and, in each case, which section of the Act was involved.

  Mr. Redwood
  Taking regulatory inquiries to mean actuarial investigations—section 42 of the Insurance 120
  Companies Act 1982—or use of powers to obtain information—section 44—the information requested, drawn from the insurance annual reports is:

  Year

  Section 42

  Section 44

  1983

  8

  24

  1984

  11

  29

  1985

  6

  25

  1986

  4

  21

  1987

  6

  39

  1988

  1

  24

  1989

  3

  31

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a detailed breakdown of the planned increases in central Government expenditure by ECGD in each year 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 as announced in the autumn statement as against the plans in the January 1990 public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: This information will be published next month in the new Trade and Industry departmental report.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review existing trade agreements with the Soviet Union in the light of recent events in Lithuania and Latvia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: Trade agreements are matters of European Community competence. EC Foreign Ministers have expressed their deep concern at recent developments in the Baltic states. They are keeping all aspects of their relationship with the USSR under review.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Pupils
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a table showing for(a) primary school pupils and (b) secondary school pupils levels of expenditure per child in education in Cheshire for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) constant price terms.

  Mr. Fallon
  The available information is given in the table.

  Cheshire LEA—net institutional expenditure per pupil1

  Year

  Nursery and Primary2schools

  Secondary schools

  cash terms (£)

  real terms3(£)

  cash terms (£)

  real terms3 (£)

  1978–79

  340

  745

  495

  1,090

  1979–80

  400

  755

  580

  1,090

  1980–81

  510

  810

  735

  1,170

  1981–82

  580

  840

  815

  1,185

  1982–83

  660

  895

  890

  1,205

  1983–84

  665

  865

  940

  1,220

  1984–85

  715

  880

  1,010

  1,245

  1985–86

  760

  890

  1,090

  1,275

  1986–87

  825

  935

  1,235

  1,395

  1987–88

  900

  965

  1,410

  1,515

  1988–89

  960

  960

  1,545

  1,545

  121

  1 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  2 Figures for nursery and primary schools were not collected separately from 1987–88. Figures for all years include nursery and primary schools.

  3 The cash figures for earlier years have been repriced to 1988–89 prices using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  Music Working Party
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the interim report of the music working party.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the interim report of the national curriculum music working group, and will be publishing it soon.

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

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

  Mr. Fallon
  During the past 18 months, my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced further measures to reduce the risk of pupils in independent schools being subject to physical or sexual abuse by members of staff. The measures described later in my reply strengthen the pre-existing procedures under the Education Acts 1944 and 1981; in addition the provisions of section 87 of the Children Act 1989, which includes a new statutory welfare duty on proprietors and those responsible for running certain independent boarding schools, will be brought into effect in October 1991. From the same date, certain independent schools with 50 boarders or fewer will need to register as children homes and will be subject to regulations, including on welfare, to be made under section 63 of that Act.

  The Registrar of Independent Schools reminded proprietors on 30 April 1990 of their existing statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State instances where teachers are dismissed on grounds of misconduct or resign in circumstances where dismissal would have been considered. The letter also gave detailed guidance about the standing arrangements for schools to vet prospective employees, noting that in all cases referred to the Department a check would automatically be made of the list of people deemed unsuitable for employment in maintained schools—list 99.

  It has also been decided that Her Majesty's inspectors visiting provisionally registered schools for final registration, or on routine visits to registered independent schools will now inquire whether appropriate checks have been made in the case of all recent staff appointments.

  In the case of independent schools seeking approval under section 11 of the Education Act 1981 to admit pupils with special educational needs, Her Majesty's inspectors will include in their regular schedule of questions the inquiry whether appropriate checks have been made, including of list 99 in relation to staff appointments.

  In order to monitor the volume of enquiries from independent schools about list 99, and so that in any cases
  122
  of doubt the facts can be verified, the Department has invited those organisations and agencies in the independent schools field who are authorised holders of the list to keep a record of the enquiries they receive. This information, together with the records kept by the Department's teachers misconduct division, will give the Secretary of State a clearer picture in future of how fully the list is being used.

  Where it comes to the notice of the Secretary of State that there has been a failure on the part of an independent school adequately to check the background of a teacher or other member of staff and, whether as a consequence of this or otherwise, circumstances have arisen which in his view render the school objectionable in the terms of section 71 of the Education Act 1944, consideration is given to bringing the known facts of the situation directly to the attention of all parents, guardians or agencies who place pupils at the school. In parallel, the Secretary of State will invariably consider the notice of complaint procedure provided for in the Education Act.

  In order to provide help and counsel for boarding school pupils who may have worries which they feel they cannot share with staff or other adults, the Department, with the Independent Schools Joint Council, is providing funds for the experimental boarding school line. The line was launched on 13 January and will operate this term and next. We hope that, apart from providing help, the line will give useful indications about the incidence of pupils' problems, including abuse.

  Consideration is now being given to how list 99 may be made more comprehensive in its coverage of non-teaching staff, thus supplementing the consultancy service operated by the Department of Health whereby local authorities and voluntary bodies can check the suitability of those they propose to employ in the child care field. This would require that proprietors report to the Secretary of State instances where non-teachers are dismissed on grounds of misconduct or resign in circumstances where dismissal would be considered.

  Guidance on the implications for independent schools with boarders of the implementation of the Children Act will be published soon. The Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate will continue to work closely with the Department of Health and the social services inspectorate to devise arrangements and support which will make effective the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils placed on proprietors, or those responsible for running, independent schools with boarders. In particular, it has been agreed that, in their routine visit to schools, social services departments will expect to see firm evidence that proper checks have been conducted on appointment of any staff who are likely to come into regular contact with pupils.

  Finally, in order to minimise the danger of exploitation of students attending English language schools in Britain, the then Minister of State wrote to European colleagues in November 1989 drawing attention to the British Council's recognition scheme, and advising use of recognised schools only.

  These additional measures are a mark of the seriousness with which the Secretary of State views the need to prevent any possibility of pupils in independent schools being subject to abuse. He is confident that his concern is shared by the vast majority of proprietors, heads and staff of independent schools, and the independent schools associations, and looks to those in schools to take all

  123
  reasonable measures to avoid the possibility of abuse, or, in any cases when it does occur, to take swift and decisive action to stop it.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many A-levels, and at what grades, were obtained per pupil in 1989 and 1990 in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) Humberside.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the academic year 1988–89, the number of A-level passes, including AS level equivalent, per school leaver, for the areas in question, was as shown. The figures do not include A-levels achieved in colleges of further education. Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  A-AS levels per pupil

  Lincolnshire

  0·40

  Humberside

  0·38

  All-England

  0·55

  GCSE
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many general certificate of secondary education passes per pupil were obtained in 1989 and 1990 in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) Humberside.

  Mr. Eggar
  Amongst pupils aged 16 in the academic year 1988–89, the number of GCSEs at grade G or above achieved per pupil, for the areas in question, was as follows. Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  GCSE grades A to G Per pupil, aged 16

  Per pupil

  Lincolnshire

  6·66

  Humberside

  6·32

  All-England

  6·58

  Religious Education
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet the director of education in Northumberland to discuss the booklet "Religious Education: Topics for the Middle School" and its consistency with the requirement to teach Christianity in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for such a meeting. I have taken steps to obtain a copy of the booklet in question and will write to my hon. Friend when I have had an opportunity to consider it.

  Grants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, at current prices, the value per child in each maintained sector school of education support grants and local education authority training grants.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1990–91, the grant payable to local authorities under the education support grants and local education authority training grants schemes represents nationally an average of some £26 per pupil in local education authority-maintained schools.
  124
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, at current prices, the value of the special purpose grant (development) for each child in a grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1990–91, special purpose grant (development) of some £26 per pupil is available to grant-maintained schools.

  Bullers Wood School
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he received about the admissions policy, including catchment area, for Bullers Wood grant-maintained school in the London borough of Bromley.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Secretary of State approved Bullers Wood school as grant maintained on 10 October 1990. There have been no representations to the Secretary of State concerning the admissions policy of Bullers Wood grant-maintained school.

  Annual Maintenance Grant
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the basis on which the grant maintained schools' central annual maintenance grant has been calculated at 16 per cent. in the letter of 27 December 1990 to the chief education officer from the head of the grant maintained schools division; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The 16 per cent. is currently the average central annual maintenance grant figure for grant-maintained schools in this financial year. The individual figure for each current grant-maintained school has been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1990—S.I. 1990/549.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by his civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures are kept under review.

  Housing Executive
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public liability claims against the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, area by area, for the years 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who has advised me that the number of claims made against the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, by region for 1985–86 to 1989–90 is as follows:
  125

  Public liability claims against the Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Belfast

  1,331

  1,458

  1,468

  1,459

  967

  South East

  413

  456

  519

  454

  338

  South

  371

  445

  401

  281

  367

  North East

  316

  385

  390

  443

  414

  North West

  701

  748

  697

  620

  421

  West

  198

  182

  202

  200

  161

  Total

  3,330

  3,674

  3,677

  3,457

  2,668

  District Councils
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all bodies and organisations in Northern Ireland to which district councils have the right to nominate members and to which the Government also nominate members.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  The Senate of the Queen's University of Belfast

  The Court of the University of Ulster

  The Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  The Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  The Board of Governors of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  Western Education and Library Board

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Belfast Harbour Commissioners

  Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is evidence that members of the secret services or the security services sought in 1976 to obstruct any inquiry into events at the Kincora home.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: I have nothing to add to the published conclusions of Sir George Terry's inquiry.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which officials of his Department interviewed persons in the course of duties in connection with the Kincora boys' home from January 1990 to present date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: None.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now publish the full text of the Terry report into the Kincora boys' home.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: No.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of parliamentary questions answered by his Department on the Kincora boys' home.
  126
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: Forty, according to the parliamentary on-line information system.

  Ulster Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1990 reported by the Ulster museum, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: In 1990 a total of 296,100 people visited the Ulster museum and the Armagh County museum—an increase of 9·6 per cent. on the attendance figure for 1989.

WALES

  Environmental Grant Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to introduce an environmental grant fund for Wales in furtherance of policies set out in "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department will in 1991–92 fund suitable projects from voluntary organisations in the Principality via the special grants (environmental) programme.

  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told the hon. Gentleman on 19 December 1990 the announcement by the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on that date gave details of his proposals to bring the new environmental grant fund scheme quickly into operation for 1991–92. I shall keep the position under review for next year.

  Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many North Wales patients used hospital facilities in Wirral, Liverpool and Manchester in 1989 and 1990; and if he will list each of the hospitals.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information relates to 1989–90. A total of 13,063 episodes of in-patient and day case care were received by residents from Clwyd and Gwynedd in Mersey and North West regional health authorities in 1989–90. Of these, 3,745 episodes were received in Liverpool, Wirral, North Manchester, Central Manchester and South Manchester health authorities. Information by hospital is given in the table.

  Episodes of in-patient and day case care received by Clwyd and Gwynedd residents in selected health authorities by hospital, 1989–90

  Number

  Liverpool Health Authority:

  Sefton General Hospital

  3

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital

  61

  Women's Hospital

  78

  Dental Hospital

  1

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  492

  Broadgreen Hospital

  641

  Mill Road Maternity

  2

  Olive Mount Hospital

  1

  Alder Hey Children's

  744

  RLCH Myrtle Street

  153

  Mossley Hill Hospital

  8

  127

  Number

  Liverpool Maternity Hospital

  64

  Wirral Health Authority:

  Arrowe Park District Hospital

  87

  Clatterbridge Hospital

  552

  North, Central and South Manchester Health Authorities:

  Ancoats

  4

  North Manchester General

  10

  Monsall

  13

  Booth Hall

  11

  Manchester RI

  116

  Barnes

  1

  Private Patients Home Lorne Street

  4

  Manchester Eye

  10

  St. Mary's

  19

  Cheadle Royal

  1

  Withington

  210

  Wythenshawe

  55

  Christie

  399

  Not Known

  5

  Advice and Guidance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all documents of advice or guidance, all circulars and all other publications it is currently his intention that his Department shall publish in the 12 months from 1 January in respect of(a) the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and (b) other aspects of the health service in Wales, together with any projected joint publications.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is not possible to develop such a list but the tables in chapter 4 of "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action", a copy of which is in the Library, identify the key management actions to be addressed in 1991 and beyond.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has offered to Pembrokeshire district health authority and other district health authorities in Wales on the way in which any all-authority national health service trust would operate and the regime under which he would expect such a trust to be regulated in its relations to any purchasing authority and in regard to the national health service directorate in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All national health service trusts operate under common provisions to provide contractually-based health care to purchasing authorities for their resident populations. The main regulatory factor involving the national health service directorate will be the external finance limit allocated to a trust in any given year.

  Pembrokeshire district health authority has received advice on these issues, and others relating to the detail of its own trust proposal and my officials will continue to be available to assist the authority and to other potential applicants in Wales.

  United States of America (Agricultural Support)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on direct and indirect support to agriculture by the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.
  128
  Mr. David Hunt
  Provisional estimates by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development are that total transfers to United States agriculture were some US $67 billion in 1989; and $46 billion of this was directly funded by taxpayers, the remainder by consumers.

  New Hospital, West Glamorgan
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Aberavon of 13 September 1990 concerning West Glamorgan area health authority's proposal to build a new hospital, whether he will now announce the Treasury's decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Following the submission by West Glamorgan health authority of an approval in principle for the proposed new district general hospital to serve Neath and Port Talbot, the Department requested on 13 September 1990 further information in the form of a business plan. The aim of this business plan is to demonstrate the viability of the development in the new purchaser-provider environment.

  The Treasury will reach a decision on the approval in principle submission once this information has been provided.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had regarding the outbreak of salmonella food poisoning in Ely hospital, Cardiff, in 1990 and its future prevention.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Discussions have taken place between officials of the Welsh Office and the Department of Health about the relevant guidance to the national health service.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to enable Welsh businesses, especially those in the holiday airline and other fields directly affected by the economic impact of the Gulf crisis, to weather the financial problems facing them at the present time.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government will continue the fight against inflation and the Welsh Office and other agencies will respond swiftly to opportunities as they arise. It is too early to assess the impact which the present action in the Gulf may have upon the Welsh economy.

  New Towns
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he has now completed the review of the new town responsibilities of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Development Board for Rural Wales and its predecessor body, Mid Wales Development Corporation, have worked effectively to achieve a doubling of the population of Newtown, Powys. With that target virtually reached, I have concluded that further development of the community as a new town—whether on the basis of New Towns Act powers or of other
  129
  provisions in the Development of Rural Wales Act—would not be justified. I am now asking the board to dispose of its housing and community assets by 31 March 1993. That transfer will be effected by the provisions of section 172 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I am also asking the board to intensify its consideration of means by which its industrial and commercial assets in Newtown can be disposed of to the private sector on acceptable terms.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to examine the needs and provision of in-service teacher training in relation to the requirements of the national curriculum in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Yesterday I approved the setting up of an advisory group to act as forum for the exchange of ideas, view points and initiatives on national curriculum teacher training and related activities.

  The membership will consist of representatives from local authorities, the Welsh Joint Education Committee, the Curriculum Council for Wales and other bodies currently involved in the field of education. This group will have the status of an advisory non-departmental public body.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his conclusions on the application of the national curriculum in Wales for key stage 4.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have considered the need for flexibility and pupil choice in key stage 4 of the national curriculum in Wales, and have sought the views of the Curriculum Council for Wales, local education authorities and other interested parties. After consideration of their responses, and subject to the satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory procedures, I intend that key stage 4 of the national curriculum in Wales should comprise the following elements:All pupils should study English, mathematics, science and, where Welsh is a core subject in Welsh-speaking schools, Welsh to GCSE level. All pupils should study technology and a modern foreign language in key stage 4 but not necessarily to GCSE level; where Welsh is a non-core foundation subject this will also be the requirement, except for those pupils attending schools which are exempted from the compulsory teaching of Welsh at key stage 4. Pupils should be required to study a full course to GCSE in either history or geography or shorter courses in both these subjects, possibly taken in combination. All pupils in Wales should undertake physical education as a compulsory subject during key stage 4.

  In reaching my conclusions I have not overlooked the importance of art, music and other creative subjects. Although I do not propose that art and music should be compulsory at key stage 4, I would encourage schools to develop in their pupils a lasting interest in creative activity throughout their compulsory schooling both within the formal curriculum and through extra-curricular activity. Thus I would expect all schools to offer art and music, and the other foundation subjects, to GCSE level to allow pupils to continue their studies if they so choose.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Visual Handicap
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many registered(a) blind people and (b) partially sighted people will receive within the disability living allowance (i) lower rate attendance component, (ii) middle rate attendance component, (iii) higher rate attendance component, (iv) lower rate mobility component and (v) higher rate mobility component.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caenarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 18 December at column 138 which gives the numbers of visually impaired people expected to qualify for each of the rates of the disability living allowance. These figures, of course, include those who are registered blind or partially sighted.

  Rebates (War Pensioners)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward legislation to require local authorities to disregard war pensions in the calculation of housing benefit and community charge rebate; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Local authorities already have the discretion to disregard war widow's and war disablement pension in excess of the statutory £10 weekly disregard when assessing entitlement to housing benefit and community charge benefit. The special payments for pre-1973 war widows—presently £40 weekly—are fully disregarded. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people made a fresh claim or renewal claim for attendance allowance within the last year; how many fresh claims were awarded the higher rate, the lower rate and how many were denied benefit; how many people originally denied attendance allowance are awarded benefit on review; how many people awarded the lower rate of attendance allowance were subsequently paid the higher rate upon requesting a review; how many people awarded attendance allowance at the lower rate lost the benefit entirely as a result of requesting a review; what is the average period for which attendance allowance is paid; in how many cases attendance allowance is paid in respect of babies under two years, and of these how many are awarded the higher and lower rates; what is the average length of time from a claim for attendance allowance and the time the claimant is notified of the decision; and what is the average time taken from the request for a review to the time of a decision.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows:—In 1989 there were 365,000 initial claims to attendance allowance.
  —In 1989 of the decisions on initial claims to attendance allowance 84,000 resulted in an award at the higher rate, 145,000 in an award at the lower rate and 101,000 were rejected. These decisions do not exclusively relate to the claims received in the same period.

  131
  —The total number of awards of attendance allowance, including renewal claims, where the award changed from the lower to the higher rate for the 12 month period ending 30 September 1990 was 31,000.
  —In the period April 1990 to December 1990 there were 4,800 awards of attendance allowance to children under two years.
  —The average clearance time for initial claims to attendance allowance was 7·2 weeks for the year 1989–90.
  —The average clearance time for attendance allowance reviews was 13·9 weeks for the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether all rates of the proposed disability allowance will be disregarded in full for the purpose of calculating income-related benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance will be treated in exactly the same way in the calculation of income-related benefits as the two benefits it will replace: attendance allowance for those disabled before age 65 and mobility allowance. As with attendance allowance, the care component will be regarded as available to help meet the care costs of income support claimants in residential care and nursing homes. Otherwise all rates of the new benefit will be wholly disregarded in calculating entitlement to income-related benefits.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the qualifying conditions for each component and each rate of the proposed disability allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The conditions of entitlement to disability living allowance are set out in the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill currently before Parliament and in the notes on clauses, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local offices of his Department exceeded their social fund allocations for(a) budgeting loans, (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants between the time of the High Court decision in February and the issue of new directions in September.

  Mr. Scott
  No office exceeded its social fund allocation for either loans or grants as a result of the judicial review. Further allocations were made where necessary to offices which faced additional expenditure following the review. Lists of those allocations were placed in the Library in March and September 1990.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Social Security what are the standard rates for the cost of care and maximum rates now payable from the independent living fund; and how these rates were fixed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The standard hourly rates for the cost of care and the overall maximum amounts payable from the independent living fund are set out in the table.

  In setting these amounts the trustees of the fund had regard to the cost of care provided by private carers and by care agencies in different parts of the country.
  132

  Area

  Hourly rate (£)(day care)

  Night care (£)(per night)

  Overall maximum (£)(weekly)

  London

  4·50

  30

  400

  South1

  4·00

  30

  380

  Elsewhere

  3·50

  25

  325

  1 Southern counties of England excluding Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk and Suffolk, up to the northern borders of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each of his Department's offices in the Doncaster area, what refurbishment plans are being considered; what is the nature of the work envisaged; and when was the last time they were each refurbished.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Two offices are involved.

  Doncaster East, St. Peters House: the caller area was upgraded two years ago and recent improvements have been made to the staff areas. Future proposals involve refurbishment of all the toilets and further improvements to staff and caller areas, including the provision of wheelchair access. Full redecoration is planned for 1994.
  Doncaster West, Castle House: the caller area was upgraded two years ago and recent improvements have been made to the staff areas. Refurbishment of all toilets commenced in 1989. Future plans include improvements to the main foyer, staff restaurant and car park.

  Social Fund Loans (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund loan applications were refused by each of his Department's offices in the Doncaster area during the financial years(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91 to date, due to perceived inability to repay; and what advice was recommended to those refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of applications recorded as refused on grounds of inability to repay.

  April 1989-March 1990

  April 1990-December 1990

  Doncaster East

  31

  33

  Doncaster West

  107

  43

  Wath on Dearne

  31

  35

  All decision letters advise applicants of their right to ask for a review and refer to the citizens advice bureau or local law centre as a source of general advice. Money advice is normally offered to applicants found to be in financial difficulty, including such cases where an applicant is refused because of a perceived inability to repay.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the temperatures used to trigger severe weather payments recorded at the Eskdalemuir weather station for each day during the last two weeks of 1990 and the first two weeks of 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  A weather station will trigger if there has been a period of seven consecutive days, during which the average mean daily temperature is 0 deg. C or less.

  Eskdalemuir weather station did not trigger on any day during the last two weeks of 1990, or the first two weeks of

  133
  1991. The mean temperature for the seven days ending Sunday 13 January was recorded as —0·8 deg. C when the station did trigger.

  Full details of average mean daily temperatures recorded at all the weather stations can be found in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the levels of pension and other items of support for pensioners available in each of the EC countries indicating where appropriate the level of contribution by the individual.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the 1989 edition of the Department's publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities", a copy of which is in the Library. These set out the social security arrangements in the 12 member states of the EC, showing both national currency and sterling equivalent, converted according to the purchasing power parity figures as explained in the introduction to the tables. The 1990 tables will be available shortly. I regret that information on other items of support for pensioners in other EC countries is not generally available.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been given to his Department's officers on dealing with claims for the severe disability premium in the light of commissioners' decision CIS 372/90.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To date no formal guidance has been issued in the light of this decision which is the subject of appeal proceedings.

  Mobility Costs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the tables in the OPCS reports which indicate the mobility costs of people with behaviour disorders as against those of people with physical handicaps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 20 December 1990]: The information requested is not contained in the tables published in the OPCS reports. We have conducted our own detailed analysis from the OPCS data of the people who were receiving mobility allowance at the time the survey was carried out, compared with those whom we expect to come onto the new lower rate of the disability living allowance. This analysis of the OPCS data indicates that those already in receipt of mobility allowance had total extra costs of around £13 per week, compared with on average around £6 per week for those who are expected to receive the new lower rate mobility component. The figure of £13 would, of course, be lower if everyone with a physical handicap, including many with comparatively minor physical ailments and thus not receiving mobility allowance, were included.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the grant threshold per capita for the sheltered placement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We are currently considering this matter and hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the relationship between TECs and compacts.

  Mr. Jackson
  TECs, with local education authority agreement, may take up contracts for existing compacts currently held with my Department. Additionally, TECs will be asked to establish compacts in those remaining urban programme authority areas in England which are not currently covered by compact arrangements.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives exist to assist the disabled to gain employment within the technology-based industries.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department's sheltered employment programme provides employment opportunities in technology-based industries, among others, for people with severe disabilities. The special aids to employment scheme includes the provision of special computer equipment and other technological aids which are designed to help people with disabilities to get and keep jobs; these aids can be used by people working in technology-based industries. Among the training opportunities provided through the employment training and youth training programmes, information technology centres have a good record of providing technology related training for people with disabilities.

  My Department has many other specialist and general services which can help people with disabilities find work, including employment in technology-based industries.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he has undertaken over the past three years to encourage employers to provide work place facilities which would assist the employment of disabled persons.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department operates a number of initiatives, including:

  (a) The Disablement Advisory Service which helps employers of all sizes and in all types of industry and commerce to adopt and implement good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities;

  (b) A range of special schemes available to help with the employment of people with disabilities, in particular: special aids to employment scheme which provides special equipment which someone with a disability needs to do a particular job; adaptations to premises and equipment scheme which provides a grant towards the cost of necessary adaptations to an employer's premises or equipment to enable someone with a disability to be employed; personal reader service which helps with the cost of a sighted reader for visually handicapped people.

  135

  (c) The sheltered employment programme, within which the sheltered placement scheme provides integrated employment opportunities for people with severe disabilities and sheltered workshops provide jobs in Remploy factories and with local authorities and voluntary bodies;

  (d) The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people, launched in 1984, which offers practical guidance to employers on adopting good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities;

  (e) A new symbol launched on 16 October 1990 which gives employers a simple, practical and effective means of showing that they are committed to good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the numbers of disabled people who are self-employed.

  Mr. Jackson
  Research commissioned by my Department's employment service and undertaken by Social and Community Planning Research estimated that there were 143,000 people with disabilities in self-employment. The findings of this research were published in "Employment and Handicap", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the numbers of disabled people employed within the area of information technology.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, a report of research commissioned by my Department's employment service and undertaken by Social and Community Planning Research contains some information on the type of work undertaken by people with disabilities. A copy of the report, "Employment and Handicap" is in the Library.

  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which sources of information are used by the road transport industry training board to ensure that all relevant businesses comply with the levy regulations.

  Mr. Jackson
  The road transport industry training board uses all relevant sources of information including local knowledge from its training officers, trade and local press and information supplied by employers. These sources are used as the basis for enquiries to companies to ascertain if they are in-scope to the board's levy regulations. Payment of levy is based on statutory returns provided by in-scope companies.

  Sky Television
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits for Australian and New Zealand citizens have(a) been applied for and (b) been granted in respect of applications from Sky Television and British Sky Broadcasting in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Jackson
  No applications for a citizen of New Zealand has been made by either company in the last three years. Sky Television applied for and was granted one work permit in 1989 and one in 1990 in respect of Australian citizens.

SCOTLAND

  Schools
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total capital expenditure on local authority schools in Scotland in each year since 1978, in cash and constant prices.

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

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on schools

  £ million

  Year

  At outturn prices

  At 1989–90 prices

  1978–79

  51·885

  121·400

  1979–80

  47·598

  95· 448

  1980–81

  52·391

  88·783

  1981–82

  60·404

  93·350

  1982–83

  52·378

  75·577

  1983–84

  45·416

  62·635

  1984·85

  45·945

  60·302

  1985–86

  51·124

  63·634

  1986–87

  46·672

  56·172

  1987–88

  47·742

  54·492

  1988–89

  59·392

  63·178

  1989–90

  67·335

  67·335

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

  Outturn figures have been converted to 1989–90 prices using the GDP deflator.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Clyde Purification Board to discuss the likely effects of opencast mining in the Douglas valley; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the Clyde river purification board for this purpose and he has no plans to do so.

  Discharges of trade effluent from opencast mines require the consent of the appropriate river purification board; applications for consent are advertised in accordance with section 36(1)(a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Any representations received about the likely effects of such discharges on the water environment are carefully considered by the board in deciding whether, and subject to what conditions, consent should be granted.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers and categories of NHS staff who are being called up for military service in the Gulf; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of this call-up on the finances of the NHS, and on the quality of service and waiting lists at hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 119 NHS staff in Scotland have been called up for military service in categories as follows:
  137

  Category

  Number

  Doctors

  27

  Nurses

  74

  Laboratory staff

  4

  Paramedical staff

  4

  Administrative/Clerical staff

  4

  Pharmacy staff

  2

  Ancillary staff

  3

  Ambulanceman

  1

  The call up will have some effect on the finances of the NHS but it is not possible to quantify at this stage.

  The effect on quality of service and hospital waiting lists cannot readily be determined. The number of staff being called up is a very small percentage of the total and I would expect health boards to maintain the highest level and quality of service to patients.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many former British residents living overseas have applied to be registered for voting in general elections for each constituency in Scotland under the Representation of the People Act 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on overseas electors is not held centrally. The Government intend to obtain this information from electoral registration officers and to present it to Parliament early in 1991.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the latest list of hospitals in Strathclyde which are known to him or the relevant health boards to be considering trust status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All hospitals and other units within the national health service have been encouraged to consider the possibility of national health service trust status.

  Health Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the executive powers of the health board general managers group; and what is its relationship to himself and to the national health service chief executive;

  (2) on what basis the health board general managers group may jointly implement Whitley council agreements based on local health board flexibility;

  (3) for what reasons the health board general managers group is to use the HAY job evaluation system as part of the process of implementing advanced letter (PTB) 3/90; and if the decision is binding on all health boards in Scotland;

  (4) who authorised the health board general managers group to consider joint implementation of advanced letter (PTB) 3/90.
  138
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health board general managers as a group have no executive powers and are not responsible for implementing Whitley council agreements; the conclusions they may reach on the matters that come before them are not binding on individual health boards. The chief executive, with his senior colleagues, meets general managers regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Individual health boards will implement advance letter (PTB) 3/90, and will each consider whether there would be advantage in adopting the HAY job evaluation system for works and estates staff. The steps taken by individual health boards to implement the agreement in their areas will follow the procedures prescribed in the advance letter.

  Only health boards are authorised to implement Whitley council agreements which allow local health board flexibility.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial allocations he has made to health boards for 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has allocated £2,505·735 million to health boards to meet their expenditure commitment on hospital and community health services in 1991–92. The figure includes £2,244·950 million to meet gross recurrent expenditure commitments, £208·575 million to meet gross capital expenditure commitments, £38·857 million for GP team staff £11·353 million for GP premises and £2 million for GP computers.

  The allocation, taken with health board's own cash-releasing efficiency savings, gives an increase in available resources of 10·75 per cent. It amounts to an extra £225 million for health boards in Scotland.

  There has been a substantial increase in the resources for nurse training and for HIV and AIDS related services and an additional moneys have been made available to help reduce junior doctors' hours.

  Having adjusted for the movement of resources from revenue to capital to account for the new definition of capital, the gross capital amounts available to boards will be £208 million, representing a 10·8 per cent. increase over 1990–91. The capital allocation will continue the high level of investment in hospital building projects of recent years. Substantial investment will be made in major hospital projects now under construction including Ayr hospital, the St. John's hospital in Lothian, the Royal Cornhill hospital in Grampian, the Perth royal infirmary, Tayside, the Western Isles hospital in Stornoway, West Fife DGH phase II in Dunfermline, the spinal injuries unit at Southern general hospital, Glasgow and Udston hospital in Lanark. It will also provide the resources to progress new hospital developments at Oban, Campbeltown, Elgin, Peterhead and Crieff and for improvements to GP surgeries in highland and the island boards.

  Details of individual board allocations are contained in the table:
  139

  Health board allocations: 1991–92

  HCH revenue allocation1

  Final allocation for practice team staff 1991–92

  Final allocation for premises 1991–92

  HCH capital allocations1

  Health board

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Argyll and Clyde

  158,821

  2,934

  680

  11,385

  Ayrshire and Arran

  124,971

  2,653

  800

  13,480

  Borders

  37,567

  760

  50

  1,299

  Dumfries and Galloway

  60,541

  1,020

  600

  3,231

  Fife

  116,411

  2,383

  720

  32,616

  Forth Valley

  108,657

  2,097

  500

  4,813

  Grampian

  204,419

  4,218

  1,100

  17,752

  Greater Glasgow

  529,876

  7,561

  1,400

  26,489

  Highland

  87,225

  1,793

  600

  4,662

  Lanarkshire

  181,755

  3,317

  500

  17,565

  Lothian

  346,505

  5,923

  2,300

  21,321

  Orkney

  7,190

  146

  27

  444

  Shetland

  8,130

  252

  —

  1,632

  Tayside

  201,141

  3,392

  1,197

  15,643

  Western Isles

  12,360

  408

  60

  13,446

  SCOTLAND

  2,185,568

  38,857

  10,534

  185,778

  1 These allocations include a transfer of some £25 million from revenue to capital to reflect a change in the definition of capital expenditure from 1 April 1991.

  A further £59.140 million revenue, £22·797 million capital and £2·819 million general medical services will be distributed during the year for cardiac surgery, hospice funding, computer development and other specific initiatives.

  Health Expenditure
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide(a) the total gross allocation to Scotland for health expenditure in the year 1991–92, (b) a breakdown of the revenue and capital allocation components of the total gross allocation and (c) a breakdown of the total gross allocation and the revenue and capital allocation components of it, for each of the regional health authorities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total gross allocation to Scotland for health expenditure in 1991–92 is £3,383 million, of which £3,148 million is for revenue expenditure. As regards revenue and capital allocations to individual health boards, I refer the hon. Member to my answer today to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the extent of the importation of waste materials into Scotland during(a) 1987–88, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1989–90 by major subject heading; and if he will divide these data into hazardous, toxic or other waste.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Waste disposal authorities have reported imports of waste to Scotland for the calendar years 1987, 1988 and 1989 as shown in the following table. Imports of "toxic waste" are not separately identified but 942 tonnes of "other waste" —neither "special" nor "hazardous"—were imported from England and Wales in 1989, the only year for which such figures are available.

  "Hazardous waste" is defined in the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, which govern movements of such waste into and out of Great
  140
  Britain. "Special waste" is defined in the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, which relate to movements of such waste within Great Britain.

  Year

  Type of waste

  Quantity(Tonnes)

  1987

  Waste imported from outside Great Britain

  15

  Special waste imported from England and Wales

  1—

  1988

  Hazardous waste imported from outside Great Britain

  453

  Special waste imported from England and Wales

  4,867

  1989

  Hazardous waste imported from outside Great Britain

  480

  Special waste imported from England and Wales

  1,000

  1 Information not available centrally. Scottish Homes

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of Scottish Homes sales under the rents to mortgage scheme in each of Scottish Homes district office areas from October 1989 to the nearest available date.

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

  Position at 31 December 1990

  Scottish Homes district office area

  Sales

  Edinburgh

  3

  Lothian and Borders

  28

  Central

  9

  Fife

  11

  Grampian

  17

  Tayside

  7

  Highlands and Islands

  4

  Lanarkshire

  2

  Renfrew and Inverclyde

  14

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  Glasgow North and East

  6

  Glasgow South

  1

  Glasgow West

  1

  TOTAL

  111

  141
  In addition, nine sales have been made to tenants of new town development corporations.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what income Scottish Homes received in capital receipts from house sales in the third quarter of 1990–91 from(a) right-to-buy sales, (b) rents-to-mortgage sales, (c) sales under the portable discount scheme and (d) vacant possession sales.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Right to Buy sales

  10·430

  Rent to Mortgage sales

  0·874

  Portable Discount scheme

  0·276

  Vacant Possession sales

  0·908

  Total

  12·488

  All the above figures include receipts from miscellaneous items such as building insurance and repair funds. Figures net of these miscellaneous items are not currently available for each type of sale.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what income Scottish Homes has received from(a) enabling receipts, (b) stock disposal, (c) voluntary transfers, (d) house sales and (e) disposal of non-housing assets in the first, second and third quarters of 1990–91.

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

  1st Quarter

  2nd Quarter

  3rd Quarter

  Total to 31 December 1990 Quarter

  £ million

  £million

  £million

  £ million

  Enabling Receipts

  5·713

  3·229

  6·911

  15·853

  Stock Disposal

  0·613

  0·387

  0·306

  1·306

  Voluntary Transfers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  House Sales

  5·131

  8·666

  12·322

  26·119

  Disposal of non-Housing Assets

  0·024

  0·468

  0·037

  0·529

  Total

  11·481

  12·750

  19·576

  43·807

  Patents
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals to simplify the laws concerning the protection of patents in Scotland and establish a Scottish patents court similar to the Patents county court in England.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish arrangements for patent litigation were most recently reviewed by a working party under the chairmanship of the hon. Lord Jauncey which concluded that the Court of Session should retain exclusive jurisdiction and that a number of changes should be made to the rules of court to streamline procedures, avoid unnecessary delays and reduce costs. These changes will shortly be brought into effect by the making of amendments to the rules of court. Patent law in the United Kingdom has recently been amended by parts V and VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no proposals for further changes.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures available for the(a) number and (b) percentage of Scottish school leavers with no qualifications.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number and the percentage of Scottish school leavers who left during session 1988–89 with no Scottish Certificate of Education qualifications were 8,623 and 11·9 per cent. respectively.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a table for recorded crime in Scotland comparable with that provided on 30 October 1990,Official Report, columns 477–80, on crime statistics in Strathclyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is available from Scottish Office Home and Health Department statistical bulletins. Information for the years 1980 to 1989 is published in the bulletin entitled "Recorded Crime in Scotland, 1989", and for the year 1979 is published in "Recorded Crime in Scotland, 1988". Copies of these bulletins are in the Library.

  M8 (Lighting)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to light the M8 motorway from the St. James intersection at Glasgow airport to Greenock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what it costs to clean up the oil spillage around the coast of the River Clyde resulting from the accident caused by the Argyle and Clyde health board; and which bodies paid for this.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Business Rates
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of non-payment of business rates for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91 in Strathclyde region.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is not available centrally.

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies and at what grades exist for professionally qualified staff in the procurator fiscal service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are seven vacancies at legal assistant grade.

  Courts Vacancies
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies and at what grades exist for staff in the employment of Scottish courts administrations.
  143
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 14 January 1991, there were seven unfilled posts in the Scottish court service, three in the AO grade, two in the typist grades, and two in the support grades.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies and at what grades exist for staff in the general department of the Court of Session.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no vacancies at any grade in the general department of the Court of Session.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants and at what grades are currently employed in the private offices of Ministers in the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  Grade 5

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  2

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  3

  Executive Officer

  4

  Adminstrative Officer

  6

  Personal Secretary

  7

  Typist

  1

  In addition, one special adviser is attached to my office.

  Further Education Unit
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his examination of the case for a Scottish further education unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Consideration of the case has now been completed and my right hon. Friend and I have decided to reconstitute the curriculum advice and support team—CAST—as a Scottish further education unit with effect from 1 April 1991. The new unit will continue to be located at Jordanhill college, but will have a wider remit than CAST to enable it to provide better support to further education colleges in implementing the Government's recent reforms of college management. It will also be well placed to meet new needs such as those arising from the completion of the single European market when greater labour mobility will have implications for vocational education and training.

  In addition to core funding of £294,000 for 1991–92, a further £150,000 will be made available from 1 April 1991. From 1 April 1992 an additional £150,000 will be made available by the transfer of a proportion of the in-service training funding currently made to the Jordanhill college by the Scottish Office education department. I expect the new unit to liaise closely with the Scottish school of further education, Jordanhill college, and others active in further education in Scotland to meet our needs for a highly skilled work force.

  Education (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the allocated expenditure for local authority capital expenditure on education in Scotland in every year since 1979 at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: Details of consents to local authorities to incur capital expenditure on educational building are given in the table:

  Capital consent allocations for educational building

  £ million at 1990–91 prices

  Year

  Allocations

  1979–80

  116·094

  1980–81

  97·838

  1981–82

  93·826

  1982–83

  75·562

  1983–84

  68·002

  1984–85

  57·138

  1985–86

  67·583

  1986–87

  59·767

  1987–88

  63·083

  1988–89

  64·123

  1989–90

  66·695

  1990–91

  61·669

  Fish Marketing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the grant of European Community or national funds for the marketing and processing of fisheries and aquaculture produce and the improvement of facilities at fishing ports under EC regulation 4028/86; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: Support for the processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture produce has been available until recently under EC regulation 355/77. Scottish companies have a high success rate: since the inception of the scheme over 130 awards have been made attracting 25 per cent. grant worth some £9 million. In the last round, 11 companies were awarded £1·1 million in December 1990. Successful projects also receive United Kingdom Government grant of at least 8 per cent. of project costs.

  Regulation 355/77 is being replaced, but support will continue. Bilateral discussions with the European Commission on a Community support framework for the United Kingdom under EC regulation 4042/89 are at an advanced stage. Agreement is expected next month opening the way for EC grant aid for projects seeking to improve the marketing and processing of fisheries and aquaculture produce. Administrative arrangements for the new scheme are already in place with an EC grant rate of up to 30 per cent. being available for Scottish projects along with a national back-up grant of 5 per cent.

  United Kingdom companies may apply for grants for the improvement of facilities at fishing ports under EC regulation 4028/86. Two Scottish applications have already been successful in this regard and four new applications are with the Commission for consideration.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1990 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken down into the

  145
  individual institutions but including their outstations, with the figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The information is as follows:

  1990

  Percentage Change since 1989

  National Galleries of Scotland

  808,803

  +13·98

  National Museums of Scotland

  1,001,827

  +11·39

  The national galleries of Scotland comprise the national gallery of Scotland, the Scottish national gallery of modern art and the Scottish national portrait gallery. The national museums of Scotland comprise the royal museum of Scotland buildings at Chambers street and Queen street,

  October 1988

  September 1989

  July 1990

  Percentage change 1988 to 1989

  Percentage change 1989 to 1990

  Borders

  82,840

  77,935

  78,285

  -5·9

  0·4

  Central

  n/a

  206,389

  204,412

  n/a

  -1·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  110,859

  111,326

  111,434

  0·4

  0·1

  Fife

  253,500

  269,058

  259,961

  6·1

  -3·4

  Grampian

  377,766

  377,785

  373,581

  0·0

  -1·1

  Highland

  n/a

  147,771

  148,270

  n/a

  0·3

  Lothian

  589,209

  604,320

  578,982

  2·6

  -4·2

  Strathclyde

  1,786,017

  1,761,450

  1,737,284

  -1·4

  -1·4

  Tayside

  290,700

  295,490

  291,682

  1·6

  -1·3

  Orkney

  14,775

  14,329

  14,372

  -3·0

  0·3

  Shetland

  16,459

  16,021

  15,982

  -2·7

  -0·2

  Western Isles

  n/a

  22,315

  22,165

  n/a

  -0·7

  All Scotland total

  n/a

  3,904,189

  3,834,410

  n/a

  -1·8

  n/a: Not available.

  Electoral Registers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of electors registered in each Scottish parliamentary constituency for

  Constituency

  Electoral register 1988

  Percentage change

  Electoral register 1989

  Percentage change

  Electoral register 1990

  Percentage change

  Aberdeen North

  62,075

  -2·63

  60,604

  -2·37

  60,640

  +0·06

  Aberdeen South

  60,323

  -4·69

  58,946

  -2·28

  59,420

  +0·80

  Angus East

  61,643

  +0·07

  61,899

  +0·42

  62,136

  +0·38

  Argyll and Bute

  48,912

  -0·73

  48,695

  -0·44

  48,695

  -0·13

  Ayr

  67,063

  -0·24

  66,545

  -0·77

  66,545

  -0·04

  Banff and Buchan

  63,054

  +0·30

  62,829

  -0·36

  64,248

  +2·26

  Caithness and Sutherland

  30,978

  -1·72

  31,031

  +0·17

  30,701

  -1·06

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  56,708

  -0·85

  56,343

  -0·64

  56,290

  -0·09

  Central Fife

  56,440

  -0·40

  56,183

  -0·46

  56,249

  +0·12

  Clackmannan

  49,127

  -0·92

  48,757

  -0·75

  48,902

  +0·30

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  50,128

  -1·37

  49,178

  -1·90

  48,365

  -1·65

  Clydesdale

  62,602

  +0·28

  62,456

  -0·23

  62,392

  -0·10

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  46,392

  +0·55

  46,345

  -0·10

  46,723

  +0·82

  Cunninghame North

  55,566

  +0·04

  55,262

  -0·55

  55,584

  +0·58

  Cunninghame South

  50,414

  -0·25

  49,931

  -0·96

  49,931

  —

  Dumbarton

  59,369

  -0·56

  58,328

  -1·75

  58,044

  -0·49

  Dumfries

  59,972

  -0·03

  59,962

  -0·02

  61,057

  +1·83

  Dundee East

  61,221

  -0·21

  60,394

  -1·35

  59,147

  -2·07

  Dundee West

  61,445

  -1·61

  60,246

  -1·95

  60,197

  -0·08

  Dunfermline East

  51,008

  -1·32

  50,894

  -0·22

  50,746

  -0·29

  Dunfermline West

  51,384

  -0·38

  51,412

  +0·05

  51,445

  +0·06

  146
  Edinburgh, the Scottish agricultural museum, the Scottish united services museum, the museum of flight and the Shambellie museum of costume.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of people registered for community charge payments in each regional authority for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will list the percentage changes in each case compared with the previous year's figures.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The available information, obtained from returns by community charges registration officers, is set out in the table. The figures include students, who are liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge, but exclude those liable for collective or standard charges. The October 1988 figures were provisional, and unavailable for some areas.

  1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will list the percentage changes which have taken place in each case compared with the previous year's figures.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The information is set out in the table.
  147

  Constituency

  Electoral register 1988

  Percentage change

  Electoral register 1989

  Percentage change

  Electoral register 1990

  Percentage change

  East Kilbride

  63,956

  -0·07

  63,715

  -0ֵ38

  64,206

  +0·77

  East Lothian

  65,542

  -0·09

  66,108

  +0·86

  67,524

  +2·14

  Eastwood

  62,839

  +0·20

  63,483

  +1·02

  64,083

  +0·95

  Edinburgh Central

  58,975

  -1·31

  57,069

  -3·23

  57,794

  +1·27

  Edinburgh East

  48,745

  -1·00

  47,802

  -1·93

  48,558

  +1·58

  Edinburgh Leith

  60,031

  -1·08

  58,984

  -1·74

  59,331

  +0·59

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  58,884

  +0·40

  58,538

  -0·59

  57,280

  -2·15

  Edinburgh South

  64,026

  -0·31

  62,452

  -2·46

  62,205

  -0·40

  Edinburgh West

  62,652

  -0·12

  61,172

  -2·36

  60,840

  -0·54

  Falkirk East

  52,737

  -0·57

  52,679

  -0·11

  52,514

  -0·31

  Falkirk West

  50,606

  -0·20

  50,506

  -0·20

  50,739

  +0·46

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,621

  -0·69

  53,481

  -0·26

  54,512

  +1·93

  Glasgow Cathcart

  48,767

  -2·14

  47,702

  -2·18

  46,861

  -1·76

  Glasgow Central

  50,867

  -1·33

  50,535

  -0·65

  49,943

  -1·17

  Glasgow Garscadden

  46,916

  -3·24

  44,828

  -4·45

  43,397

  -3·19

  Glasgow Govan

  50,190

  -1·88

  48,908

  -2·55

  48,089

  -1·67

  Glasgow Hillhead

  57,704

  -0·93

  56,718

  -1·71

  56,631

  -0·15

  Glasgow Maryhill

  52,039

  -1·72

  50,589

  -2·79

  49,316

  -2·52

  Glasgow Pollock

  50,829

  -2·29

  49,497

  -2·62

  48,317

  -2·38

  Glasgow Provan

  42,908

  -3·35

  41,086

  -4·25

  39,966

  -2·73

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  56,929

  -1·97

  55,695

  -2·17

  54,920

  -1·40

  Glasgow Shettleston

  53,883

  -0·63

  53,254

  -1·17

  52,973

  -0·53

  Glasgow Springburn

  50,489

  -3·21

  48,785

  -3·37

  47,612

  -2·40

  Gordon

  75,228

  +1·39

  75,534

  +0·41

  77,974

  +3·23

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  57,339

  -1·97

  55,612

  -3·01

  54,564

  -1·89

  Hamilton

  63,167

  +0·02

  62,688

  -0·76

  63,127

  +0·70

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  66,695

  -0·95

  67,262

  +0·85

  68,011

  +1·11

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  63,325

  -0·18

  62,834

  -0·78

  62,982

  +0·24

  Kincardine and Deeside

  64,398

  +0·28

  64,427

  +0·05

  65,492

  +1·65

  Kirkcaldy

  53,823

  -0·18

  53,626

  -0·37

  53,067

  -1·04

  Linlithgow

  60,584

  +0·95

  61,135

  +0·91

  61,786

  +1·06

  Livingston

  58,008

  +1·36

  59,533

  +2·63

  60,868

  +2·24

  Midlothian

  61,139

  +0·01

  61,089

  -0·08

  60,982

  -0·18

  Monklands East

  50,271

  -0·27

  49,533

  -1·47

  49,658

  +0·25

  Monklands West

  51,300

  -0·61

  50,450

  -1·66

  50,526

  +0·15

  Moray

  63,206

  +0·46

  62,838

  -0·58

  63,309

  +0·75

  Motherwell North

  58,331

  -0·36

  57,971

  -0·62

  58,112

  +0·24

  Motherwell South

  52,599

  -0·46

  51,704

  -1·70

  51,470

  -0·45

  North East Fife

  52,442

  -0·62

  52,310

  -0·25

  52,854

  +1·04

  North Tayside

  54,582

  +0·22

  54,367

  -0·39

  54,831

  +0·85

  Orkney and Shetland

  31,180

  -0·49

  31,116

  -0·21

  31,094

  -0·07

  Paisley North

  48,973

  -2·09

  48,213

  -1·55

  48,208

  -0·01

  Paisley South

  50,403

  -2·76

  49,595

  -1·60

  49,363

  -0·47

  Perth and Kinross

  63,957

  -0·01

  64,505

  +0·86

  64,669

  +0·25

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  57,025

  +0·12

  57,234

  +0·37

  57,999

  +1·34

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  52,278

  -1·00

  53,062

  +1·50

  54,084

  +1·93

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  43,631

  -0·03

  43,484

  -0·34

  43,675

  +0·44

  Stirling

  58,715

  +0·47

  58,387

  -0·56

  58,429

  +0·07

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  63,296

  -0·45

  62,706

  -0·93

  62,339

  -0·59

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  38,438

  +0·40

  38,773

  +0·87

  39,204

  +1·11

  Western Isles

  23,085

  -2·53

  23,097

  +0·05

  23,084

  -0·06

  148

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will establish a nationwide scheme of assistance for retirement pensioners to travel at concessionary rates of 75 per cent. or 66 per cent. on road and rail transport in off-peak hours;

  (2) whether he will establish a nationwide scheme of assistance for retirement pensioners to travel free on road and rail transport at off-peak hours.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: We have no plans to change the present arrangements. Local authorities already have adequate powers to provide travel concessions in their areas and there are schemes for free or cheap travel on local public transport in all areas of Scotland. Local authorities may, if they choose, act jointly with other local authorities to establish a scheme which would operate throughout their areas. British Rail and the main long distance coach operators also have their own travel concession arrangements.

ENVIRONMENT

  Warwickshire County Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis his Department assessed Warwickshire county council to earn interest of £6·7 million as set out in the standard spending assessment for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The basis of the assessment is set out in paragraphs 3.50 and 3.51 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) which was approved by the House on 18 January 1990. The assessment for interest receipts is calculated in proportion to an authority's standard spending assessment for all services, except the capital financing element.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been exempted from paying the community charge in each category of exemption in the Doncaster local authority area.

  Mr. Key
  The information returned by the local authority is as follows:

  Numbers of persons exempt from community charge, 1 June 1990

  Number

  Severely mentally impaired

  418

  Patients whose main residence is a National Health Service hospital

  545

  People whose sole or main residence is in a residential care home, a nursing home, a private hospital or a hostel providing care, who are receiving care

  1,676

  Aged 18 and in receipt of child benefit, or aged 18 or 19 and on full-time courses of further education

  542

  Members of religious communities

  34

  Others1

  24

  150

  1 People in detention, members of visiting forces, international headquarters and defence organisations and their dependants, including diplomats. These categories have been combined because of the small numbers involved.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on city grant in 1989–90, showing final expenditure for the year broken down by standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  East Midlands

  3,368,489

  London

  695,633

  Merseyside

  279,238

  Northern

  1,762,354

  North West

  1,653,486

  South West

  16,387

  West Midlands

  2,957,808

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  760,632

  Total

  11,494,027

  This excludes city grant in urban development corporations.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing the expected income from the uniform business rate in 1990–91, broken down by standard regions with Greater London shown as a separate region and a similar table showing the level of income had no transitional arrangement been in place.

  Mr. Key
  The information is not available in exactly the form requested. The following table shows the estimated gross income from non-domestic rates for each region before and after the transitional arrangements are applied. The figures do not include the effects of reliefs for empty or charitable property or other reliefs nor any allowance for losses in collection.

  Gross yield (£m)

  Without transitional arrangements

  With transitional arrangements

  Northern

  386

  483

  Yorks and Humberside

  682

  800

  North West

  858

  1,100

  East Midlands

  559

  620

  West Midlands

  713

  888

  East Anglia

  341

  316

  London

  3,462

  2,882

  South East

  2,214

  1,985

  South West

  719

  666

  England

  9,915

  9,741

  Gross yield without transition is equal to the gross rateable value on proposed local rating lists at 20 December 1989 multiplied by the 1990–91 non-domestic multiplier. Properties on the central rating list and Crown property are excluded.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in specifying minimum fire resistance periods for certain building groups in the proposed amendments to approved document B of the Building
  151
  Regulations (England and Wales), what account he has taken of the need to provide adequate protection for fire fighters in low rise buildings and basements.

  Mr. Yeo
  The primary purpose of part B of the Building Regulations 1985 is the protection of life in the event of fire, and the consultation proposals on amendments to these provisions took account of the safety of firefighters as well as of other persons. In the light of comments received, the Fire Advisory Panel and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee are now considering whether the original proposals, including those relating to fire resistance periods, require to be modified to provide a greater degree of protection for fire fighters, particularly in low-rise buildings and basements.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the possibilities afforded by the DNA techniques developed by Professor Alec Jeffreys, FRS, of the university of Leicester for the enhanced breeding of captive animals from endangered species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am aware of the investigations which are being carried out connected with the possible application of Professor Jeffreys' DNA techniques and I recognise that this biotechnology may have a part to play in the conservation of endangered species. However, research is still continuing into these techniques and it is too soon to make a proper assessment of their full potential.

  Specialist Housing
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list, for every local authority in England, the number of non-sheltered housing units for the elderly started by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) the private sector in 1989;

  (2) if he will list, for each local authority in England, the number of sheltered housing units started by (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) the private sector in 1989.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available figures for starts of newly-built dwellings of these types are published in table 11 of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales, No. 94, July 1990", a copy of which is in the Library. Local authorities also report the number of their own dwellings which have been converted or improved to provide dwellings suitable for the elderly, both sheltered and other, and this is listed in table 13 of the above publication.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list, for each local authority area in England, the number of specialist housing units for chronically sick and disabled people provided by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) the private sector as of 1989–90;

  (2) if he will list, for each local authority in England, the number of specialist units of accommodation available for elderly people provided by (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) the private sector as of 1989–90.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities report the number of their own dwellings, and estimates of those owned by housing 152
  associations and in the private sector, which have been specially designed or adapted for use by the elderly or disabled in their annual Housing Investment Programme returns (HIP1). The available figures for 1 April 1990 appear in "1990 HIP1 All Items Print". Local authority dwellings for the elderly appear in columns A2a1 (sheltered) and A2b1 (others) and for the disabled in columns A2c1 (wheelchair) and A2d1 (other). The small number of dwellings owned by the local authorities outside their areas are shown at columns A2a6 to A2d6. Corresponding figures for housing associations and the private sector appear in columns A2a2 to A2d2, and columns A2a4 to A2d4 respectively. A copy of the document is in the Library.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority in England, the number of households assessed as needing specialist accommodation for(a) the elderly and (b) the disabled, in 1989–90.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities report estimates of the number of households in their area who require specialist elderly or disabled dwellings in their annual housing investment programme returns (HIP1). The available figures for 1 April 1990 appear in columns B2a1 and B2b1 respectively, of "1990 HIP1 All Items Print". A copy of the document is in the Library.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those local authorities which are eligible to bid for a share of the £2 million credit approvals he has announced for low-cost rural housing.

  Mr. Yeo
  The rural housing programme for 1991–92 totals £50 million of supplementary credit approvals, not £2 million. All English local authorities, except for London boroughs and the City of London, metropolitan district councils, and other districts designated under the urban programme, are eligible to submit bids under the programme.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the maintenance costs of County hall, London SE1, over the past two years.

  Mr. Key
  I understand from the London residuary body that the cost of maintaining County hall in 1989–90 was £3·8 million and is estimated at £2·7 million for 1990–91. For this purpose maintenance includes security, insurance, cleaning and energy costs as well as repairs and day-to-day maintenance.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the current annualised cost of keeping County hall, London SE1 empty.

  Mr. Key
  The London residuary body estimates that, if it were not to dispose of County hall in 1991–92, the cost of repairs and maintenance, security, insurance and energy in that year would be £2·5 million.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure from his Department on urban development corporations and other forms of public support to urban development corporations in 1989–90, showing separately his Department's grant to urban development corporations and the total cost to the Exchequer of forms of tax reliefs available to urban development corporation areas, with the figures to be shown separately for each urban development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  Public funding for urban development corporations in 1989–90 was comprised entirely of Departmental grant-in-aid, set out in the table. Tax reliefs are not generally applied to corporation areas, but are available in enterprise zones, some of which overlap with urban development corporation areas. Data on reliefs just for these overlapping areas is not readily available.

  1989–90 grant-in-aid

  £ million

  Black Country

  38·0

  Bristol

  5·0

  Central Manchester

  11·0

  Leeds

  8·75

  London Docklands

  255·75

  Merseyside

  23·0

  Sheffield

  9·5

  Teesside

  36·009

  Trafford Park

  13·3

  Tyne and Wear

  35·8

  Total

  436·109

  Fire Safety
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses there have been to date on his Department's proposed changes to part B of the Building Regulations 1985 relating to the reduction of five resistance periods, increased compartment sizes and relaxation of non-combustibility requirements; and if he will indicate the proportions in favour of these proposals and those against.

  Sir George Young
  Up to January 18, comments had been received from 220 different organisations, companies and individuals on the proposals for amendments to part B, Safety in fire, of the Building Regulations 1985. Of these:10 per cent. were in favour of and 39 per cent. against the proposals relating to the reduction of fire resistance periods;
  12 per cent. were in favour of and 27 per cent. against the proposals relating to compartmentation;
  12 per cent. were in favour of and 20 per cent. against the proposals relating to the relaxation of non-combustibility requirements.

  In each case, the remaining respondents expressed no firm view on this aspect of the proposals.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received concerning the volume of toxic materials emitted by incineration of waste and related to the creation and properties of products of incomplete combustion.
  154
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The Department has received reports from various sources, particularly Warren Spring laboratory, on emissions from waste incinerators, including information on the main toxic products of incomplete combustion. The most recent report from the Laboratory covering municipal solid waste incineration and dioxins (Ref. LR 776 PA), will be published in April.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to ban all waste disposal methods and industries which produce dioxins; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: Waste incineration is the main identifiable industrial source of dioxins. It is also an important waste disposal option which reduces the pressure on landfill disposal. Emissions of dioxins can however be reduced to levels at or below the level of detection if efficient combustion and abatement is achieved. That is the aim of present controls on the industry in the United Kingdom, including the provisions of the European directives on municipal waste incineration plants.

  Local Government
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered proposals other than from parish councils to involve communities in the affairs of local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: A number of district and borough councils have adopted systems to involve their local communities in the delivery of services. This has not involved putting proposals to my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to include the financing of parish, community or town councils in the review of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: My right hon. Friend announced on 5 December that we shall be conducting a fundamental review of local government finance and structure. This will include the financing of statutory parish, community and town councils.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy on the introduction of parish councils in larger city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The guidelines to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the circumstances in which they should recommend the creation of parishes in urban areas are set out in paragraphs 14–23 of DOE circular 121/77 of 12 December 1977 (Local Government Act 1972: Parish Reviews).

  Disability
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he plans to have with organisations representing disabled people and their
  155
  carers, in his review of the community charge, to discuss the effects of the community charge on disabled people and their carers;

  (2) what representations his Department has received concerning the impact of the community charge on disabled people and their carers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: I continue to receive representations from such organisations; their views on the community charge will be welcomed by my Department.

  Land Development, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the sale by Liverpool city council of public open spaces to developers; if he will call in all development applications involved in inquiries by Merseyside police; if he will hold public inquiries into subsequent applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 45 letters, including those from the hon. Member, and a petition of 65 signatures. He has no plans for calling-in or holding inquiries into planning applications involving investigation by the Merseyside police. As I stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member on 14 December at col. 518, the Secretary of State is unlikely to intervene unless applications raise planning issues of more than local importance.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Government's initiative on homelessness.

  Sir George Young
  The Government have committed significant resources to reduce the numbers sleeping out in London, to assist local authorities faced with severe homelessness pressures and to provide direct assistance through homelessness advice and support schemes. As I announced on 18 December, we are making available £96 million over three years to provide short-term direct access hostels for people sleeping on the streets and longer term accommodation in housing association flats and houses for those currently in hostels. Nick Hardwick, director of Centrepoint, has joined my team for six months to work on the development of this programme. £300 million is being allocated over this year and next to local authorities and housing associations in London and the south-east in order to reduce the extent to which they have to use bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families. In addition we have expanded support to the voluntary sector to £2 million this year, and £4·5 million next year, to establish a national homelessness advice service and to run practical projects to help single homeless people find temporary and permanent accommodation.

HEALTH

  Radiation Treatment
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were damaged by excess radiation treatment at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital,156
  Wonford in Exeter during the period 15 February 1988 to 12 July 1988; how many are alive; how many cases of compensation have been settled on agreed financial terms; and how many are still outstanding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 207 patients were treated on the miscalibrated radiotherapy unit. To date, Exeter health authority has been notified of the deaths of 134 patients and so far as the authority is aware the remaining 73 are alive.

  I am advised by Exeter health authority that, of the 104 claims received so far, 38 have reached full and final settlement and 21 have reached agreed settlement on the element of the claims concerning pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

  AIDS
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been infected by the AIDS virus through the infusion of whole blood or platelets.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people, other than haemophiliacs, are known to have been infected with the HIV virus through national health service blood transfusions; if he will categorise them according to the nature of their requirement for a blood transfusion; how many have developed AIDS; and how many have died.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Up to 31 December 1990, the total number of reports in the United Kingdom of recipients of blood transfusions infected with HIV is 135. This includes persons known to have been transfused in the United Kingdom, those transfused abroad and those where the place of transfusion is unknown.

  The number known to have been transfused in the United Kingdom is 49. The number reported with AIDS is 28 of whom 20 are known to have died.

  The information is not available centrally to categories the HIV-infected recipients by the nature of their requirement for blood transfusion.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service hospitals that are earmarked to assist in the Gulf dispute to accept casualties have also been granted trust status from 1 April; and if he will make a statement as to those hospitals' financial basis for the financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities' plans for dealing with casualties from hostilities in the Gulf involve hospitals throughout the national health service. It is for health authorities to allocate cases to particular hospitals and information on which hospitals will be used is not available centrally.

  The Government will provide extra money to meet the full costs of any Gulf casualties. We have told health authorities that they should spend what is necessary and we are giving guidance on how to account for and reclaim Gulf costs. This means that health authorities will be able to continue to use all the money in their normal allocations for their normal workload.

  Neurological Disorders
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the grants made to voluntary organisations concerned with neurological disorders in 1990–91, 1989–90 and 1988–89.

  Organisation

  Section 64 grants made

  Section 64 grants approved for payment

  RPI1

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1988–90 £

  Action for Dysphasic Adults

  —

  —

  16,580

  10,000

  Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis

  —

  —

  —

  13,000

  Alzheimers Disease Society

  130,000

  130,000

  130,000

  —

  Association for All Speech Impaired Children

  —

  —

  —

  25,000

  Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus

  26,250

  14,790

  34,919

  —

  Association to Combat Huntingdon's Chorea

  10,000

  20,000

  10,000

  5,000

  Bobath Centre

  —

  —

  —

  28,500

  Brain Damage Research Trust

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  British Institute of Mental Handicap

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  —

  British Paralympic Association

  —

  —

  —

  500,000

  Campaign for Mentally Handicapped (now called Value into Action)

  24,205

  20,000

  20,000

  —

  Chest Heart and Stroke Association

  23,000

  50,000

  71,163

  —

  Downs Syndrome Association

  —

  15,000

  15,000

  —

  Dystonia Society

  —

  —

  6,920

  —

  Foundation for Conductive Education

  —

  24,200

  45,579

  30,000

  Headway

  40,000

  40,000

  40,000

  —

  Mencap

  220,000

  250,000

  250,000

  325,000

  Menieres Society

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Migraine Trust

  —

  —

  8,000

  —

  Motor Neurone Association

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  15,000

  Muscular Dystrophy

  —

  —

  —

  70,000

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association

  5,000

  10,000

  10,000

  —

  Neurofibromatosis Association (LINK)

  —

  5,000

  5,000

  —

  Pain Relief Foundation

  8,000

  8,500

  8,500

  5,000

  Parkinson's Disease Society

  15,000

  13,375

  —

  —

  St. Elizabeth's Home

  —

  —

  —

  8,000

  St. Katherine Housing Association Ltd.

  —

  —

  18,000

  3,000

  SENSE

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  —

  Spinal Injuries Association

  25,000

  25,000

  —

  —

  Stars Organisation for Spastics

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  Tuberous Scelerosis Association

  1,500

  2,000

  2,000

  —

  1 The RPI fund was only available for these two years.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received from the chairman of Trent regional health authority its decision to endorse the application made by Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu Mexborough hospital to become a national health service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Trent regional health authority formally supported the application made by Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu Mexborough hospital for trust status at its public meeting on 12 November 1990, and notified the Department of their decision on the same day.

  Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the timetable for the third wave of national health service trust applications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The timetable for third wave NHS trust applications will be broadly the same as for the second wave. On this basis, it would be as follows:

  September 1991
  All units will be invited to express an interest in applying for Trust status without commitment.
  158
  Mr. Dorrell
  Grants made to voluntary organisations concerned, at least in part, with people who suffer from neurological disorders, in so far as they can be identified, are shown in the table. Grants were awarded by the Department of Health either under section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968 or through disbursement of retail prices index error funds.

  End April 1992
  Potential Trusts complete and submit formal applications.

  May-July 1992
  Consultation by Regional Health Authorities on formal applications.

  September 1992
  Succcessful Trusts will be established, with the appointment of Trust Chairmen and non-executive directors.

  October-March 1993
  Trusts run in shadow form. Arrangements are made for transfer of assets and staff.

  April 1993
  Third wave NHS Trusts become operational.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he proposes to take in order to evaluate the first wave of national health service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the local level district health authorities will be closely engaged with NHS trusts in negotiating contracts for services. Trusts will have at least one public meeting each year to discuss their annual report and accounts. Nationally, trusts will be accountable through their business plans and in-year financial monitoring.

  Abortions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last five years the number of abortions over 12 weeks' gestation performed on women under(a) 20 years, (b) 20 to 24 years, (c) 25 to 34 years and (d) over 34 years of age, resident in the Trent regional health authority area, and in each constituent district health authority thereof, respectively.

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

  Year

  Post code sector

  NN9

  NN14

  NN15

  NN16

  NN17

  NN18

  PE8

  PE9

  1982

  477

  377

  339

  288

  341

  461

  185

  266

  1983

  426

  351

  332

  277

  339

  480

  185

  308

  1984

  447

  346

  290

  283

  328

  466

  166

  296

  1985

  459

  374

  342

  287

  362

  504

  194

  294

  1986

  447

  367

  326

  333

  325

  474

  203

  284

  1987

  474

  392

  380

  353

  361

  480

  194

  283

  1988

  513

  404

  355

  345

  399

  476

  194

  306

  1989

  507

  425

  361

  368

  383

  489

  196

  284

  Information Technology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allowance has been made of the level of capital expenditure by local authorities on information technology for community care purposes in the assessment of central Government grants; and what was the estimate of total such expenditure on which this was assessed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Supplementary credit approvals of £4·9 million are available in 1991–92 to help local authorities—LAs—meet the cost of purchasing software to assist them in the work which needs to be done effectively to develop, monitor and review the community care planning process.

  The Government have issued to LAs annual capital guidelines—ACGs—of £85 million for 1990–91 and £98 million is available for 1991–92. Because ACGs are unhypothecated, LAs may use them for expenditure on information technology—IT—for the community care programme. These resources may be supplemented by other receipts available to LAs from the sale of capital assets and by revenue moneys. The amount of capital which any individual LA will need to spend on the IT needed to support the community care programme will depend on local circumstances.

  Incontinence
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is funding, or planning to fund, into the problems facing people who suffer from incontinence and the advice available to them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is currently funding a project which will draw together existing evidence on incontinence in six OPCS disability survey reports and relate this to previous United Kingdom research on incontinence and incontinence services. The project will also carry out additional analysis of the data on incontinence gathered during the surveys. A new project on the current and future roles of continence advisers is due to start in April 1991.

  Births
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list, for each of the past 10 years, the number of births by postal code of the residence of the mother of each of the following postal code areas(a) NN9, (b) NN14, (c) NN15, (d) NN16, (e) NN17, (f) NN18, (g) PE8 and (h) PE9.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives the number of live births in the post code sectors specified. These statistics are riot available prior to 1982.

  Family Health, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the practices covered by the Doncaster family health service authority have met the targets introduced in the general practitioners' new contract for(a) cervical cytology, (b) childhood immunisation and (c) boosters; how many minor surgery services they are anticipated to complete in the current year; how many children under five years have registered for child health surveillance with them; how many health promotion sessions they will have; and how many patients they are likely to see in them by the end of March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. As at 30 September 1990, the proportion of GPs covered by Doncaster family health services authority —FHSA—who qualified for either a higher or lower target payment is as follows:(a) cervical cytology 100 per cent., (b) childhood immunisations 83 per cent. and (c) pre-school boosters 72 per cent. It is not yet possible to make forecasts of the likely levels of provision of particular services. As at 30 September, 390 payments had been made in respect of minor surgery sessions; 5,320 children were registered for child health surveillance services; and 966 payments in respect of health promotion clinics had been made.

  Handynet System
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current use of the EEC's Handynet system.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The EC's computerised database of information for disabled people, known as Handynet, is not yet in operation. Preparation for the first module of Handynet, which is concerned with aids and equipment for disabled people and known as Handyaids, was completed in November 1990. The United Kingdom has nominated the Disabled Living Foundation as its co-ordination centre for Handyaids. The foundation will shortly be signing a contract with the EC Commission to enable it to enter its aids and equipment database into the Handyaids
  161
  system and to gain access to the data provided by co-ordination centres in other member states. It is anticipated that users will then be able to consult the database through the United Kingdom co-ordination centre by the summer of 1991.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has, using the World Health Organisation's classification, of the number of people with(a) impairments, (b) disabilities and (c) handicaps; and what he estimates the numbers to be in each category by the year 2000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  These concepts were used by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its surveys of disability in Great Britain carried out between 1985 and 1988, the findings of which include the prevalence of disability among both adults and children. The results of the surveys were published in a series of six reports, which are available in the Library and are as listed. Assuming that the prevalence rate in each age group remains unchanged, we estimate that there will be a 9 per cent. increase in the total number of people with disabilities between 1985 and 2000, as a result of the changing age structure of the population. Actual figures will of course depend on a number of varying factors, including the advance of medical science.

  "The Prevalence of Disability Among Adults"
  "The Financial Circumstances of Disabled Adults Living in Private Households"
  "The Prevalence of Disability Among Children"
  "Disabled Adults: Services, Transport and Employment"
  "The Financial Circumstances of Families with a Disabled Child Living in Private Households"
  "Disabled Children: Service, Transport and Education"

  HIV
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for compensation have been received by his Department from those, other than haemophiliacs, with an HIV infection obtained from a national health service blood transfusion; and what has been the response to such claims.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not aware that writs have been served on the Department of Health by individuals infected with HIV through national health service blood transfusions. Some writs have been served on health authorities.

  North Devon Health Care Trust
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter dated 4 December 1990 and that of his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hooper, dated 14 January 1991, both addressed to the hon. Member for Devon, North indicating the deferral of the application for establishing a North Devon health care trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Both letters will be placed in the Library. I will be making a statement shortly.

  Women Doctors
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals to improve the career opportunities of women doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce the publication today of the report of the joint working party on women doctors and their careers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This proposes practical measures which can be taken to improve the career opportunities of women doctors.

  The Government are providing £1·5 million for a number of initiatives—including new part-time training posts, increasing the fee for doctors on retainer scheme from £155 a year to £290 and supporting a new scheme designed to increase the number of women in surgical specialties.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a list of bone marrow transplant units based in hospitals in England; and if he will make extra financial provision available to consultants in the units to fund the prescription of the drug Alpha Interferon to leukaemia patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. There are no plans to provide extra funding specifically to take account of the cost of prescribing Alpha Interferon to leukaemia patients. Hospitals are funded for the cost of drugs as part of their general allocation, and it is for them to determine locally how this should be spent.

  North Devon Health Care Trust
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sponsors of the proposed North Devon health care trust as at 1 December 1990, together with any subsequent changes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The sponsors of the Northern Devon health care trust as at 1 December 1990 were Mrs. R. Day, chairman of the North Devon health authority and Mr. E. Walker the project leader. Mr. Walker has now been replaced by Mrs. J. Acred as project leader.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue strengthened anti-salmonella guidelines on the use of eggs and minced meat preparations in hospital catering establishments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Existing guidance to the national health service including circular HC(86)14—a copy of which is available in the Library—on food hygiene and pest control and the national health service manual on hygiene sets out the principles of hygiene and good catering practice necessary for the prevention of food-borne illness.

  We also issued a letter to all national health service district general managers in July 1988 asking them to ensure that all recipes containing raw eggs that are not likely to be cooked thoroughly should be amended to specify the use of pasteurised egg. It is a matter for local health authorities to ensure that the principles of this guidance are followed within catering establishments.
  163
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce the risk of salmonella infection arising in hospitals and other mass catering establishments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Existing guidelines to the national health service set out the principles necessary for the prevention of food-borne illness and provides specific advice on the proper handling of eggs. Advice to chief environmental health officers asks them to ensure that catering businesses are also aware of the need to replace raw egg with pasteurised egg in recipes in which eggs are served uncooked.

  The Government have recently laid before Parliament the Food (Hygiene) General (Amendment) Regulations 1990 that require all food businesses to maintain safe temperatures of food.

  It is a matter for the enforcement authorities to ensure that these procedures are followed in the whole of the catering industry.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Obscene Publications Squad
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to indicate, for each year from 1985 to date, how many operations have been conducted in each year concerning(a) material of a homosexual nature, (b) material of a heterosexual nature and (c) all materials.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information available does not distinguish between operations concerning material of a homosexual and heterosexual nature. The total number of operations conducted by the Metropolitan police obscene publications branch in each year covering all materials was:

  Number

  1985

  52

  1986

  46

  1987

  90

  1988

  101

  1989

  166

  1990

  142

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the overall cost of operations of the obscene publications squad in each year from 1985 to date and as to the number of officers assigned to the squad on a yearly average, for each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information requested is as follows. The costs given relate to manpower and employment only.

  Cost April-March (£)

  Staff Police and civilians

  1985–86

  406,982

  22

  1986–87

  440,522

  22

  1987–88

  460,472

  22

  164

  Cost April-March (£)

  Staff Police and Civilians

  1988–89

  513,063

  22

  1989–90

  804,699

  30

  1990–911

  643,636

  30

  1 April to 31 December 1990.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to indicate which officer, and at what rank, is in overall command of the work of the obscene publications squad; and what policy exists as to the priority areas of operations of the squad.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the overall command of the obscene publications branch is undertaken by a detective chief superintendent. The priorities of the squad reflect force policy concerning the exploitation of vulnerable persons, especially children. In order of importance the priorities are:

  (a) child pornography

  (b) bizarre material

  (c) extreme bondage and flagellation

  (d) British publication of obscene material.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to indicate, for each year from 1985 to date(a) the number of charges brought as a result of operations by the obscene publications squad, (b) the number of prosecutions conducted and (c) the number of convictions obtained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information requested is as follows:

  (a) Number of charges brought as a result of operations by the obscene publications branch

  Number

  1985

  54

  1986

  108

  1987

  74

  1988

  65

  1989

  75

  1990

  112

  (b) Number of prosecutions conducted and the number of convictions obtained

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1985

  14

  14

  1986

  15

  20

  1987

  15

  11

  1988

  17

  15

  1989

  29

  13

  1990

  27

  26

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to list for each year from 1985 to date, the subject of each of the major operations conducted by the obscene publications squad, the duration of the operation, and the number of officers involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the subject of each of the
  165
  major operations conducted by the obscene publications branch was the seizure of either suspected obscene material or suspected indecent material relating to children. No records are kept of the duration of each operation or the number of officers involved.

  Immigration
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to see there are adequate numbers of immigration officers at points of entry to the United Kingdom to avoid long delays at peak times; and what steps can be taken to examine passengers at ports of embarkation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Staffing of the immigration service, which is subject to public expenditure constraints, is kept under regular review. Flexible deployment of staff is aimed particularly at maintaining satisfactory clearance rates during peak periods. Delays are however inevitable when carriers or port operators, for their own commercial reasons, bring in large numbers of passengers within a very short period. Carriers and port operators are aware that it is open to them to request additional immigration service staff, provided that they meet the full cost. Such arrangements could include pre-clearance at the point of embarkation abroad.

  Benjamin Wilson
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Benjamin Wilson was released following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights; and what monetary compensation is being considered.

  Number of deaths registered in 1989 due to:

  Malnutrition1

  self-neglect2

  Hypothermia3

  Greater London

  12

  3

  69

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  12

  Birmingham

  2

  1

  12

  Liverpool

  2

  —

  4

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  83

  13

  375

  1 International classification 263.9.

  2 International classification 994.9/E904.0.

  3 Number of deaths with mention of hypothermia.

  Prison Meals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by(a) region and (b) Her Majesty's prison establishment the average weekly cost of providing meals for inmates.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1989–90, the-latest figures available, the average weekly cost of providing meals for inmates was as follows:—

  Table (a)

  Region

  Cost £

  South-East

  14·50

  Midland

  13·69

  North

  14·02

  South-West

  13·94

  166
  Mr. John Patten
  Mr. Wilson has not been released. His case will be referred to the local review committee at the prison where he is then detained in October this year as the first stage of a further review by the parole board.

  The European Court of Human Rights upheld Mr. Wilson's claim of a breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights in that he did not have recourse to a judicial body capable of determining the lawfulness of his detention and ordering his release if that detention was unlawful. However, the court also indicated, in rejecting his claim for damages, that there was no evidence that he would have regained his freedom had procedures consistent with the convention been available to him. We have no proposals to offer him compensation.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has any plans to extend the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on 25 October 1990 in respect of Benjamin Wilson, who was serving a discretionary life sentence, to people serving mandatory life sentences.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Deaths
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for deaths on public streets in(a) London, (b) Manchester, (c) Birmingham, (d) Liverpool and (e) England and Wales due to causes other than violence or road traffic accidents; and what are the figures for the same areas for deaths due to (i) hypothermia, (ii) malnutrition and (iii) physical neglect.

  Mr. John Patten
  The only available information is from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and is given in the table.

  Table (b)

  Establishment

  Cost £

  South-East Region

  Albany

  16·20

  Aldington

  14·19

  Ashford

  25·83

  Blantyre House

  21·98

  Blundeston

  14·34

  Brixton

  10·46

  Bullwood Hall

  21·09

  Camp Hill

  12·90

  Canterbury

  12·68

  Chelmsford

  12·79

  Coldingley

  15·06

  Cookham Wood

  16·96

  Dover

  15·87

  East Sutton Park

  24·86

  Feltham

  17·06

  Ford

  16·74

  Grendon and Spring Hill

  18·19

  Highpoint

  13·52

  167

  Establishment

  Cost £

  Hollesley Bay

  20·71

  Holloway

  12·80

  Huntercombe and Finnamore Wood

  16·76

  Kingston (Portsmouth)

  13·10

  Latchmere House

  19·67

  Lewes

  11·77

  Littlehey

  11·83

  Maidstone

  13·02

  Mount

  17·82

  Northeye

  15·89

  Norwich

  18·08

  Parkhurst

  16·94

  Pentonville

  12·43

  Rochester

  14·95

  Send

  22·75

  Swaleside

  12·56

  Standford Hill

  13·85

  Wandsworth

  9·17

  Wayland

  14·24

  Downview

  44·70

  Wormwood Scrubs

  14·85

  Midland Region

  Ashwell

  15·18

  Aylesbury

  16·88

  Bedford

  15·88

  Birmingham

  9·67

  Brockhill

  13·87

  Featherstone

  13·09

  Gartree

  19·01

  Glen Parva

  12·39

  Hewell Grange

  18·48

  Leicester

  14·15

  Lincoln

  11·84

  Lowdham Grange

  21·89

  Morton Hall

  16·71

  North Sea Camp

  18·26

  Nottingham

  14·27

  Onley

  14·79

  Ranby

  14·01

  Shrewsbury

  13·02

  Stafford

  11·66

  Stocken

  14·65

  Sudbury

  11·15

  Swinfen Hall

  18·96

  Wellingborough

  15·09

  Whatton

  16·43

  North Region

  Acklington

  13·89

  Askham Grange

  17·69

  Buckley Hall

  26·47

  Castington

  16·14

  Deerbolt

  13·33

  Drake Hall

  14·56

  Durham

  10·97

  Garth

  14·36

  Everthorpe

  13·74

  Frankland

  16·59

  Full Sutton

  13·75

  Hatfield

  17·25

  Haverigg

  12·75

  Hindley

  12·90

  Hull

  11·60

  Kirkham

  13·42

  Kirklevington

  39·47

  Lancaster

  13·53

  Leeds

  10·72

  Lindholme

  16·54

  Liverpool

  11·97

  Low Newton

  14·75

  Manchester

  12·00

  New Hall

  18·14

  Northallerton

  16·78

  Preston

  13·47

  Risley

  17·61

  168

  Establishment

  Cost £

  Rudgate

  13·53

  Stoke Heath

  14·14

  Styal

  14·93

  Thorn Cross

  20·45

  Thorp Arch

  18·13

  Wakefield

  14·45

  Werrington

  22·02

  Wetherbury

  20·10

  Wymott

  13·85

  South-West Region

  Bristol

  12·52

  Cardiff

  12·74

  Channings Wood

  14·28

  Dartmoor

  12·35

  Dorchester

  15·35

  Eastwood Park

  21·35

  Erlestoke

  13·18

  Exeter

  14·32

  Gloucester

  12·12

  Guys Marsh

  19·85

  Haslar

  20·34

  Leyhill

  14·06

  Long Martin

  15·52

  Oxford

  16·23

  Portland

  12·61

  Pucklechurch

  11·35

  Reading

  10·99

  Shepton Mallet

  16·90

  Swansea

  13·86

  Usk

  20·52

  The Verne

  11·81

  Winchester

  11·63

  West Midlands Police
  Mrs. Maureeen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police posts were authorised for West Midlands police between(a) 1974 and (b) 1979 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The West Midlands police was created in its present form in April 1974 following local government reorganisation. Between April 1974 and April 1979 the establishment of the West Midlands police was increased by 38. Since this Government took office in May 1979 the establishment of the force has increased by 384 and my right hon. Friend has recently approved a further 48 posts with effect from 1 October 1991.

  Dangerous Loads
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to(a) fire and civil defence forces, (b) ambulance and (c) police forces regarding co-operation with other agencies in planning emergency liaison procedures in case of accident during the transportation of (i) radioactive waste, (ii) nuclear warloads and (iii) toxic waste.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Written guidance is issued to the police by the Association of Chief Police Officers, to the fire service by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and to the ambulance service by the Regional Ambulance Officers Group. The guidance covers liaison and co-operation arrangements with other agencies likely to be involved in planning for and responding to a major incident as well as operational matters. The Home Office issues guidance, currently under review, to local authorities including fire and civil defence authorities.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of bail hostels in England and Wales as of 1 January; and what was the number on 1 January 1985, 1987 and 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information sought is not readily available in the form requested, but is presented in the table as at 1 April for the years concerned, prior to 1991.

  Bail hostels

  Total probation/Bail and Bail hostels

  1 April 1985

  17

  102

  1 April 1987

  16

  102

  1 April 1989

  18

  99

  1 January 1991

  23

  105

  The total number of places in probation/bail and bail hostels has increased from 1,340 on 1 April 1985 to 2,149 on 1 January 1991. The corresponding increase in places in bail only hostels has been from 246 to 421. There is an expansion programme to increase the number of bail places in these hostels by 1,100 between April 1988 and April 1994.

  Offenders
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of organisations and individuals who submitted responses to(a) the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", (b) the Green Paper "Supervision and Punishment in the Community" and (c) the consultation paper "Partnership in Dealing with Offenders in the Community"; and if he will place copies of the responses in the Library.

  Mr. John Patten
  There were more than 200 responses to the White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", more than 160 to the Green Paper "Supervision and Punishment in the Community" and so far more than 100 to "Partnership in Dealing with Offenders in the Community". The organisations which submitted responses to each of the papers are listed in the table. We also received comments from probation services and probation committees; from magistrates' groups, benches and juvenile panels; from local authorities and social services departments; and from the police and prison services; and from a wide range of individuals, including judges and magistrates. It is for the respondents to decide whether to make their comments available more widely.

  Organisations that submitted responses to "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public"

  Action on Youth Crime

  All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community

  Apex Trust

  Association of Black Probation Officers

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP)

  Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO)

  Association of County Councils

  Association for Juvenile Justice

  Association of Members of Boards of Visitors

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Barnados

  Basecamp

  Berkshire Child Protection Committee

  Board for Social Responsibility

  British Association of Social Workers

  170

  The British Psychological Society

  Calder Valley Conservative Association

  Central Council of Probation Committees

  The Children's Society

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association

  The Co-ordinating Committee of Boards of Visitors

  Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  Criminal Bar Association

  Dioceses of London and Southwark Prisons and Penal Concerns Group

  Forum for Initiatives in Reparation and Mediation (FIRM)

  Howard League for Penal Reform

  Institute of Legal Executives

  Intermediate Treatment Fund

  JUSTICE

  Justices' Clerks' Society

  The Law Society

  London Boroughs Children's Regional Planning Committee

  The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association

  The London Magistrates' Clerks' Association

  The Magistrates' Association

  The National Association of Asian Probation Staff

  The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO)

  NALGO (National and Local Government Officers Association)

  The National Association of Probation Officers

  The National Association of Senior Probation Officers (NASPO)

  National Children's Home

  The National Council of Women of Great Britain

  The National Intermediate Treatment FT0

  Newham Council

  Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services (PPIAS)

  The Parole Board

  Penal Affairs Consortium

  The Police Federation

  The Prison Reform Trust

  Quaker Penal Affairs Committee

  Release

  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Save the Children

  Securicor

  Social Aid

  Social Care Association

  The Society of Black Lawyers

  South Cumbria Alternative Sentencing Options Ltd.

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse

  Townswomen's Guild

  Victim Support

  Organisations that submitted responses to "Supervision and Punishment in the Community"

  Action on Youth Crime

  Adullam Homes

  Apex Trust

  Assistant Chief Probation Officers AA0

  Association of Black Probation Officers

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation (South West Branch)

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Directors of Social Services

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Bristol University

  British Association of Social Workers

  The British Psychological Society

  Central Council of Probation Committees

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Centre for Applied Social Studies

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Criminal Bar Association

  The Howard League

  Intermediate Treatment Fund

  Lancaster University

  Margery Fry Memorial Trust

  National Association of Asian Probation Staff

  National Association of Local Government Officers

  171

  National Association of Probation Officers

  National Association of Probation Officers (Middlesex Branch)

  National Association of Senior Probation Officers

  National Probation Research and Information Exchange

  Nottingham Black Initiative

  Prison Reform Trust

  Probation Service Assistants Action GP0

  Probation Service Christian Fellowship

  Resettlement of Offenders Co-ordinating Committee

  Save The Children

  Social Aid

  Social Science Research Company

  Society of County Secretaries

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Standing Conference of CQSW Courses with Probation Options

  Trades Union Council

  Training Agency

  Voluntary Managing Committee of Elliot House

  Organisations that have so far submitted responses to "Partnership in Dealing with Offenders in the Community"

  Action on Youth Crime

  Apex Trust

  Association of Black Probation Officers

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Automated Security (Holdings) plc

  Barnados

  Barnsley District Council for Voluntary Service

  Barnsley Magistrates' Court Probation Liaison Committee

  Bridgebuilders—Association of Education and Guidance of Offenders

  Central Council of Probation Committees

  Colloquia

  Community Development Foundation

  Council of Europe

  Cowen Mrs. P. Consultant c/o Mates, Training, Design and Development

  CSV

  Domestic Violence Intervention Project

  Durham Training and Enterprise

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency

  Institute of Psychiatry

  J. Paul Getty Jr. Charitable Trust

  Leicester Night Shelter Project

  Midland Groupwork Training

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  National Association of Civil Court Welfare Officers

  National Association of Local Government Officers

  National Association of Probation Officers

  National Children's Home

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  National Intermediate Treatment Federation

  National Youth Bureau

  Norcare

  North West London Housing Association Ltd

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Prison Reform Trust

  Rainer Foundation

  Release

  Resettlement of Offenders Co-ordinating Committee (Hampshire)

  Royal College of Physicians

  Save the Children Fund

  Securicor

  Society of County Secretaries

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse

  The British Psychological Society

  The Children's Society

  The Magistrates' Association

  The Richmond Fellowship for Community Mental Health

  Timble Housing Project

  Training Agency

  Turning Point

  Voluntary Action (Leeds)

  Welsh Association of Residential Providers

  172

  Westend Co-ordinated Voluntary Services for Homeless Single People

  West London Mission

  West Yorkshire Forum for Offender Accommodation

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in the Home Office. Estimates are, however, made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold—currently £250. However, following an interdepartmental exercise in 1972 an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration he is giving to the difficulties encountered by forensic scientists in presenting evidence in an adversarial system of justice;

  (2) what consideration is being given to the introduction of an inquisitorial system of presentation of evidence in relation to forensic scientists giving evidence in court.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sir John May has indicated, in the course of his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich convictions, that he would propose to consider various aspects of forensic scientific evidence, including its obtaining, preparation and presentation, and the roles of expert witnesses, the Crown prosecution service and the court.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he is having with Cellmark Diagnostics about the centralisation of forensic laboratories in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No discussions are taking place with Cellmark Diagnostics on this issue.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of work at the Metropolitan police laboratory on chemiluminescent probes.
  173
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the laboratory is conducting trials in the use of chemi-luminescent probes. It will be for the director of the laboratory to decide on their future use in the light of those trials.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions exist on the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory's freedom to hold membranes from DNA analysis and body tissues, in particular(a) of suspects and (b) of persons found not guilty.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no restrictions on holding evidence obtained from suspects in cases which have not yet come to trial. Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires the destruction of body tissues obtained from persons found not guilty.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Europe exchange of DNA profile standards scheme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An informal agreement has been reached between a number of European DNA laboratories on the basic elements of the DNA profiling technique so that, in principle, the results obtained in these laboratories can be compared. A collaborative exercise has confirmed that there is a high level of compatibility. Future work will build on this progress, placing particular emphasis on quality assurance procedures.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance he gives to police forces in respect of the use of a DNA database in relation to(a) previous cases unsolved, (b) open cases, (c) unidentified remains and (d) missing persons;

  (2) whether the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory sees any difficulty in extending its computer-based DNA database for national usage; and whether there are any plans for doing so.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The forensic science service is discussing with the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory the scientific and technical aspects of exchanging DNA data. We are also assessing the practical, legal and ethical questions raised by proposals for a national DNA database. Guidance has not yet been issued to the police, pending resolution of these issues.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in respect of the future development of forensic science work among police forces in relation to the degree of fragmentation of such work between different police forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Work is well advanced to transform the forensic science service into an executive agency so that it can serve all provincial police forces in England and Wales more efficiently and effectively. The Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory will continue to serve the Metropolitan police and the City of London police.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with laboratory managers outside the Home Office forensic science services about the future of the forensic science service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Consultation on such issues takes place at a liaison group of directors of public sector forensic science laboratories in the United Kingdom. Meetings also take place at the working level.
  174
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the retention of DNA records of those found not guilty.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is at present no statutory requirement for records of samples taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence to be destroyed when he is cleared of that offence. My right hon. Friend is considering whether there should be such a requirement in future as part of the wider debate about a national DNA database.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the commercial arrangements made by police forces in relation to DNA testing with the laboratories at Aldermaston and Huntingdon.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These laboratories form part of the forensic science service. Discussions are in hand with police forces on the detailed arrangements for the introduction of direct charging for DNA tests and other work. Police forces may obtain DNA tests elsewhere if they wish.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make arrangements for defence counsel(a) for forensic work relating to London to be undertaken by laboratories outside London and (b) for the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory to make its services available to the defence in cases not relating to London;

  (2) what is his policy in making the services of the Metropolitan police laboratory (a) available to litigants and others concerned with dog paternity cases and (b) in relation to other commercial work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As part of its preparation for agency status, the forensic science service is reviewing its policy on defence work. I understand that the Metropolitan police is also conducting a review of the future of its forensic laboratory and the work which it undertakes. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 245, on the numbers of forensic scientists available for police work; whether the answer includes forensic scientists outside the Home Office forensic science service; (a) in Government service, (b) in local authority service and (c) in the private sector.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figure of 527 provided in the answer of 23 November 1990 was in respect of the Home Office forensic science service. In addition, the Metropolitan police laboratory has 231 scientific and technical staff in post who, directly or indirectly, provide scientific support to the police. No information is held centrally on the numbers of scientists employed by local authorities or in the private sector who could provide a similar service.

  BBC
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable for the renewal of the BBC's charter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The present BBC charter expires at the end of 1996. We have not yet set a timetable for the review which will be necessary before it expires.

  Local Government
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table of expenditure under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for 1989–90, broken down into the educational, economic, social and other appropriate categories and cross tabulated by standard regions, with Greater London shown as a separate region.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  I regret that under present arrangements the information requested is not available.

  For information in relation to local authority expenditure under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 within each local authority area I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 23 October 1990 at columns 126–28 and to his own question of 13 November 1990 at column 87.

  Zebra Crossings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many on-the-spot fines have been levied on errant motorists in respect of traffic offences on zebra crossings since the provision came into operation.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information collected centrally does not separately identify fixed penalty notices issued for offences at zebra crossings.

DEFENCE

  Regimental System
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the regimental system in the light of future cuts in the size of the British Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I said during the defence debate last June, the Government believe in the regimental system and are convinced that it must be maintained for the esprit de corps that it brings to our front-line battalions. Regiments may have to be disbanded or amalgamated, but the regimental system will go on.

  Personnel Deployment
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many services personnel, excluding MOD civilians, are currently deployed in the Mediterranean, near east and Gulf areas.

  Mr. Tom King
  At the outbreak of hostilities the United Kingdom had some 35,000 service personnel in the Gulf area. Approximately a further 7,500 are deployed in the Mediterranean and near east.

  Careers Information and Recruitment
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest figure for the number of armed services careers information and recruitment centres.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 290 service careers information offices located throughout the United Kingdom.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the existing work load at Devonport dockyard with specific reference to both the core programme and unallocated work subject to tendering.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  DML is currently working on three fleet submarines, three frigates and one Royal Fleet Auxiliary, RFA Fort Austin, which was transferred to Devonport's core programme from the unallocated programme. The balance between the core and unallocated programmes is kept under review to ensure we obtain value for money.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to pay a further visit to the Gulf.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of British military and civilian personnel now stationed in the Gulf; and what information he has on the total for all members of the European Community.

  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest military situation in the Gulf.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the military situation in the Gulf.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the answer I gave today to the Members for Pontyprydd (Dr. Howells) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any body bags have been sent to the Gulf.

  Mr. Tom King
  We have made the necessary provision for casualties arising during the course of military operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of operational efficiency of the Challenger tanks serving with the 1st Armoured Division in the Saudi desert.

  Mr. Allan Clark
  We are satisfied with the level of operational efficiency of the Challenger tanks deployed to the Gulf.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on the retention of land-based short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government fully support NATO's policy, as set out in last year's London declaration. Though reaffirming the need to maintain
  177
  up-to-date nuclear weapons in Europe for the foreseeable future, the alliance acknowledged that there would be a significantly reduced role for sub-strategic weapons of the shortest range. Once negotiations begin on short-range nuclear forces, the alliance will propose, in return for reciprocal action by the Soviet Union, the elimination of all its nuclear artillery shells from Europe.

  SSN20
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce the SSN20 into service within the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend announced on 25 July that we intend to maintain around 12 nuclear-powered submarines in service. Following the completion of feasibility studies for SSN20, we are considering the procurement plans needed to sustain this force level in the longer term.

  Belize
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the numbers and responsibilities of British service men and women in Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the eighth report of the Select Commmittee on Defence—HC 624, Session 1987–88—on British forces in Belize. The strength of the garrison remains around 1,550 and there are 10 loan service personnel currently serving with the Belize defence force.

  RAF Sculthorpe
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received in respect of RAF Sculthorpe, Norfolk.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  One representation has been received from a member of the public. No decisions have been taken as to the future use of the base.

  Defence Strategy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss defence strategy arising from changes in east-west relationships.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met Mr. Cheney at the NATO defence planning committee ministerial session held in Brussels on 6 and 7 December 1990. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Library.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Belgian Government's refusal of permission for the supply of ammunition on a procurement order from his Department for use by British forces in Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our initial request for additional ammunition was met in full by the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. We did not, therefore,178
  need any ammunition from Belgium, which has provided assistance in a number of other ways. We are grateful to our allies for meeting our needs at such short notice.

  "Dispatches"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department afforded any assistance to the producers of the "Dispatches" programme on British nuclear weapons tests broadcast on 16 January; and if he will obtain a copy of the programme for his departmental library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The producers of the "Dispatches" programme were given a detailed background briefing by officials, and an attributable statement for use in the programme. There are no plans to obtain a copy of the programme for the departmental library.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce the changes concerning the naval estate and support services following on "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 12 December 1990 at column 430.

  "The Sandy Times"
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any decision has yet been taken to provide funding for "The Sandy Times", which circulates among United Kingdom forces in The Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Costs will be met by the Ministry of Defence.

  Defence Quality Assurance
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to reach a decision about the proposed move of the Directorate General, Defence Quality Assurance from Woolwich to Teeside.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As my right hon. Friend made clear in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South on 4 December, the issues being addressed by my Department are now wider in scope than the affordability of the Directorate General, Defence Quality Assurance move as planned. We will come to a decision as soon as possible.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost of moving the Directorate General, Defence Quality Assurance to Teesside as compared to constructing a new headquarters building at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department is currently re-examining the range of facilities that the Directorate General, Defence Quality Assurance will require in the long term to support the armed services, and is re-estimating the construction costs that need to be incurred. Indications to date are that the cost of retaining existing London sites and undertaking necessary reconstruction on them would be considerably more than the cost of constructing facilities outside London.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on(a) the design and

  179
  preparation for a new Directorate General, Defence Quality Assurance headquarters building at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich and (b) the proposed move to a new headquarters on Teesside.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the responses given to him by my predecessor on 20 April 1988,Official Report, columns 501–2, and 12 April 1989, Official Report, columns 515–17. Sketch plans for a headquarters building at the Royal Arsenal west, Woolwich for the Quality Assurance Directorate were completed in 1983 at a cost to the Property Services Agency of £300,000. The identified costs of studies on other buildings amounted to £120,000. The departmental costs of the staff carrying out feasibility studies and investment appraisals on the future location of the Directorate General, Defence Quality Assurance were incurred in the normal course of their work and have not been separately identified.

  Expenditure on the proposed move to new headquarters and technical facilities on Teesside currently totals around £4·3 million.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the repair, maintenance and refurbishment of buildings at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich over each of the most recent 10 years for which figures are available together with the estimated expenditure for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The details of expenditure requested are as follows:
  180

  Repair and maintenance (£ thousands)

  Refurbishment (£ thousands)

  1980–81

  1,083

  277

  1981–82

  1,212

  300

  1982–83

  1,552

  357

  1983–84

  1,802

  471

  1984–85

  2,272

  715

  1985–86

  1,785

  1,593

  1986–87

  1,846

  1,584

  1987–88

  1,749

  2,427

  1988–89

  1,514

  662

  1989–90

  1,629

  642

  1990–911

  1,550

  500

  1991–921

  1,450

  300

  1 Estimated.

  The refurbishments from 1985–86 include expenditure needed to house DGDQA units moved from Harefield, Middlesex and Garland Road, Plumstead.

  Black Officers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the highest rank in each of the services held by a black officer; and what the current numbers of black officers are in each service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No records are kept of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by rank or otherwise. I am, therefore, unable to provide the information requested.

  Civilian Employees
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are employed by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The number of United Kingdom-based civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence on 1 January 1991 was 139,917.

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

Police Manpower: Effect of Community Charge Capping
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the warnings by a number of chief officers of police that community charge capping will lead to severe reductions in the numbers of police officers on the streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, both I and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have met a number of police authority representatives to hear their views. As was made clear in another place on 17th January, the Government stand by the capping intentions announced on 31st October. These remain firm but provisional, since under that statute we cannot take our decisions until after budgets have been set. When we do take our decisions all appropriate considerations will be taken into account, including the need for expenditure restraint, improving efficiency and the level of police manpower approved by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the chief officers of the six largest police forces outside London have warned the Government that the consequences of capping will be an immediate stop to the recruitment of new police officers, no new vehicles and major cuts or the abandonment of their entire capital programmes? Can such action be sensible when serious crime is increasing in this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have met members of the authorities and spoken to some of the chief constables. We are aware of some of the arguments that are being presented. Budgets must be submitted in accordance with the criteria and it will be for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make his judgment at the time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Sir James Anderton, has been forced to recommend to the police authority a reduction in the number of civilian staff and the loss of 100 officers? Bearing in mind the fact that in Greater Manchester there is one of the highest incidence of crime in the country, is that not a retrograde step and will the Minister do something about it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all of these arguments have been heard by myself and by my right honourable friend. The criteria for capping was well
76
advanced in October last year. Budgets must be set in the light of those criteria, which have now been confirmed. It will be for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider all the cases in the light of the budgets that will be set.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply and the warnings given by six leading chief constables that they face cuts, will the Minister on behalf of the Department of the Environment confirm that the police authorities will not be penalised for overspending in order to maintain the staffing levels agreed by the Home Office? Can she confirm, in other words, that the DoE will not penalise those authorities for doing what the Home Office has prescribed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not proper or appropriate for me to pre-empt the Secretary of State's judgment as regards the budgets that will be set for those authorities after a judgment about expenditure right across the authorities. In other words, everything that can be done will be done so as to protect the jobs of policemen.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, do not these questions suggest a doubt about whether it is wise to continue local authority control of the police?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that question is for another day.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Hollis about principle? It is not a question of trying to pre-empt the Secretary of State's judgment about individual cases but a question of principle. If the Home Office lays down certain standards of policing to which the local authorities must adhere, will the Secretary of State for the Environment accede to them when coming to judge the budgets of those same local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not pose that question. She asked whether guarantees could be given that penalties would not be imposed on those authorities. I cannot give that judgment in advance of their cases being heard. The budgets that are set must be lawful and must take into account statutory duties. They must also provide for an efficient police authority and take account of the approved level of police manpower.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would not a policy alternative to that being put forward from the other side of the House be for local authorities to give police recruitment slightly more priority than some of the silly activities in which they indulge?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a factor. The proper use of resources is a constituent part of setting budgets.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, although we welcome the fact that the arguments of the police authorities have been heard, is it not extraordinary that at a time when crime is rising we are talking about a cut in effective police manpower on the streets of more than 1,500 officers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are not talking about that. The noble Lord is now speculating about what might be contained within budgets which have not yet been set. When they are set consistent with the criteria, it will be for my right honourable friend to make his judgment.

The Gulf
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy regarding the Gulf crisis.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our policy remains unchanged.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of the fact that it was announced this morning that there is at least grave danger of an environmental catastrophe beginning in the Gulf, can the noble Earl tell the House what attitude the British Government are adopting to the peace proposals, including the evacuation of Kuwait, proposed to the Secretary General of the United Nations by the Soviet Union, India and Algeria?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our policy has been debated recently at length. The noble Lord spoke in the debate for no less than around 90 minutes, and I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not somewhat paradoxical that this Question should appear on the Order Paper after two debates on two successive Mondays on this very subject, in both of which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby—whom we are always glad to see here—spoke longer than anybody else?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, nevertheless when a Question appears on the Order Paper we do our best to answer it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, there is a Question on the Order Paper. Will not the noble Earl answer it in the correct sense; that is, by saying that the Government's policy is to follow President Bush whatever he does under any possible circumstances, even if it leads to disaster? Is not that the Government's policy?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to today. In this tragic war events are moving hour by hour. I ask the noble Earl again to address himself to the reports of today. I understand, and with his Foreign Office briefing he can no doubt confirm or deny, that the Soviet Union, India and Algeria have put forward to the United Nations peace proposals which include the declared war aim of the Government to remove Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis from Kuwait. Will the noble
78
Earl tell the House what attitude the British Government are adopting to these new proposals to bring the war to an end with the achievement of the stated war aims?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is indulging in speculation. I leave the matter to the Official Report of yesterday.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree —as I believe the majority of noble Lords feel—that it is not the Government's policy simply to follow that of the United States? Nor can policy be properly developed under almost hourly questioning by Members of your Lordships' House wherever they sit?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Our policy has been clearly set down both here and in another place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the Government's current policy was well spelt out by the Leader of the House yesterday and that it has the support of the Opposition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House believe our association with America to be a good one? If that were not so, it would be a bad thing for Britain and all that she represents. Is he further aware that some of us think that there is a sign to be read about the withdrawal from Kuwait by the blowing up of the oilfields by that wretched man, Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in response to the first question, there is commonality among most Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby? It relates to new proposals put forward today to which there must presumably be some reaction or policy statement from Her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at this stage I cannot say any more.

Child Benefit
2.48 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to the improvement of child benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is required by law to review the level of child benefit each year. From April the rate for the eldest eligible child in each family will be increased by £1 to £8·25 a week.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the original child benefit legislation enjoyed the full support of all sides of the other place and of this House? It was welcomed throughout the nation. Then came the savage attack by this Tory Government in the form of the

79
imposition of the three-year freeze. Is the noble Lord aware that the recent increase of £1 per child in no way makes up for the thousands of pounds lost especially by the poorest in our country in support of their children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I explained, my right honourable friend has a statutory duty to make an annual review. The freeze to which the noble Lord refers allowed him to make increases in income support for the less well off families this year and in previous years and to provide an improved package for those families and children.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the increase in child benefit of £1 a week for the first child means that the rich family with one child receives exactly the same increase in its weekly income as the poor family with four children? In fact it is a 13 per cent. increase for the rich family and a 3 per cent. increase for the poor family. What happened to the Government's principle of targeting benefits towards those who need them most?
Lord Henley: My Lords, any increase in child benefit would obviously benefit rich families as much as poor families. That is why over previous years we have increased the support available through income support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the impositions imposed on the Minister were to make sure that he or she maintained the level of child benefits? Since then it has been decided to freeze the benefits for three years and for there to be a meagre increase of £1. Does not the noble Lord agree that most people are frightened that child benefits will be means tested and gradually eased out of the social services?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the original statutory power obliged my right honourable friend to consider the rates then in force having regard to the national economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living and other such matters as he considered relevant. I repeat that the Government will continue to honour their manifesto commitment to pay child benefits as before to all families.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask the Secretary of State to consider both full indexation of child benefits and bringing them into tax? That would avoid this provision being the great burden on the Exchequer that it would otherwise be.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall bring the noble Lord's suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there are considerable problems in bringing child benefits into tax. With separate taxation, that is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile savings.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that child benefits are the most popular and efficient manner for bringing badly needed assistance to families with children? Therefore, will he press his right honourable friend to reconsider the Government's policy on this matter? I ask that particularly bearing in mind that child benefits
80
replaced tax allowances out of which the Government have had great benefit and which have made a great contribution towards the payment of child benefits?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I have been trying to say, child benefits remain a worthwhile contribution to the expenses of all families. They were never intended to meet the full cost of bringing up a child. For the less well-off we have made appropriate increases over the years both in income support and in the appropriate premiums.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give a reply to the one vital point I made in my second supplementary question? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will not bring in a means-tested supplement for child benefits?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we shall continue to honour our manifesto commitment.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
2.53 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 15).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1 Appointment of Sub-Committees
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees:

(a) Library Sub-Committee

L. Dainton (Chairman)

V. Davidson

V. Falkland

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Peston

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(b) Refreshment Department Sub-Committee

V. Allenby of Megiddo

L. Ampthill (Chairman)

L. Denham

L. Graham of Edmonton

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Mason of Barnsley

L. Nugent of Guildford

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(c) Works of Art Sub-Committee

B. Ewart-Biggs

L. Gibson (Chairman)

L. Hesketh

L. Moran

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(d) Computer Sub-Committee

L. Dainton

L. McIntosh of Haringey (Chairman)

L. Peston

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

81

(e) Staff of the House Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Waddington (L. Privy Seal)

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman

Usher of the Black Rod.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(f) Finance Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

L. Dainton

L. Denham

L. Graham of Edmonton

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(g) Administration Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

L. Dainton

L. Denham

L. Gibson

L. Graham of Edmonton

B. Hylton-Foster

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Nelson of Stafford

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

2. Staff of the House.
A report from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee was made to the Committee who agreed to:

(a) the creation of an additional Personal Secretary (Grade 4) post to serve the Reading Clerk;

(b) a six month extension for the two temporary word processor operator posts in the Hansard Office;

(c) the creation of an additional Hansard word processor post, initially for a period of one year;

(d) the upgrading of one waiter/waitress post in the Refreshment Department from Band 6 to Band 10; and

(e) the upgrading of one General Assistant post in the Refreshment Department from Band 2 to Band 4.

3. Retirement of the Clerk of the Parliaments
The Committee wish to record, on the occasion of his retirement, their deep gratitude for the assistance that they have received from Sir John Sainty during the seven years he has served as Clerk of the Parliaments and Accounting Officer for the House of Lords Vote.
4. Parliament Office
The Committee were informed that, following the retirement of Sir John Sainty as Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. P. D. G. Hayter, on his appointment as Reading Clerk, would also become Principal Finance Officer, that Mr. M. G. Pownall would be appointed Principal Clerk of the Committee and Overseas Offices and that Mr. B. P. Keith would be appointed Principal Clerk of Private Bills. The Committee were also informed of the promotions of Mr. W. G. Sleath to Senior Clerk.
5 Accommodation in the Chamber for Opposition Research Staff
The Committee recommend that the experimental provision of accommodation in the clerks box for up to three advisers to those Lords who sit on the Opposition front benches should be made permanent; and that the accommodation should be made available for this purpose during all stages of public bills, except second reading.
6 Computer Developments
The Committee were notified of the appointment of Mrs. S. White as House of Lords Computer Executive. The Committee also approved arrangements to delegate to the Clerk of the Parliaments the administrative procedures for authorising expenditure on computer projects for the House of Lords Offices.
8 Medical Facilities
The Committee were informed of a proposal for additional nursing staff at the Palace of Westminster and authorised payments of a proportion of the cost.
9 Architectural Archive
The Committee authorised provision in the Record Office Fund for the photocopying of plans and drawings of the Palace of Westminster for the Architectural Archive.
10 Uniform Allowances
The Committee authorised an increase in the allowances paid to Clerks at the Table, the Gentleman Usher and Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Doorkeepers for the purchase and maintenance of dress clothes.
11 Revised Scales of Pay and Allowances
The Committee confirmed the application of the following civil service memoranda to staff of the House of Lords:—

(a) CM/934 Subsistence and Meal Allowances.

(b) CM/935 Pay of Grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 and staff linked to I.P.M.S. grades.

(c) GM/456 Fees to Specialist Advisers.

(d) IM 90/3 Industrial staff pay.

12 Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme:—

(a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. Gilbane, Cleaner, who retired on 14th April 1990.

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. G. R. Roberts, Cleaner, who retired on ill-health grounds on 23rd April 1990.

(c) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. R. Ryder, Head Cleaner, who retired on 19th May 1990.

(d) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. B. Howlett, Cleaner, who retired on 16th June 1990.

(e) Supplementary death benefit to personal representative of Mr. C. W. Hunt, former Senior Clerical Officer, who died on 26th February 1990.

(f) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. W. Grant, Executive Officer, who retired on 24th June 1990.

(g) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. E. Watts, Cleaner, who retired on 22nd September 1990.

(h) Compensation payments, preserved pension and lump sum to Mr. I. S. Anderson, Executive Officer, who retired on 1st October 1990.

(i) Pension and lump sum to Mr. W. J. D. Low, Executive Officer, who retired on ill-health grounds on 1st November 1990.

(j) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. I. G. E. Reardon, Cleaner, who retired on 3rd November 1990.

(k) Preserved pension and lump sum to Miss E. M. McCaffrey, Legal Officer, who resigned on 28th October 1988.

(l) Preserved pension and lump sum to Mr. C. J. Headman, General Assistant, who resigned on 27th May 1988.

Development Board for Rural Wales Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
2.54 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Reduction in the amounts recoverable by employers who have paid statutory sick pay]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("employer") insert ("the relevant number of whose employees is defined in paragraph (aa) below")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. I do not wish to detain the House by rehearsing all the arguments and the debates that we had on Second Reading and during the Committee stage. The amendment seeks to exempt employers who employ less than 10 people. As noble Lords will remember, there was considerable debate at Committee stage regarding small employers. This amendment is an attempt by those outside this House, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to define a small employer as someone who employs fewer than 10 people. If accepted the amendment would affect about 90 per cent. of all businesses.
We have tried to produce an amendment with a system which is administratively simple. It is targeted on those who most need help. In Committee we had some debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, which suggested a limit of five people. At the time it was felt that that was too few. The amendment which we put forward at that stage would have exempted all firms with fewer than 20 people. We listened to the arguments of the Government and felt that that number was perhaps too many. We believe that 10 employees is the correct number. The reason is that there is a precedent in the Wages Act 1986 which is related to rebates on redundancy payments and which defined the matter at the 10-employee level. In the amendment we have tried to meet the various points that the Minister made in Committee. We have excluded employees below the lower earnings level, casual workers and employees engaged in a private household. This amendment provides relief for small firms, which have a widely varying pattern of sickness and sick leave. It is much harder for them to accommodate one or two people being sick as opposed to the very large firms.
Last week the Committee accepted an amendment to alter the rebate percentage from 80 per cent. to 91 per cent. to avoid adding to the burden and cost on all firms at this time of recession. It is worth pointing out that between 1985 and 1987 small businesses as defined in this amendment created over a million new jobs whereas large businesses created about 20,000 jobs. We feel that there should be a simple and monthly basis for calculation. I am sure that some noble Lords will know from their post that there is considerable support from outside this House for this approach to the Bill. I feel that the House can accept this amendment in the way that it accepted the amendments at Committee stage. This amendment will bring genuine relief to small employers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for stepping so ably into the breach. I apologise to the House for cutting my arrival so extremely fine. That was because I was otherwise occupied and, as Lord Peter Wimsey once put it, "my mind being momentarily on my job". Any of us who occasionally feel any sense of incongruity about debating this business while such momentous events are taking place elsewhere might reflect that nothing better qualifies than a Bill on social security to meet the description "business as usual". The Committee stage of this Bill operated as, in theory, a Committee stage should: it narrowed down the area of disagreement very considerably. It served, in fact, as traditional legal pleadings used to do; namely, to define the point at issue.
The Government accepted the principle that there should be relief for small businesses. For that I am extremely grateful. The argument at Committee was between a figure of five, to which the Government were prepared to show sympathy, and a figure of 20 proposed by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley and myself. Your Lordships will have noticed that I accept that one move towards compromise deserves another. The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I shows that the figure has retreated from 20 to 10. In fact we are asking for only half a loaf. There is still quite a significant gap between 20 and the approximate number of five implied by the Government's amendment. Ninety-six per cent. of businesses in the country would have been covered by the figure of 20 employees; only 90 per cent. by 10. Therefore, 190,000 small businesses are at stake. That is not an insignificant quantity to be arguing about. Of those 190,000 businesses, one might note, since occupational sick pay has been given as one of the Government's chief justifications, 51 per cent. of firms with fewer than 10 employees have no occupational scheme.
The reason the Government gave for accepting the principle of exempting small businesses is the risk of the statistically insignificant sample. My noble kinsman said:
"We have been especially impressed by the representations made about the difficulties of applying averages to employers that have very few employees".—[Official Report, 14/1/91; col. 1006.]
We reach the real issue when we try to define the small employer and when we ask whether the definition of small employer the Government offer us, or at least in the amendment are promising to offer us hereafter, is sufficient. What is the size of the sample below which findings are not statistically significant?
My noble kinsman said in Committee that once we go above five employees, averages begin to bite. My noble friend Lady Seear and I expressed some surprise at that proposition. We asked my noble kinsman to write to us, which he very generously did. I cannot say that he has offered any clear reason for the proposition that above five employees averages begin to bite. We have checked this with the Library in another place. It said that the likelihood of sickness affecting 40 per cent. of the workforce—the likelihood of double the average incidence of sickness—is 25 per

85
cent. in a business of five employees; it is 10 per cent. in a business of 10; in a business of 20 and above it is less than 5 per cent.
When my noble kinsman said that statistics begin to bite, he should have put a very heavy stress on the verb. Ten per cent. of businesses getting twice the average incidence of sickness is quite significant. I should stress that those statistics will under-rate rather than over-rate the actual risk. Illness is contagious. It has a multiplier effect so that in practice rather more than 10 per cent. of businesses of 10 people will experience an above average incidence of sickness. We take that rather seriously.
I remember another example of a statistically insignificant sample. In fact I came across one this weekend. My noble kinsman was particularly generous in making sure that I had a copy of the government amendment. He sent it to me at no fewer than three places. He sent it here, to my home and to my college. It so happens that all three of those were held up for two days or more in the first-class post. I admit that that is a sample of only three. But if one took a sample of 10 and there were no more cases that would still be an incidence of 30 per cent. failure to achieve delivery dates in a sample of 10. The Post Office assures us that the average figure is six, so what I have described can happen.
There are other defects in the government amendment which would lead me to argue that ours is preferable. By the form of its drafting the government amendment creates a pressure to lower wages. It goes by the total amount of national insurance contributions, so the less one pays one's employees, the more of them one can squeeze in under the net. That is surely an incentive for lower wages. There may be those who argue that that is a good thing; but in the end, in the form of housing benefit and family credit, the Department of Social Security will end up footing the bill. It is storing up trouble for itself.
There is a great deal of imprecision in the government amendment. A great deal is left to be defined by regulations: "small employer", they say,
"shall have the meaning assigned to it by regulations".
Subsection (1B) of their amendment says more or less that a small employer is a small employer is a small employer. I thank my noble kinsman for explaining privately, as no doubt he will do publicly in a few minutes, a little more of the thinking behind that. However, I feel that this is a case of doing more by regulations than we should. I accept the form of words used by my noble kinsman in Committee that once the principle has been accepted, then it is proper to fill in the detail by regulations. But the question here is: what is the principle? Judging by the attitude of the Committee last week, the question of the size of the small business exemption is widely regarded as a question of principle and one proper for the decision of the House and not proper for regulations.
We should also allow for the fact that the tone in which the Government's concession is discussed inside and outside the Chamber is a little different. In this Chamber the convention that a concession is met with a concession is very strong, and I honour it. Outside
86
there is usually rather more stress on the substance and rather less on the style. In that context, I should like, by the leave of the House, to read from a letter I received this morning from the Building Employers Confederation. It says:
"The Government have tabled an amendment in the name of Lord Henley providing relief for very small employers. This can only be viewed as a gesture. Very many small employers will fail to qualify for relief set at this level. The Government argue that for firms greater in size than five the average sick rate ratios are likely to apply. This is not so. In firms of seven or eight employees it is well within the realms of possibility that as many as four—50 per cent. of the employees—could be off work simultaneously with 'flu or any infectious virus".
Our amendment is more appropriate to meet the problem. It is not defective in form. It does not have the unfortunate side effect of lowering wages. For all those reasons, we think it is a preferable way of solving the problem.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have my name to the amendment and so I should say something about it, not that I am looking forward to doing so. I was responsible for encouraging the National Farmers Union to draft it. I am keen to see it, or something like it, accepted.
Since we tabled the amendment, the Government have tabled their amendment, albeit at the eleventh hour. At the twelfth hour—or should I say the thirteenth hour?—my noble kinsman Lord Henley went out of his way to indicate some of the Government's thinking. I am unhappy about the Government's regulatory amendment. In particular, I cannot accept the permissive power to extend the 100 per cent. reimbursement to whatever length the Government so decide. If my noble kinsman can indicate that he is prepared seriously to discuss this time period, I shall reluctantly yield to the Government by not voting for the amendment.
I believe that your Lordships have made abundantly clear to the Government the fact that this is a badly thought out Bill—I would say much worse than that. I, perhaps naively, suggest to your Lordships that we should give the Government the benefit of the doubt; that we should listen to the arguments for the proposed amendment and believe that they will suitably amend the Bill, especially as regards the point I have just made. I very much hope that the Government will live up to that trust.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in my introduction I should like to point out that I am not responsible for the Post Office. I shall of course send yet more copies of any future correspondence to my noble kinsman so as to ensure that he receives any letter which I wish to send to him.
In speaking to this amendment I shall obviously have to mention the amendment tabled in my name that I shall shortly be moving, depending on the outcome of this amendment. I believe that it would have been more helpful if these amendments had been grouped together, but that was not the wish. Therefore, I shall touch upon my amendment in dealing with Amendment No. I tabled in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Russell and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, partly because the

87
amendments deal with the same problem. I refer to the problem of small businesses, especially those with abnormal levels of sickness. The first amendment attempts to deal with the definition of a small business. We can be quite clear about the fact that we are not just dealing with the size of such businesses; we are also dealing with the definition. My noble kinsman proposes to define businesses by the number of employees. The amendment I propose will deal with the problem by reference to the level of national insurance contributions paid over the year or by reference to the number of employees.
Subsection (1C) of Amendment No. 10 provides for the definition of a "small employer" to be prescribed, as my noble kinsman said, in regulations. As the House will recognise, this is a key provision and the powers as drafted enable us to go down either of those two roads. At this stage of the proceedings I should say that we favour the national insurance contribution course.
There are a number of difficulties about relating the definition of a small employer to a specific number of employees. There is the time at which the size of the workforce is to be measured and what one does when that workforce fluctuates. There is also the question of whether all employees should be treated alike, even though some may not attract SSP liability and whether the employer with a lot of part-time as against full-time workers should be treated differently. All these points have been addressed by my noble kinsman and I pay tribute to his drafting skill. However, they make for complications.
My noble kinsman's amendment provides that to be treated as a small employer the employer should have fewer than 10 employees—I acknowledge that he has reduced this from his "less than 20" figure put forward in Committee, and I am most grateful for that fact—at the time at which the statutory sick pay is paid. This means that every time a payment of SSP is made the employer will have to be sure that he falls within this definition. Moreover, as my noble kinsman's amendment also provides for certain employees to be excluded from the calculation—and I obviously understand why—this further complicates the judgment he has to make. It should also be remembered that the employer may actually be recovering SSP from his contribution payments to the Inland Revenue some time after the payment has been made and it is at the latter time that he needs to know what rate to recover. For employers whose workforce fluctuates around the 10 mark, therefore, use of the number employees as the criterion would certainly not prove straightforward. It would also prove extremely difficult for the department to monitor as it would entail checking on the number of eligible employees in the workforce at the time individual payments of SSP were made.
We believe that a much fairer and considerably simpler scheme would be to use the level of the employer's contribution payments in the preceding tax year as the trigger in defining a small employer. This would focus the definition on an employer's
88
actual wages bill rather than on the number of employees at a point in time and would provide for a great deal more flexibility.
Perhaps I may explain the scheme a little further. All employers are required within 14 days of the end of the tax year to complete a return to the Inland Revenue of the total amount of tax and national insurance contributions for which they are liable. The information is therefore readily available to employers. The Government's proposal is very simple. If the total contributions payable in one tax year are below a specified figure, then for the whole of the next tax year that employer will qualify to be treated as a small employer. Unlike my noble kinsman's amendment, there will be no need to make a judgment on this point every time SSP is paid and recovered. Neither will it be necessary to make special arrangements, as his amendment does, for people earning below the lower earnings level and part-time workers. The former will be automatically excluded and the reduced earnings of the latter will be taken account of in their reduced contribution liability.
The level of contributions which the Government would propose setting for 1991–92 is £15,000 per annum. The flexibility of that approach means that employers of many different sizes would be eligible to be treated as a small employer, depending on the overall level of their wages bill. Those with lower wages bills and least able to cope with protracted sickness would be eligible. Setting the level at £15,000 would benefit about 700,000 employers, ranging from an employer with four employees all earning at the upper earnings limit, currently £350 per week, to as many as 90 employees if they were earning at the lower earnings limit of £46 per week.
Of course those are extreme figures. The much greater likelihood is that there is a spread of earnings levels. Perhaps I may give the House some further examples of employers with workforces coming within that definition: 22 employees all earning £100 per week; 12 employees all earning £150 per week; nine employees all earning £175 per week (this more or less equates with my noble kinsman's amendment); six employees of whom four earn £200 per week and two £350 per week.
Alternatively, if I took average male earnings, which I understand are currently at £295 per week, that would give us a figure of five employees. If we took average female earnings of £201·50 that would allow for eight employees and if we took men and women together, where I understand the average earnings per week are £263·10, that would allow for six employees. Indeed, I could continue but I hope that I have said enough to convince the House of the range and flexibility of the method proposed.
I turn now to deal with the question posed by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley. He referred to the issue of time. I had proposed to deal with that when speaking to my amendment but perhaps it would be useful to touch upon the second half of my amendment at this point so as to convince my noble kinsman of the virtues of Amendment No. 10.

89
Subsection (1D) enables regulations to prescribe those payments of statutory sick pay on which an employer entitled to small employers relief can qualify for 100 per cent. reimbursement. In line with the undertaking I gave in Committee, it is proposed that this will come into operation once the employer has experienced above average sickness in his workforce —that is, when the contribution reductions are less likely to cover the cost of the extra SSP costs to him.
As in the previous subsection, the legislation enables the regulations to be drafted in one of two ways. The first, at paragraph (a), is by reference to the number of weeks for which an employee has been sick; the second, at (b), is by reference to the aggregate amount of SSP so far paid for the workforce as a whole.
The second option, relating to the aggregate amount of SSP in a tax year, has been included as the result of a meeting I had with my noble friend Lord Jenkin towards the end of last week. My noble friend proposed that we look at an employer's sickness experience for all his employees and when that had reached a certain level in the tax year, then 100 per cent. reimbursement would apply to all future payments of SSP in the year. We foresee some difficulties with that approach, particularly the need to have different earnings bands for different sized employers; otherwise an employer with one employee only might never qualify for the relief, while other employers with more employees would qualify quickly. I nevertheless undertook that the Government would further examine his proposal, and that we are now doing. Unfortunately, in the short time available since I saw my noble friend, it has not been possible fully to evaluate the proposal. In the spirit of the undertaking I gave to him, therefore, we have included a provision on the face of the Bill which would enable such a scheme to be covered.
The Government prefer, however, the first of the two options. We propose setting the trigger at eight weeks. That is the figure about which my noble kinsman Lord Stanley is worried. Thus when an employee had been sick for that number of weeks, if the employer was a small employer entitled to small employers relief he could recover SSP at the rate of 100 per cent. for so long as the period of sickness lasted. Moreover, if the employee went sick again within eight weeks of returning to work, the employer would receive 100 per cent. reimbursement immediately. That is in line with the current arrangements for paying SSP. Employers already have to record the number of weeks of SSP paid, whether linked or not, and they will, therefore, know as soon as an employee has been sick for a total of eight weeks. They will then need to note those records that therafter for so long as the current period of incapacity for work continues they can recover at the rate of 100 per cent. Those arrangements specifically address the problems which an employer can experience if he has an employee who is away for a protracted period.
As I said, we prefer the figure of eight weeks. We have pitched the figure at that level because if sickness
90
lasts that long contribution reductions are less likely to cover the additional costs of SSP. The figure which my noble kinsman proposes in a later amendment and which he suggested earlier would be doubly favourable to the small employer, and I am unable to accept that figure. As I said, we are minded to go for eight weeks, but there is nothing on the face of the Bill specifying eight weeks. If we are persuaded that that figure is too high we shall obviously draft the regulations accordingly. I must stress that doors will remain open. We shall continue the consultation in which I have been involved over the past two weeks. We shall listen to any representations on the eight weeks. However, I must emphasise that at the moment we are minded to go for eight weeks.
In conclusion, I want to stress that our proposals are not set in concrete. That is why we propose the flexible approach we have in the regulations. We are of course willing to listen to any comments which employers or their organisations may put forward on the operation of those arrangements. The Government will also be monitoring the operation of the scheme and there will be scope further to amend the arrangements in the light of experience, should that prove necessary.
I hope that what I have said convinces my noble kinsman Lord Russell that an approach based on national insurance contributions of about £15,000 is the right one. In many cases, that will exceed the figure of 10. In some cases it will be less. From an administrative point of view our approach is simpler than merely stating a figure of 10.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but it does not go nearly far enough. Your Lordships' Committee and the Government made it clear that they wished to help the small employer when we debated the issue last week. As the Minister said, the Government have tabled a new clause on small employer relief. The advice we have taken shows that Government Amendment No. 10 goes no way towards meeting the concerns of the CBI, the NFU, the Forum of Private Business, the National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses and all the other organisations interested in the Bill. The amendment that I moved has the support of all those bodies.
As the Minister said, we have tried to meet the Government more than half way. There was a gap of from five to 20. Half way is 12½. We settled for 10. On the number of employees, we were careful to lift the drafting from the Wages Act 1986. It is not impossible to define the number of employees.
We believe that we have met most, if not all, of the Government's requirements as set out in Committee. I mentioned all those requirements when I moved the amendment. The Government's amendment does not meet the requirements the Committee set out last week, which is why we asked for the amendment to be de-grouped so that it could be dealt with as a separate issue and we could decide once and for all how best to deal with the number of employees. We feel that 10 is the right number.

91
The crucial figure that the Minister omitted from his reply was the cost to the Government of this small employer relief. As I understand it, it is less than £2 million. That shows the effect the new clause will have with a £15,000 limit on national insurance contributions and the eight-week requirement.
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I did not give any figures. I can do so now as the noble Lord has mentioned them. The cost will be between £1 million and £2 million; but the cost is not the relevant factor. The amendment is designed to meet the problem where a small business experiences considerably higher than average levels of sickness. Whether that costs £1 million, £2 million or £100 million is irrelevant. The amendment goes some way towards meeting the point.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that that is not so. The cost to the government will show the benefit to the private sector. I shall explain why the eight weeks is wrong. I have been involved for 30 years with two businesses, each with a payroll of about 30 employees. I telephoned each of the offices this morning and asked the staff, many of whom have been with me for a number of years, to try to remember the number of employees in each of those companies who have been absent sick for more than eight weeks during that 30 years. In one case it was four and in the other five. That shows the weakness of the Government's amendment.
By relying upon eight weeks, the Government substantially reduce the cost. That is why the figure of £1 million to £2 million is important: it quantifies the benefit to the private sector. The Government amendment may be simple, but it would provide rough justice. At a time of recession a company which falls outside the £15,000 limit in one year but falls below the limit in the following year will not be eligible for small employer relief.
I said that the amendment I moved would affect some 90 per cent. of businesses. The calculation that we have been able to make in the short time that we have had available—a point that I shall deal with later —is that the Government's proposed new clause will affect firms with five employees or fewer, and so we have not moved from where we were in Committee last week on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
The Minister said that 700,000 employers would benefit: 700,000 will be eligible, but the number who will benefit will be very small. That is measured by the fact that the cost to the Government will be less than £2 million. The whole business of introducing this matter by regulation, in the teeth of what the Committee decided on the Henry VIII clause only last Monday, says a great deal about the considerable weakness of the Government amendment. We have no option other than to ask for the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 1.
3.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bancroft, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mar, C.

Bottomley, L.

Marsh, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Walston, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Willis, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Jay, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Allerton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Annan, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Arran, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Astor, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Beloff, L.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Craigton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Derwent, L.

Bolton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Effingham, E.

Brightman, L.

Elibank, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Caithness, E.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Flather, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnock, L.

Gisborough, L.

93

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Perth, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Pym, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Quinton, L.

Harvington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rodney, L.

Hives, L.

Romney, E.

Hood, V.

St. Albans, Bp.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Savile, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Selborne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Slim, V.

Loch, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lurgan, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Manton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Margadale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tranmire, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Waddington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wharton, B.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Nelson, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wolfson, L.

Norrie, L.

Wynford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Yarborough, E.

Onslow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out (""so paid"") and insert (—by making"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 10 which are in my name. I understand that we shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
It is obvious that in my previous speech I largely dealt with all that I wish to say on the amendment and it would be idle for me to repeat it. Perhaps when I come to wind up I can deal with points made and respond to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Some criticism was made in our debates on a different amendment during the Committee stage as to whether dealing with the detail of the scheme in the regulations follows normal practice; but there is no question of this being a Henry VIII clause.
However, the House will have noticed that the legislation provides for the first set of regulations under these provisions to be subject to affirmative resolutions. The House will then have an opportunity to discuss the terms of regulations when they are produced. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene because, as my noble friend explained, the amendment has been tabled in response to the debate on the amendment that I moved in Committee. My noble friend has been as good as his word and brought forward an amendment which, in that respect, is a good deal better than mine.
I warmly support the part of his amendment that would define the small employer by reference to the payment of national insurance contributions in the year. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I too am grateful for having had the opportunity to study the amendment in advance. In my case the post worked and I had my three copies all delivered on time. That may say something about averages, but I am grateful.
As one is precluded from speaking on a Report stage amendment after the Minister has spoken—I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has not fully hoisted that on board—may I say that the effect of the £15,000 limit that my noble friend indicated is that the number of employees covered bears a close relationship to, and follows exactly, the range of levels of pay of the employer. In the typical example of a firm that pays four people £125 a week, three people at £175, and three at £200, you find that you have a firm with 10 employees, exactly the same as in the amendment. If all are paid at a lower rate, then there would be more of them. That seems to me to be entirely right. It is a good, flexible definition. I warmly applaud my noble friend for indicating that that is the preferred test for the definition of an employer.
As to the second arm, the threshold for the move from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent., I was frankly concerned when my noble friend indicated that the Government are at present leaning towards the first of his two alternatives; namely, to take it as a threshold for each individual employee rather than the aggregate of sick pay paid by the employer in question. A simple example will perhaps explain what I mean; I appreciate that I am plucking figures out of the air.
My noble friend indicated a figure of eight weeks. If you have one employee who reaches eight weeks of sickness, that triggers the move from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent., and thereafter the employer gets the 100 per cent. reimbursement for the statutory sick pay. If you have two employees both of whom are off for four weeks, you reach exactly the same level of payment by the employer but you are still a long way short of triggering the payment at the 100 per cent. rate.
Therefore, I was pleased to see that my noble friend agreed —and I am grateful to him for having met me with the chairman of the Forum Of Private Business when we argued the case—that if you are going to go down this road it must be on the basis of the aggregate sick pay paid by the employer in the year and not related to the individual employee. Otherwise, one ends up with completely illogical and, I would have thought, indefensible distinctions between different employers depending on how many employees are ill in the year and whether they reach the threshold.

95
I take comfort from two points. First, my noble friend has included the power in paragraph (b) to act on the basis of the aggregate and he is also prepared to continue consulting with the interested parties to see that the best solution is achieved. I have no doubt that his figure of £1 million to £2 million, dependent on the level of the threshold taken, could well be higher if it is taken on the aggregate of all the sick pay paid in the year by an employer. I accept his point that there would have to be different thresholds for different numbers of employees, but that, I believe, is not too difficult.
I return to what I said last week in Committee. If you have average, or less than average, amounts of sickness in the firm, the effect of the proposed reduction to the national insurance contribution will leave the firm substantially better off. Therefore, I wish to suggest to my noble friend, his right honourable friend and Treasury Ministers, when they are deciding exactly what form the regulations should take, that they might be prepared to offer a modified reduction in the national insurance contribution so as to save some money there and have a far more logical and far fairer system of fixing the threshold at which you move to 100 per cent.
My noble friend has wisely left himself with the ability to take such action in the terms in which the empowering clause is drawn for the regulations. I urge with all the force I can command that he listens to those who will be pressing him in this direction and that the regulations, when they are put before the House, take that form. I am grateful that the Government have moved and that there is to be a significant small business exemption.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I accept entirely what my noble kinsman the Minister said. This is not a Henry VIII clause. Nevertheless, it is not the only form in which occasionally this House has problems with regulations. My complaint is that we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. My noble kinsman has frankly spelt out that the Government have not yet decided which form of definition they are using. That is a question that it might be proper for the House to decide.
The size of the exemption is another question that it would be proper for the House to decide. I accept my noble kinsman's formula that the question of principle is what is to be decided by this House, but the question of principle is, in part, a subjective question. What is to be seen as a question of principle must depend to an extent on what people are actually disagreeing about. I once defined business proper to be done in regulation as that which would empty the Chamber if it were embodied in a Bill. These issues do not seem to me to meet that test. In fact the Chamber is reasonably full.
There are also—and I must ask the Government to take this on board—special difficulties in dealing with regulations in this House because of the difficulty of having a vote on them. The concern of my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley about whether eight weeks is a sufficiently generous concession or
96
whether it could possibly be improved, is a definite point of substance. It is the sort of issue which, if embodied in a Bill, we could properly vote on. If we allow the Government the power to act by regulation we are simply saying, "Let the Government decide. We may be satisfied, or we may not, but whatever they do we have to take it." On a question that causes so much feeling, both inside and outside the House, I am not convinced that that is entirely proper.
I understand my noble kinsman's difficulties. This was a late concession, and a late conversion. Those speaking from the Opposition Benches cannot possibly reprove the Government for a late conversion. If they do they are going to queer their own pitch very considerably. Therefore, I do not blame my noble kinsman the Minister for his late conversion. I understand the difficulty of coming up with a satisfactory decision before Report stage.
I also appreciate that there is strong pressure to avoid bringing back questions at Third Reading that we can possibly dispose of earlier in the Bill. However, since the Government, by the Minister's own confession, have not yet decided what they are going to do I wonder, rather than asking us to authorise them to make the law, they will consider withdrawing the amendment for the time being and coming back at Third Reading when they have decided what they want to do and can spell it out for the House in an amendable form.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in discussing these groups of amendments, I wish to concentrate particularly on Amendment No. 11, which is my amendment to the Government's amendment. As a general point I should say that I am sure the House will realise that we are dealing with a complex group of amendments on a complicated subject. The Government's handling of this Bill in this Chamber and in another place has been nothing short of disgraceful. In another place the Second Reading took place on Monday 26th November 1990 and the Bill was rushed through all its remaining stages on Wednesday 28th November. The Committee stage of the Bill took place in this House on Monday 14th January. We were promised a government amendment to deal with small employers. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says about the late conversion, but that does not apply to late tabling. The amendment was tabled very late on Friday and none of the essential information that we needed was given. The information concerning the £15,000 figure and the eight-week period was not available until yesterday afternoon. Those figures are obviously crucial.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord, that Amendment No. 1 standing in the name of the noble Lord was also tabled late. There was no necessity whatever for that lateness.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister knows extremely well that that is a paving amendment for an amendment which had been on the Marshalled List for some time. As I have said, the Government's amendment, which covers two pages, was tabled late on Friday. We received the information in a very skimpy form yesterday afternoon. That left us 1 ½

97
hours to take advice and to draft a very complicated amendment. The Minister might care to tell us just how this House is supposed to do a proper job of work —this applies particularly to those on the Opposition Benches who do not have the support of departmental officials—when his department behaves in this way.
As has already been said in an earlier debate, we feel that the government amendment falls far short of what is required to provide relief for the small employer. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that I admit immediately that using the level of the national insurance contributions is an ingenious way of dealing with the matter. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that I admit the advantages of that scheme compared with other methods of tackling the matter. Will the Minister confirm that we are referring here to the total of the employers' and the employees' contributions in the £15,000 figure? The Minister nods his head in confirmation. On average, that will mean that the provision will apply to firms with five or fewer full-time employees. As I said earlier, that could lead to rough justice, particularly in times of recession, for firms which are outside the limit this year. If such a firm's resources decline as a result of recession and its number of employees falls, it will spend a whole year outside the scheme even though its national insurance contributions amount to less than £15,000. Is there a danger of a wage trap in the approach that the Government are adopting? A qualifying period of eight weeks of sickness is much too long. The weakness of the clause is shown by the fact that its provisions will cost the Government less than £2 million. I repeat that I know of two firms with a total payroll of 60 employees. Over some 30 years I cannot recall that more than three or four employees in each firm had been off sick for more than eight weeks. One of those firms was a farm where the incidence of injury is perhaps higher than in other occupations. As I have said, this period is much too long for a qualifying period.
The Minister has been pressed by his noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this matter. I, too, wish to press him on the issue of whether the Government are prepared to reconsider that period of eight weeks. If they are, that would have a considerable effect on the way we regard the Government's amendment. By limiting the period to eight weeks, the vast majority of absences through sickness will be excluded.
I now turn to Amendment No. 11 which stands in my name. It is an amendment to the Government's Amendment No. 10. I apologise for its apparent complexity. As I have said, it was drafted in about 1½ hours with advice. Certainly if we had had more time, we would have been able to express it in simpler terms. I certainly undertake to improve and simplify it if the House is prepared to accept the principle behind the amendment. Despite the complexity of the wording, the principle is quite simple. It proposes that 100 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay to employees should be automatically triggered when the rate of sickness reaches the equivalent of two weeks'
98
sickness for all employees per year. No small business, whether it is above or below the threshold of the number of employees, would ever be out of pocket as a result of this approach. When the net monthly cost of statutory sick pay to the employer, that is the shortfall in statutory sick pay after government reimbursement, is more than £5 multiplied by the number of employees in the company in any one month—there is a reason for that figure which I shall not explain to your Lordships as it is a technical reason—the employer is able to claim 100 per cent. reimbursement for that month. The important point is that statutory sick pay has to be dealt with on a monthly basis. The amendment, in turn, deals with reimbursement on a monthly basis.
The flexibility of this method allows the problem to be identified before it reaches crisis point. Under the Government's system an employee would have to be absent for a full eight weeks before he could qualify for 100 per cent. reimbursement. This method is easier to calculate as it can be built into the existing method of payments received from the Government. Our proposal is easier to police because it is built into existing procedures. No special measures are required for small businesses because their interests are routinely protected through the self-adjusting nature of the scheme. The system is graduated and at no point do sudden dramatic changes occur on either side of a threshold.
I know that the Minister has discussed this amendment with those who drafted it and those who support it outside the House. Is he prepared at least to consider this principle? As I have said, we have had very little time to draft the amendment but I believe the Minister understands well what lies behind it. I hope the Minister is prepared at least to say that he will consult on the principle behind the amendment, which I believe is a simple one. If that is not possible, I hope the Minister will be prepared to consult on the number of weeks which the Government will use as a trigger. The Minister's remarks will help us to decide how to deal with our amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the amendment of my noble kinsman as well as to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 which stand in my name. The Government's statements in Committee gave us hope that they had accepted the need to protect small employers from the extra costs facing all employers as a result of this Bill. The Government's amendment, however, gives the Government such wide powers that by itself it gives no indication of what they intend. It is thus the figures that we have just been given which hold the key.
The Government's amendment refers to employers' national insurance contribution payments. The Government's figure is £15,000 a year. That is misleading because that represents the total contribution including that of the employees. It is less generous than it initially appears. Based on national average earnings, it really only means five full-time employees or fewer. However, I am reluctantly prepared to accept this provision. My only amendment to this part

99
of the Government's amendment is a practical one. It is contained in my Amendment No. 12 which would mean that as employers remit their national insurance contributions monthly, they should do the same for statutory sick pay.
My Amendment No. 13 is one about which I feel very strongly. I am delighted to be supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The Government's proposals largely remove any real benefit to small employers. By limiting the 100 per cent. recoupment to sickness that is prolonged after eight weeks or so—I accept that my noble friend has not been definite—the vast majority of sickness absences and small employers' statutory sick payments are excluded. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
In both Houses the Government have made great play of the benefit to employers of the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. However, that is extremely misleading. The 0.4 per cent. reduction applies only on earnings up to £185 a week. Above that figure the reduction is only .05 per cent. This will apply to most full-time employees. In effect the 0.4 per cent. saving will apply only to part-time and juvenile employees. I shall give an instance of this. For an employee earning £200 per week, the saving on the employer's national insurance contribution is only a paltry £5.20 per year. That is the equivalent of the difference between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. SSP recoupment for only 2½ days SSP. However, in their generosity the Government are proposing that full recoupment should not start for eight weeks. If the Government are genuine in their desire to help small employers, 100 per cent. recoupment must apply to all SSP payments. That is the reason for my Amendment No.13, to which I am now speaking, to delete Clause (1D) of the government amendment.
The Government's clause is really a mean move to give small employers something with one hand only to take it away with the other—indeed, to take more away. This clause should be removed. Bearing in mind what my noble kinsman Lord Henley said previously, I hope that this amendment will be accepted. I fully understand that it may not be possible for him to do that now, as we drafted the amendment in somewhat of a hurry—noble Lords who were involved in this know the state we have been in over the past weekend —but if he cannot accept it now perhaps he will indicate what he might be prepared to do before Third Reading, or indeed at Third Reading?
I now move briefly to Amendment No. 14. As noble Lords will see, this changes all orders to affirmative orders. It appears to be the case that the first order is affirmative and the others negative. This amendment is very important because it would remove the justifiable fears expressed by my noble kinsman Lord Russell that it is wrong to rule by statutory instrument. But provided your Lordships' amendment insisting that any change to the rate should be subject to primary legislation is upheld—the Henry VIII clause; and I am sure that constitutionally it should be and I look at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
100
—I cannot see any government being able to argue, and they would have to argue it on the floor of the House if it were an affirmative order, that the rate for small businesses be altered to their detriment without so altering the main provisions of the Bill which, subject to your Lordships' Henry VIII provision being upheld, would require primary legislation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, opened his argument with the remark about not having time and that the amendment was put down rather late. He knows, as I do, that there was plenty of time, bearing in mind the discussion and thought that had been given to the matter. That is not really the argument. It would have been better to have had a longer period so that, as he said, his own amendment could have been better thought out, but I think he weakened his argument. I am sorry that he opened what was otherwise a good argument with the sour business about it being put in too late for anything to be done.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin dealt with the matter in a much more mature way. He made it perfectly clear that the general direction shows some improvement on what we were told at Committee stage; but the improvement does not go far enough. At the Committee stage I used the argument that those of us who have day-to-day contact with small industries could produce our own evidence. I said at Committee stage that, as the position then stood, it really would be detrimental to small businesses such as those that I know, even to the point of encouraging us to dispense with labour at a time when we do not want to add to the unemployment list. My noble friend Lord Jenkin is right.
I have discussed this matter with the people who deal with the day-to-day matters of my small companies. There is the suggestion of aggregating the period for which people are off work instead of confining it to the individual, which at present would be of no help at all. The whole of our argument is that the people who need the help are the small employers. The extra burden that they will have put on to them is very real and it affects whether or not they are going to be successful, with everything that flows from that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that if the saving is to be only £1 million to £2 million that is a clear indication that not much help will be given to anybody. My noble friend should take that point into account. He has given himself the powers under the supposed affirmative regulations that we have in mind to do something about this. Indeed, he could underwrite it by the time we come to Third Reading and when he replies to this short debate he could indicate that he is prepared to look at the position where he would aggregate rather than keep it to separate individuals.
I asked my people how often over the past two years we had had people off work for more than eight weeks. Staffordshire is a good healthy place to live in and over the past two years we have not had one person who has been off sick for more than eight weeks. Quite a number have been off for two, three and four weeks. I agree with the arithmetic of my

101
noble friend Lord Jenkin that two fours make eight, and if my noble friend could indicate a figure of four that would mean something for the companies on which I can speak with some authority. It would not be absolute justice. I think they are entitled to full restitution as it is not their fault if an employee is ill.
If the Minister can indicate in his reply that the Government will look seriously and with sympathy at basing this on an aggregate, with four weeks rather than eight weeks being the figure upon which they base their regulation, they would be moving towards giving some help to those who need it; that is, the small businesses which will be affected by the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he referred to my remarks I should like to say that the point I was making was that the crucial information we needed was the £15,000 and the eight weeks. Only in that way could we decide on the quality of the Government's amendment. We received that information—and I accept that the Minister tried his hardest to get it to us, but the Department did not produce the figures—yesterday afternoon at three or four o'clock. The amendment had to be tabled by six o'clock and we had to take advice, to draft it and to table it. I do not think that was long enough.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this amendment produces an improvement in the Bill, but it is a very small one and I do not share the enthusiasm for it of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley for giving consideration to some of the matters which were mentioned in Committee, but I do not think he is prepared to deny that this is a very small concession indeed and one which will do very little to remedy the damage which the Bill will do. On that question of damage, I should like to tell your Lordships of a communication I received this morning from a body that I had not realised was interested in this matter —the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which is a politically wholly impartial body and one also detached from the particular interests of industry. It states:
"The CAB service views with considerable concern the proposals in this Bill. We fear that, by ending full reimbursement for payments under the statutory sick pay scheme, the proposals will provide employers with a positive incentive to dismiss workers who become sick".
That is a very serious allegation from a highly responsible and politically impartial body. I hope that the Government will pay some attention to it.
I understood my noble friend the Minister to say that before the next stage of the Bill he would have consultations. I ask him to include in those consultations the citizens advice bureaux and, in a different way, the CBI. I believe that my noble friend knows that there is considerable ill feeling among many outside bodies that they have not been consulted properly, or at all, about a matter which affects them a great deal. I hope that my noble friend will not take the line that because he has produced this amendment that is all that he needs to do. I hope and believe that
102
he will enter into consultations forthwith and seek to see whether further changes should not be effected at Third Reading.
On that point, consultations have not been helped by the extraordinary haste with which the Bill has been pushed through. Intervals between stages have been very short indeed. In view of the very short discussions in another place, it is to be remembered that those discussions coincided with a time of considerable political excitement on totally different matters which no doubt distracted the attention of honourable Members from the serious issues which arise on this Bill.
The amendment could mean very little. It all depends upon how, if it is put into the Bill, it is used. It is largely a regulation-making provision. My noble friend said that it is not a Henry VIII clause. I rather agree. I think that it is a Henry VII clause—it is a little weaker. However, it contains complete powers to allow the Government either to make it effective or to make it largely ineffective.
If noble Lords will look at the text of the Bill they will see from subsections (1C) and (1D) that regulations "may" do this and "may" do that. There is no provision that they must or shall do it. Equally, when one looks at the last subsection of the amendment one sees that a statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative procedure only in relation to the first regulations made under the Bill. That is no safeguard at all. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Government from producing an innocuous and not very important set of regulations as the first regulations, going amiably through the affirmative procedure and then putting the powerful regulations which really affect matters into the next set of regulations which are subject only to the negative procedure.
Therefore I hope that one of the amendments for Third Reading which my noble friend will consider will be to take out the word "first" in that subsection and provide that all of the regulations shall be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hate to say this of a Government for whom I have a very high regard and whom I have endeavoured over many years to support as enthusiastically as I could, but I should be happier if they were firmly tied down by such safeguards.
Finally, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the figure of eight weeks is far too high. One could argue for whatever lower period one prefers. My own view would be that three or four weeks would be appropriate but that is a matter on which opinions may very well differ. However, I believe that there is very little difference of view in this House that eight weeks is a very high figure and hardly likely to be of much value.
Therefore, in thanking my noble friend for having introduced an amendment at all I hope that he will not believe that it is an impressive or substantial one. One can apply to it the old quotation:
"Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus".

103
For the benefit of Members of your Lordships' House on the Liberal Democrat Benches I shall translate. It means that Lord Henley has been in labour and has produced a very small result.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down can he say from his long experience of this type of legislation whether it has become usual in the past for regulations to be used for deciding not merely the detailed incidence of particular provisions but actual amounts?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my recollection goes back to the six-and-a-half years during which I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I should not like to give an answer about all of the legislation over that period but it is my clear recollection that in the fixing of amounts one always put the figure into the Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, should not the noble Lord, Lord Renton, address his questions to the Front Bench?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to remind the Government that this amendment was produced very late in the day. At Committee stage, when it was proposed, I suggested very strongly to my noble friend that his officials should discuss the matter with the CBI and other interested parties before the amendment was produced. In the event on Friday afternoon I was telephoned—on the Isle of Wight—to be told by the CBI that the department would not say what the amendment looked like. It was not until I was able to talk to staff in my noble friend's private office, which had been instructed to tell me what the amendment looked like, that we got the department moving to tell the CBI what was proposed. That was late on Friday, with the weekend coming up. It was very restrictive and appeared almost to be deliberate and intended to prevent advice being put forward. The net result is that we have an amendment for which, until I heard them just now, I did not have the vital figures. The CBI was able to squeeze the figures out yesterday. Without those vital figures the amendment meant nothing at all.
I do not blame my noble friend and his officials for this, but inevitably the amendment is not ideal because it had to be rushed out, as did the amendments to the amendment. Whether we accept the amendment or not is not important at this stage, but it would be worth my noble friend saying that he will come back at Third Reading with an improvement on the amendment which would be discussed by interested parties tomorrow and the next day. That still gives a bit of time. That would be very helpful because, as I see the Bill, without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter —which is not a party political amendment but has been produced by the Forum of Private Business (which could not be more non-socialist) and is a sound approach to the problem the provision could not be written into it by regulation if it was not accepted—if your Lordships see what I mean.
104
If my noble friend does not intend to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter—and much the same argument applies to those of my noble friend Lord Stanley—perhaps he could say "I am interested in these amendments and I shall discuss with the people concerned, including the CBI, during the next couple of days how we can improve on the amendment we are now debating". If my noble friend would say something like that I believe that he would satisfy all of us, including even my noble friend Lord Jenkin who, although he has strongly supported the Government at every turn—I cannot quite say that I admire him for that but it is jolly good from the Government's point of view—has said that the Government's amendment could do with improvement.
Therefore, those of us who have studied the amendment—and sadly most of your Lordships have not had the opportunity to do so because you have not been kept in the picture—have only been able to do so because we managed to squeeze information out of the department over the weekend. Most of your Lordships therefore probably find much of what I have said hard to understand. The fact is that if my noble friend really wants to produce a Bill which is credible, which will work and which is fair and reasonable to small firms, I urge him strongly to say that he will produce a discussed alternative which embraces what is before us now for this House to consider at Third Reading.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is highly desirable that regulations made under two different subsections inserted in Section 9 of the earlier Act should throughout be by affirmative resolution. I know of only one other case where the first occasion of the regulations being put was by affirmative procedure and subsequently by negative procedure, and that was in the Education (Student Loans) Bill (now Act) where the circumstances were entirely different. It seems to me that for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, if the first regulations merit the affirmative procedure, that should be adopted throughout.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, perhaps I may support the suggestion of my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, that there should be further consultation due to the lateness of this amendment. I understand that the Engineering Employers' Federation share the CBI's doubts about the meaning of the amendment and feel it should be clearer. At the present time, it seems to me to be very important that this should be clear. We should be encouraging employers in these important fields of manufacture to overcome the present recession.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I should like to apologise for my amendments being somewhat late. I can assure my noble friend Lord Mottistone that it is in no way deliberate. We got them down on Friday and sent copies to as many noble Lords as possible. I think one should remember that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Stanley also put

105
down a late amendment. I do not refer to the noble Earl's Amendment No. 9 but to Amendment No. 1, which was put down only yesterday and which I first saw today. It might be a purely paving amendment, but I was too polite to say earlier that it was a totally unnecessary paving amendment. Presumably it was put down for some peculiar procedural reasons. I make that comment only because, if we are being accused of putting down late amendments, I think the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also put down late amendments.
Turning to the regulations, I am not sure that I was grateful that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to them as Henry VII regulations rather than Henry VIII regulations. As I remember, Henry VIII had something of a reputation for fiscal efficiency.
My noble kinsmen and others have raised the question of why we are dealing with the main provisions in regulations. As I think I have already said, it is deliberate policy on our part to provide maximum flexibility in designing the scheme. I indicated that the Government had preferences for the way in which the scheme should be designed. At this stage, we do not want to rule out other possibilities should they turn out to be more practical. For this reason, some of the powers in the more crucial areas keep our options open at this stage. Assuming that the House approves my amendments, we shall be prepared to listen in the interval between now and the laying of regulations to representations on the best way of operating the scheme. That was what I meant when I referred to the consultations in which we have engaged and in which we shall continue to engage. We shall listen to the representations of anyone who wishes to speak with us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is important that there should be no misunderstanding here. Does that willingness to indulge in consultation also include a willingness to consider further amendments at Third Reading?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I would consider further amendments at Third Reading. It is not for me to say what noble Lords should put down at Third Reading. If the noble Lord wishes to put down an amendment at Third Reading, so be it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I asked whether in his discussions with outside interested bodies he was prepared to listen to their suggested amendments for Third Reading.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that I should then bring forward their amendments, let me point out that what I am suggesting is that with our amendment as it stands we hope we should be able to achieve what would be desired, if we thought fit. I shall at this moment give no guarantee that I will bring forward amendments myself. The noble Lord can, as he well knows, bring forward amendments at Third Reading.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has just said, perhaps I may ask what
106
is the point of the discussion. He says he is prepared to have discussions. Does he mean he is prepared to discuss, with the possibility that, arising from those discussions, he will think of an amendment at Third Reading?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I talked about discussions and I talked about the regulations. So far I have said we are minded to go for a £15,000 national insurance contribution threshold and eight weeks for a single employee threshold on the second part of my amendment. We shall listen to representations on those matters. I did not say that we would necessarily consider changing this amendment.
I turn now to the amendments to my amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Stanley. I should like to deal first with paving Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 11 to be moved by the noble Lord. Again, the noble Lord will appreciate that we have seen it only recently, but I hope we can help him. It is a far-reaching amendment which completely alters the basis on which I have suggested employers can get 100 per cent. reimbursement. Equally, it applies to all employers, although I understand that from the way the scheme has been designed it favours small employers.
As I said, the noble Lord is aware that neither I nor my officials have been able to study this in any detail. We saw it for the first time only this morning. But the noble Lord did explain that the scheme had been devised by Mr. Mendham of the Forum of Private Business. Mr. Mendham spoke to one of my officials about it only yesterday. I certainly pay tribute to Mr. Mendham for his diligence in coming forward at short notice with what at first glance appears to be a very complicated scheme. I understand that my officials will be prepared to see Mr. Mendham tomorrow to have further discussions about the scheme.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if that is so, is my noble friend confident that Amendment No. 11 can be incorporated in the Bill without further amendment to his amendment?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, because that amendment removes a large part of my amendment. But that would be a matter for the House to consider at Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained the way in which the amendment would work. I have to confess that I still remain somewhat mystified as to how it would operate so as to compensate only in cases of abnormal sickness patterns.
The amendment seems to assume that an employee can expect to have two weeks of sickness on average per year; that is, seven days of SSP would be payable in the case of workers on a five-day week, taking account of the customary three waiting days for SSP. This equals £60.90 where the lower rate of SSP is taken to be £43.50 a week. I understand that that sum per employee is then apportioned to each calendar month by dividing by 12 to arrive at an average sickness cost per month for the firm. Abnormal sickness pattern

107
relief would fall due if in any month the gross SSP due exceeded the monthly average which the employer calculates.
I believe that is the flaw in the proposition as we understand it at the moment. It assumes that even in small firms sickness itself will be spread evenly throughout the year. At its most absurd, an employee who was sick for a total of 10 days in the year would have ten-twelfths of a day off sick each month. Clearly that is ridiculous. While it is appropriate to average costs on a monthly basis, the incidence of sickness is entirely random.
Perhaps I can illustrate that better by giving an example. In a firm of five employees using this formula the firm would qualify for abnormal sickness pattern relief if the monthly SSP payments exceeded an annual amount of £304.50 divided by 12; namely, £25.38. It will be obvious to the House that SSP in respect of less than one week's sickness for just one employee in any month would exceed that threshold. In effect, it is our belief that in those circumstances the employer would qualify for the relief in respect of virtually every spell of sickness. That is far from what could be described as abnormal. In view of that, I am not able to accept the noble Lord's amendment. However, as I said, my officials are prepared to have further discussions with Mr. Mendham about his proposals.
I turn now to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Stanley, Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. I had the impression that these amendments received more support during discussions in the House than did the amendment with which I have just dealt. I start with Amendment No. 12 which sets a month as the period of contribution liability that would determine whether an employer qualified to be treated as a small employer. That contrasts with the Government's proposals which, as I have explained, would be prescribed in regulations as the preceding tax year. It is not clear from my noble friend's amendment which month would be so designated but I assume that it would be the month prior to when an SSP payment first became due. That would lead to a much more complicated system than that proposed in my amendment. It would mean that the employer could move in and out of eligibility for small employers' relief from month to month depending on the level of his contributions. This would be particularly difficult for those employers with fluctuating workforces, where there was seasonal working, overtime or part-time work; in fact whenever the wage bill varied significantly between months.
That contrasts with the simplicity of the proposals that I put forward under which once designated a small employer, the employer would so remain for the whole of the next tax year. The employer would not need to consider afresh each month whether he was still eligible to be treated as a small employer. He would know that once he had an employee who had been off sick for eight weeks he could get SSP reimbursed at the 100 per cent. rate without any further calculations on his part.
Finally, with regard to Amendment No. 12, it would be difficult for the department to monitor the
108
correct application because the information would not be available from our own records. It would entail visiting employers and inspecting their records in every case. That is unlike our proposal whereby the information would be available in the end-of-year return that the employer already submits. For those reasons I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment.
Amendment No. 13 would remove from the Government's new clause the requirement that a specified level of sickness must have been reached before a small employer can revert to 100 per cent. reimbursement. All employers qualifying to be treated as small employers would be able to get 100 per cent. reimbursement for all the SSP paid.
On a number of occasions I have explained to the House the effects of the reductions in national insurance contributions and the fact that they are particularly weighted in favour of the small employer presuming that the small employer tends—I certainly believe that there is such a tendency—to employ the less well paid. I have given detailed examples of the way in which the additional SSP costs are more than offset by the reductions in contributions that we propose for many small employers.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin suggested that we might reduce the level of the proposed contributions. However, I must stress again that when my right honourable friend reduced the contributions he was able to do so because of the state of the fund. He saw that as in some way compensating employers for the changes that he proposed to statutory sick pay. But he was only able to do it because of the state of the fund. It is the state of the fund that has to be his consideration when making changes to the level of national insurance contributions.
I return to the matter of the reductions in contributions and the fact that they will normally more than compensate many small employers for additional SSP costs. Those figures have not been disputed. It is only when the small employer experiences protracted sickness in his workforce that he loses the benefit of the reduced national insurance contributions. That is why we came forward and why I gave the House the figure of eight weeks. We have so pitched it because we feel that that would be about the level at which small employers may begin to lose out from the national insurance contribution reductions.
I listened to what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said and to the words of my noble kinsman Lord Stanley. I must stress again that the figure of eight weeks is not set in concrete and is not on the face of the Bill. If we are persuaded that it is too high or that it might be better to go down the road of total number of employees over the year rather than the individual employee, we shall certainly take that into consideration and draft the regulations accordingly. The door will be open to all those who wish to make representations on that matter. Should my noble kinsman wish to suggest some alternative means to set the figure, we shall certainly consider it at Third Reading.
I come to my noble kinsman's third amendment in which he seeks to provide that all regulations made

109
under these provisions should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As I explained, the Government think it right that the first regulations should be affirmative. These will set the parameters for the start of the scheme and it is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to discuss the Government's plans for what in effect will be an entirely new procedure. But we felt that once the principle and initial levels for the scheme had been set, it would not seem necessary that further regulations, which may well be on very trivial matters, should come before the House.
Nevertheless, in view of representations that have been made to me quite forcefully by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we are prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 14. I am advised that in terms of its drafting, on which I congratulate my noble kinsman, it is not defective. I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading to correct any defect that it might have, should it be necessary, which I doubt. My noble kinsman Lord Stanley is a highly skilled draftsman and probably put it in absolutely the right form.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("an amount equal to the sum of—

(i) the aggregate of such of those payments as qualify for small employers' relief, and

(ii)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Carter Lord Carter had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
Line 3, leave out ("small employers'") and insert ("abnormal sickness pattern").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to move Amendment No. 4 but shall not do so.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("those payments") and insert:
("such of those payments as do not so qualify, by making").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, did the House accept Amendment No. 4? There appeared to be some confusion.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the amendment was not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I had the impression that on the call for voices we approved Amendment No. 4. I am happy if the amendment was not moved.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move an amendment in the conventional way. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 19. Amendment No. 8 re-introduces the safeguard to the 7 per cent. compensation for costs to industry in operating the scheme. I do not propose to repeat the full explanation that I gave in Committee. It appears in Hansard at col. 1038. However, I wish to comment on the arguments put forward by my noble friend in defence of the subsection that I now seek to delete.
I have looked at the arguments and remain as unconvinced as I was when I first heard them. In essence, my noble friend suggested that as the proportion of employers taking up the extra 7 per cent. was limited to 75 per cent., clearly it was not valued. I find that line of argument puzzling. Surely a more obvious interpretation is that if three-quarters of all those entitled to claim do so, the provision is considered well worthwhile. Indeed, with a little more publicity for the provision it may reach even more of those who are eligible. If my noble friend's department were achieving 75 per cent. take-up rates in respect of some of its other targeted benefits, it would count them as a great success.
There is a situation in which it may not be necessary for me to invite your Lordships to support the amendment. In Committee I was unaware of the fact that if the amendment that was then accepted—that is 91 per cent. instead of 80 per cent.—is left in the Bill unchanged, there would be no need for the amendment now being debated. However, your Lordships may consider that if there is a danger that, without coming back to this House, the Government will at some stage seek to alter the 91 per cent. to another figure detrimental to industry, Amendment No. 8 and its consequential amendments, Nos. 17 and 19, should be included in the Bill as a safeguard.
I am reluctant to suggest to your Lordships that the Government may be inclined to alter the figure of 91 per cent., which proved to be a firm decision when voted upon. This is no time to put an extra burden upon industry for all the reasons given in Committee by many of my noble friends, by noble Lords opposite and reiterated today in an excellent article on the subject in the business section of The Times. Indeed, as the article indicates, since Committee the attention of those in industry as well as in government has been centred on the conflict in the Gulf. It is certainly no time for the Government to be heavy-handed by further antagonising industry unnecessarily.
Before reading the article in The Times I puzzled last night about the justification given by the Government for the Bill, let alone this part of it. Reading the introductory speech made by my noble friend Lord Henley on Second Reading, especially cols. 390 and 391, gave me no help in that respect; nor

111
did reading his winding-up speech. He merely said that the Government had looked at the SSP scheme and decided to make certain changes. He gave no real justification for those changes. However, the article in The Times explains that the extra charges to industry are intended to discipline companies into having a more systematic approach to absenteeism.
Notwithstanding that, a letter written to the Financial Times yesterday by Mr. Richard Price, Deputy Director-General of the CBI, makes it clear that the explanation, which is believed to have been thought up after appreciation of the strength of the opposition to the changes, is bogus. I commend to your Lordships the letter to the Financial Times, as indeed I commend the article today in The Times.
Before I decide what to do with my amendment it would be helpful to have an indication from my noble friend that the Government intend to retain the cost-neutral position of the 91 per cent. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we in the Liberal Democrat Party warmly support the amendment. We also agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the relationship between this amendment and the 91 per cent. amendment carried in Committee. I shall not develop that argument further.
I shall comment briefly and in passing on the comments made by the noble Lord about absenteeism. The idea of the Bill provoking employers to clamp down on absenteeism is the opposite side of the coin to the fear of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it will lead employers to arbitrary dismissals. The difficulty with action such as clamping down, for which the Bill creates an incentive, is that it always ends up being directed at the wrong people. It is very difficult to get such things right. If action is taken under too much pressure, it is probable that it will be directed at the wrong people. I support the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone took me to task in an earlier speech. On several occasions I expressed myself as being broadly in sympathy with the Government's objectives in bringing forward this legislation. I did so not least because of the headroom given to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in securing savings in the Bill. He was therefore able to make a number of extremely valuable improvements in some of the most sensitive areas of social services. Not least is the improvement in child benefit. It was made absolutely clear in a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Newton that the achievements were linked. This afternoon I was intrigued to hear a number of noble Lords calling for improvements in child benefit after having marched through the Lobbies voting against the savings that made possible such an improvement as from next April.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone is looking for reasons for the introduction of the Bill. It is nothing to do with disciplining sickness, although it may have
112
that effect on some employers. It was introduced because of the exigencies of the public expenditure round and the need for Mr. Newton to find headroom in order to make many much-needed improvements.
I do not cavil with the Government on that. That is the very stuff of which governments are made. It is a question of priorities. If one turns to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, it is interesting to note that he is hoping to obtain a view from the Government on the defeat he inflicted on them last week. My guess is that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be able to say anything about that.
I believe that we are well on the way to obtaining an acceptable package for the small firm. The Bill is designed to press particularly hard for the small firm. The package which has been introduced for the generality of employees—the reduction of national insurance contribution and matching the reduction from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. for the reimbursement of statutory sick pay—deserves support, for the reasons spelt out in the leading article in the Financial Times. I may point out that Mr. Price's letter was not a very accurate response to that article, and my noble friend on the Front Bench may wish to say something about that. If my noble friend chooses to press his amendment to a Division on this occasion, once again I must make it clear that I shall be unable to support him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord was arguing that it is necessary to finance benefits. Can he answer the argument developed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others, that we would be financing benefits by killing the goose that lays the golden egg?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I dealt with that in the Committee stage of the debate. The figure was 0.03 per cent. of the total wage bill. One is discussing a total wage bill that runs to over £300 billion a year, and we are speaking of 0.03 per cent. of that.
I do not accept the argument that for the generality of employees that imposes some intolerable hardship which justifies the very strong language used by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and one or two other noble Lords on this side of the House in regard to this measure. They do not face the problem that Ministers face in seeking to build-in much needed and much called-for improvements in social services for which there is no other source of money.
My right honourable friend Mr. Newton has shown considerable courage and sense of priority in recognising the need for improvement in child benefit, in income support for people in residential care and nursing homes and in services for the disabled. If he is to introduce those improvements, for which many noble Lords have clamoured, he must find the savings to pay for them. That is the way in which successive governments have dealt with these matters; it is the way that he has dealt with them, and he has my support.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a point to him. He made the same point at Committee stage last week. In fact I believe he is wrong. The Bill as originally drafted against the reduction in national insurance contributions was neutral in its effect on the cash flow of the Department of Social Security. There was £258 million on one side and £250 million on the other. He is right about the £100 million used to finance improvements in benefit. That came from the failure to uprate the levels of statutory sick pay and the failure to alter the thresholds. That was all dealt with in the uprating statement and has nothing to do with this Bill or the reduction in the employers' national insurance contribution.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has long experience of these matters, he is leaving out of account a fact referred to by my noble friend on the last amendment. It was in response to a point I made that in terms of the management of public finance, the state of the national insurance fund and the question of public expenditure fall under different heads.
As I said earlier, I negotiated on those matters both as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and subsequently as Secretary of State for Social Services. The ordinary citizen sees this as public money coming out of the same pot. From the point of view of the control and management of public expenditure, the £250 million savings which will be secured by the Bill if the amendment is reversed—I have no knowledge of what the Government may be hoping in that regard—will help to finance much needed and much called-for improvements in other areas of the social services where there is no other source of income.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding seeks to revive discussions which took place on Second Reading and at Committee stage on the general merits or demerits of the Bill. Even at this late stage he declines to face the real objection to the Bill; that is, that at a time of some degree of recession in the economy it is a mistake to add arbitrarily to the costs of industry.
It is no defence to say that it is the traditional defence of the young bastard; that is, it is only a little one. For some companies it is a considerable increase in costs, while at the same time the Government, and I am sure my noble friend, are doing their best to beg industry and the trade unions to keep down their costs. If it is so small an amount that it does not matter, the counter argument is that it will not be a large enough amount to support the great improvements that my noble friend foresees in the social services. He cannot have the argument both ways.
Like my noble friend, I sat on both sides of the table on these issues; I think I am right in saying that I sat rather longer than he did. He knows that our social services can properly ask for improvements right across the field. It is good that they should. But it is another matter to say that they should do so only by a measure which deliberately concentrates on raising the costs of industry. At this time to do so is rash. To
114
do so in the face of criticism from every organisation representing industry that one has heard of, is unwise. I am afraid that the Government will regret it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. We supported it when the Bill was in Committee and do so again. Once again I support it from the standpoint of an employee. We have heard a great deal about the burdens of employers. However, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, burdens on employees are also involved.
If one has a situation in which further costs are seen to be imposed on employers, particularly small employers, that would inevitably affect employees. It affects the kind of benefits employees can hope to receive in the future. It affects whether or not better occupational schemes can be obtained or even introduced.
For that reason, as well as all the reasons adduced by other noble Lords on this side of the House, I support the amendment. Of course we do not want to see further burdens on employers, even large employers, at this stage. Burdens on large employers are implicit in the Bill, indeed in the whole package. If one is to vary the rates of sick pay so that a larger amount will be payable by those employers if they are making up sick pay to full pay, then such employers will have to make more funds available to cope with their existing occupational schemes. Therefore that is a further burden on the large employers as well as on the small ones.
For all those reasons I hope that the Government will at least give some assurance this afternoon on what they intend to do regarding the amendments passed in Committee. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. If we can obtain some assurance in that respect it will not be necessary to press as far as the 7 per cent. amendment is concerned. Apart from that I support what has been said.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse the arguments I put forward against the amendment at Committee stage. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded us, he was successful in moving an amendment at Committee stage to change the figure of 80 per cent. to 91 per cent. My noble friend said that that was designed to achieve a cost neutrality.
My noble friend now seeks to include 7 per cent. He said that he will not press that if I can give him an assurance as to what will happen in another place. My noble friend knows full well that I cannot give that assurance. It would not be right for me to do so at this stage. It is for the Government to consider their position and for another place to decide. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. This House has agreed to the 91 per cent. amendment, if I can call it that, because of the alleged cost neutrality. It would be illogical to accept another amendment relating to 7 per cent.
My noble friend then referred to an alleged argument about disciplining employers in order to

115
encourage them to take greater note of the level of sickness that their employees claim. We have never said that or claimed it as justification for the Bill. That is pure press speculation. I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for stressing why we have produced this Bill. Having stressed savings, I stress the increases that we have been able to make to, for example, child benefits, which we discussed today at Question Time, and also income support for those in residential care and nursing homes.
I wish to comment briefly on the letter from the CBI published in yesterday's Financial Times to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred. I refer to it only to correct one glaring mistake which is to be regretted. In the third paragraph, Mr. Price, the Deputy Director General of the CBI, stresses:
"Statutory sick pay is financed entirely through employers' and employees' national insurance contributions. It is an insured scheme, and contributors are entitled to claim".
That is not so. The contributory principle holds that people should receive entitlement to certain benefits if a requisite amount or number of national insurance contributions have been paid. The requirement refers to sickness benefit and all the other contributory benefits, but not to statutory sick pay which is administered by employers. It is sufficient that a sick person should be employed and earning above the lower earnings' limit for national insurance contributions. Someone who has just begun work and has not built up a record of contributions can get SSP. Even married women who have opted out of national insurance and who are on the lower rate and do not qualify for other state contributory benefits can still get SSP.
I remind the House that in recognising the status of SSP as a non-contributory benefit, the Social Security Act 1990 has placed its funding firmly on general taxation rather than on national insurance income as had formerly been the case. I do not think that I can say any more at this moment. As I said, my noble friend sought an assurance from me. I cannot give it. I hope that he will not try to persuade the House to accept the illogical argument he put forward for the previous amendment which was successful at Committee stage and now move away from what he alleged was cost neutrality towards a positive bonus to the employers.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that is disappointing. I do not accept the argument that my noble friend cannot be more reassuring about what might happen in another place. What happens there is entirely for the Government to decide. There is no reason to suppose that the House will take a different view. It can be made quite clear that the Government appreciate that this is an unpopular Bill which has been created without any discussion at all. Even at this late stage we are still being deprived of discussion. Where discussion has taken place it has been on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It is the first time that that has happened in relation to the SSP since it started at the beginning of the 1980s. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory to force people to adopt this kind of approach. I cannot accept that this cost-neutral situation is going
116
to be retained. In order to safeguard at least some of the provision I invite your Lordships to join me in the Lobby to see if we can win Amendment No. 8.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aldington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birkett, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Monson, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Buckmaster, V.

Mulley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Palmer, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Phillips, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harvington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boardman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Borthwick, L.

Allerton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Astor, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

Birdwood, L.

Caithness, E.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blyth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

117

Carnarvon, E.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmer, L.

Mancroft, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Manton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Margadale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Onslow, E.

Elibank, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fortescue, E.

Quinton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Geddes, L.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rees, L.

Gray, L.

Rodney, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Hood, V.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Ingrow, L.

Swansea, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Tranmire, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Waddington, L.

Knollys, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Lurgan, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament during the year 1992 a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act on the employment practices of employers.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to call attention to the possible effect of the Bill on employees. We have been hearing a good deal about the effect of the Bill on employers; but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are equally concerned about the Bill having a number of undesirable effects on employees. The interests of employers and employees are obviously capable of conflicting, and on occasion do, but we on these Benches are also very well aware that there is between them a large element of common interest. The key to that element of common interest is that they both have an interest in belonging to a profitable firm. We believe that the Bill will threaten that common interest and will have a bad effect on employees as well as on employers. However, because this bad effect on employees will be secondary it has in many ways been most effectively addressed
118
through trying to ease the pressure of the Bill on employers. It is nevertheless a matter of considerable concern to us in its own right.
I have drawn attention already to the fact that the Bill will create a wages stop at £184.50. Above that amount the employers have to pay the reimbursement at the higher rate. Below that they do not. The Bill will therefore tend to keep down wages. That will wipe out some of the department's precious savings in the form of housing benefit and family credit. It is extremely difficult to quantify that, but it is a consideration. I also think that the Bill will intensify the drive towards part-time work. That is creating a range of social problems in this country which we are only just beginning to address. We have a higher number of part-time workers than any other country in the EC except for the Netherlands. A great many of them are below the level at which they pay national insurance. The Bill will put more below that level. Those people are also very often without occupational sick pay schemes and without occupational pension schemes and are on the way to becoming an underclass. The Bill may tend to worsen that effect.
Ever since the Bill had its Second Reading in another place concern has been expressed about its effect on the disabled. I entirely accept the point made by Ministers that the disabled do not have a higher rate of absence through illness than other people, but we are not dealing here with what is true in fact. We are dealing with what employers will expect to be fact. It is well known that this is an area in which people are capable of a great deal of unjustified fear. Ministers' assurances that the disabled do not have an above average level of absence through illness may be quite compatible with employers employing fewer of them because they wrongly fear that they will have a higher than average level of sickness. In fact, statements that the level of sickness of the disabled is not above average need the maximum possible amount of publicity. But even that may not be enough.
The problem of dismissals has been briefly addressed several times. It is clearly linked with the pressure to encourage employers to clamp down on absenteeism. My noble kinsman said that that was not the Government's intention. Nevertheless, that will be the effect of the measure. It means that a high amount of sickness will cost employers more money. A nearly bankrupt employer is more liable to become a ruthless employer than one who has some spare money in his pocket. We think it will cause increased pressure towards dismissals. This measure is an extremely blunt instrument.
It may perfectly well be that a number of people are claiming days of absence on the ground of sickness but are not justified in doing so. I do not see any reason to suppose that those who are likely to be dismissed because their employer cannot afford their statutory sick pay are in any way likely to coincide with those who may perhaps be skiving. In fact, any connection between the two groups will be purely coincidental. If that effect is desired I do not think it will be achieved. I believe that instead we shall see the dismissal of

119
people who are genuinely ill. That once again will mean more costs falling on the Department of Social Security.
We shall also see more cases of what the citizens advice bureaux have found already—refusals to pay statutory sick pay. A North London citizens advice bureau had a case of an employee who was told nothing about any procedure for claiming statutory sick pay and was then refused it on the ground that she had not claimed within seven days. I know that an employer has to give reasons in writing for refusing to pay statutory sick pay. That has to be done in "a reasonable time", which is not a precise phrase. It was a phrase used in 1628, the King claiming that he might imprison people without trial for a reasonable time. John Selden remarked:
"At this little gap, all our liberties may slip out".
At this little gap, a good many people's statutory sick pay may slip out. Will my noble kinsman consider a more precise definition of "a reasonable time"; for example, perhaps it could be a week.
There is also the risk that such changes will mean fewer occupational sick pay schemes. I entirely agree with my noble kinsman in his admiration for such schemes. However, an employer facing business uncertainty is concerned to keep down his costs. Therefore he may be less sure than he was before that he can risk entering such a scheme.
Similarly, there will be further trouble with things which are already happening; for example, failure to provide an itemised payslip, which makes it difficult to calculate any entitlement, and failure to pay national insurance contributions. The Government are losing a considerable sum of money in that respect. If they are not worried about the situation, I believe that they should be. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to add a few remarks to those made by my noble friend and to expand slightly on a point which I attempted to raise—without, I admit, giving the Minister notice—in Committee. I refer to the implications of what we are doing as regards ethnic minorities. It is well understood—indeed there is no argument about the fact—that lower-paid workers run the risk of receiving smaller amounts of sick pay than they did before because of the raising of the level. That brings forward the issue of the ethnic minorities being overrepresented among the lower paid and therefore more likely to suffer from this reduction of sick pay than other groups of people.
Since the Committee stage, I have tried to obtain precise figures about the representation of ethnic minorities among the low paid. But, although I have contacted all the likely sources, no such figures exist. I believe that that tells us something about the lack of attention which we pay to the problem. However, there is no questioning the fact that the ethnic minorities are disproportionately highly represented among the unemployed, among those with no training and qualifications and among the unskilled.
120
There is not much doubt that people who have the lowest level of qualifications and who are disproportionately represented among the unskilled will also be over-represented among the low-paid workers. Indeed those people make up the low-paid group.
I am fully aware that, in introducing the Bill, the Government had no intention that it should have an adverse effect disproportionately on members of ethnic minority groups. However, if my argument is correct—I believe it is—the fact remains that this could be a case of indirect discrimination. The proposed change will affect one ethnic group more than others because of its over-representation among the low paid. That being so, it is possible that this could lead to a case in the European Court of Justice. Therefore if the Government accept the amendment, I ask them to ensure that there will be a full report to Parliament at the end of the year on the impact of this legislation. Such a report should include information about how the changes have affected ethnic minority groups in employment in this country.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have very little to add to the powerful arguments which have been put forward by those who have attached their names to this amendment. During the progress of the Bill, we have learnt that we do not know enough about employment practices. We also know that the Government are relying upon just one survey carried out by IFF Research Ltd. I believe that that survey was to some extent misleading because it was geared towards larger firms.
In my view, a report such as that suggested in the amendment would be a great help. There is real concern about the likely effects of the Bill. If the Government were to accept the amendment, I believe that it would help to allay some of those fears.
Lord Henley: My Lords, many suggestions have been made by those who have spoken as to the likely effect of the Bill on employees. Indeed we had the example of part-time workers, the suggestion that many people will suffer a wages stop at £184.50 per week, and mention was made of disabled workers. I was slightly confused by what my noble kinsman said about the effect of assurances from government Ministers that the disabled do not have a higher than average level of sickness. However, it is possible that I misunderstood what he said. He made allegations about possible increased pressure to dismiss workers and about increased refusals to pay statutory sick pay. He also suggested that a precise definition of "a reasonable period of time" should be laid down.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about ethnic minorities and said that there was a risk that we might be challenged in the European Court of Justice. I dealt with that matter in Committee when I said that I would certainly look at any evidence which was put before us.
I do not wish to respond to all those points at this stage. Instead, I should like to respond to the gist of the amendment that there should be a statutory report from the Secretary of State during 1992,
"on the effects of the provisions of this Act on the employment practices of employers".

121
I hope that I shall be able to give my noble kinsman sufficient assurances that we shall, nevertheless, be undertaking appropriate monitoring. Of course, he is right to say that there should be some check on the way in which the Bill's provisions, or those of any Bill for that matter, operate. I can assure him that the Government will certainly want to know about this and that we shall be monitoring the effects of the changes.
My noble kinsman may well remember that at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings in another place my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said that monitoring would be etched on his heart just as Calais was etched on the heart of Queen Mary. Since that time I have discussed the matter with my right honourable friend. As I am sure my noble kinsman will agree, it would not be sensible to draw any firm conclusions about the effects of the changes on employers' practice in, for example, the provision of statutory sick pay, or occupational sick pay, until the new arrangements have been in place for some time. But, as I said, we shall be looking to monitor the proposals in the Bill both in the course of the compliance visits carried out by the department's inspectors and by other means, such as the feedback we receive from employers, employees and employer and employee organisations.
The Government would need to consider whether the results of our monitoring warranted a report being laid before Parliament. It would indeed be an unusual step to take in this type of social security legislation and I have to tell my noble kinsman that I think it extremely unlikely that this would be deemed necessary. Nevertheless we would of course ensure that the results of the monitoring action were available to the House on request and should it be considered that a statement, either by written reply or orally, was necessary this could certainly be arranged. I am sure that with his customary ingenuity my noble kinsman would find ways of further questioning the Government about this, should he consider it necessary.
With those assurances, I trust that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. When his right honourable friend Mr. Scott referred to such monitoring being graven on his heart, as Calais was graven on Queen Mary's, I think that he led with his chin. I say that because the reason Calais was graven on Queen Mary's heart was because it was a failure. When considering monitoring, I hope that my noble kinsman and his right honourable friends will bear that factor in mind. Nevertheless, I believe that I have been given everything that I could reasonably expect. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Small employers' relief
.—(1) In section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, before subsection (2) (meaning of "contributions payments") there shall be inserted—
"(1B) For the purposes of this section, a payment of statutory sick pay which an employer is liable to make to an employee for any day qualifies for small employers' relief if the employer is a small employer who has before that day been liable to make such payments of statutory sick pay as entitle him to relief in respect of that payment.
(1C) For the purposes of this section, "small employer" shall have the meaning assigned to it by regulations, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such regulations may in that connection make provision—

(a) for that expression to be defined by reference to—

(i) the number, or average number, of employees of the employer during a prescribed period; or

(ii) the amount of the employer's contributions payments for any prescribed period;

(b) for the amount of the employer's contributions payments for any prescribed period to be adjusted, estimated or otherwise attributed to him by reference to their amount in any other prescribed period.

(1D) Regulations shall prescribe the payments of statutory sick pay that entitle a small employer to small employers' relief in respect of any particular payment; and any such regulations may provide for that entitlement to be determined by reference to—

(a) the number of weeks for which the employer has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of the employee in question in a prescribed period; or

(b) the total amount from time to time of the statutory sick pay which the employer has been liable to pay in respect of each of his employees in a prescribed period which includes the day for which he is liable to make the payment in question."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section (meaning of "contributions payments" in subsections (1) (a) and (1A)) for the words "and subsection (1A)" there shall be substituted the words "and subsection (1C)".
(3) In Part II of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1986 (questions for the Secretary of State) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted the words "or
(vi) the amount of an employer's contributions payments for any period for the purposes of regulations under section 9(1C) of that Act."
(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) the first regulations made under that section by virtue of this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, Line 7, leave out from second ("for") to end of line 52 and insert ("abnormal sickness pattern relief if the payment was made for sickness in a month in respect of which the sum payable by way of reimbursement of statutory sick pay to that employer but for such relief exceeds a figure calculated by multiplying the sum of the average number of employees employed by that employer in that month by the sum of one-twelfth of 7 days' statutory sick pay paid at the lowest level then applicable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may apologise to the House for the confusion which arose at an earlier stage over Amendment No. 4. Such confusion was entirely my fault and I apologise accordingly. I do not propose to deal with the amendment all over again because it has already been discussed. However, I should like the Minister to make absolutely clear what he means by "the consultations" to which he referred in an earlier response.
As the Minister is aware, the House has asked the Minister to consult the various bodies interested in the Bill and, if necessary, to amend his new clause before Third Reading. He said that the department was minded to consider the eight-week period for sickness. I understand that that will be during the consultations on the regulations. He also helpfully said that he was prepared to enter into discussions with Mr. Mendham of the Forum of Private Business about the exact implications of the scheme enshrined in Amendment No. II. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House how those discussions will take place, what he would hope to do if the department were convinced of the merits of the scheme, and whether an amendment would be brought forward to the new clause on Third Reading or whether the issue would be covered by regulations?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that that would be possible. I repeat again that my understanding is that my officials are seeing Mr. Mendham tomorrow to discuss his scheme. We shall then discover more about how it works, what our feelings are and what the problems are.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is helpful, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 11, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, Leave out lines 27 to 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I reply to the remarks of my noble kinsman Lord Henley on the intended eight-week threshold. We have been over this course well and truly. I am supported by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter: it is essential to have a reduction in the proposed, or intended —I am not sure what my noble kinsman said—eight-week threshold. I shall return to this point on Third Reading. I fear that I may have to return with a stick rather than a carrot.
[Amendment No. 13, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10: Amendment No. 14.
After Clause 1, Line 49, leave out from ("instrument") to ("made") in line 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that my noble kinsman intends to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are prepared to accept the amendment, but, to protect my position, if it turns out to be drafted incorrectly, I reserve the right to bring forward an amendment to it on Third Reading.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble kinsman.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Extent: payments condition
. The provisions of this Act, insofar as they amend section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 (recovery by employers of amounts paid by way of statutory sick pay), shall only have effect to the extent of the amount paid by an employer in respect of statutory sick pay paid to an employee during the first three weeks.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we tabled a similar amendment in Committee but said that we would not move it because we would wait to see what transpired and consider our position. There have been some movements with the acceptance of the Government's amendment this afternoon. However, I believe that it is still worth speaking to the amendment we tabled originally because it refers to the three-week period. The Government have said in support of the Bill on a number of occasions that on average employees are sick for three weeks. They have used that argument to try to convince employers, especially small employers, that they will not lose by the Bill. This afternoon there has been talk of eight weeks which is far too long.
Some people are sick for longer than three weeks, and some suffer accidents which involve long absences. As the organisations representing the small businesses have said—it has been repeated in the House this afternoon—longer absences can often be coped with well by large organisations but small organisations are less able to do so, and usually have to take on temporary staff to fill the vacancy. Not surprisingly therefore there has been widespread opposition to the Bill.
The amendment would leave untouched the principle that this side of the House so dislikes, and the SSP would still cease to be the genuine state scheme that we support. However, there would at least be a restriction in relation to long-term sickness. After three weeks, there would be full reimbursement, and that is the objective of the amendment. We are concerned, as is the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with the position, in particular, of the disabled. The Government have said on a number of occasions that the disabled generally have a very much better health record than many people who are not registered disabled; but that, I am afraid, is not the view of the Disability Alliance.
The Disability Alliance claims that the disabled start with many disadvantages in the labour market in the first place; and if employers are encouraged, through the measures contained in the Bill, to look

125
more carefully at the health records of those whom they are recruiting, such people will have even greater difficulty in obtaining employment and in retaining it. The amendment contains an ameliorating measure. It is important to put the arguments for it on record. The eight weeks, to which reference has been made in earlier debates, is far too long; three weeks is much more appropriate. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the amendment. It is concerned, like a number of other amendments, with minimising the risk to a business suffering an exceptional incidence of sickness. Below three weeks, any losses suffered by the employer may be significant; they are unlikely to be crippling unless the margins are very tight indeed. However, when people have much longer absences from work—without breaching the eight weeks that we have been discussing earlier today—the losses may be severe. There may be a small business employing six people who may all be hurt in one car crash. In that case, the employer will have a severe burden of statutory sick pay in addition to having its whole workforce off sick and having to take on a new one. In such a case we could have an unnecessary bankruptcy. The amendment would help to protect us against that clearly undesirable situation. For that reason, among many others, we support it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I listened to the example given by my noble kinsman of all the employees being injured in the same car crash. It is an extreme example, but the small extra cost of SSP would be the least of the employer's problems if all his employees were off for eight weeks. I am sure that my noble kinsman will accept that point.
I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said as to her reasons for introducing this new clause. As she will appreciate, the Government's own amendment, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, would go a considerable way towards meeting the anxieties which she has expressed and is seeking to redress in the new clause. I recognise that the regulations to be made under the Government's amendment will not go so far as the new clause, which applies to all employers regardless of size. Neither do I agree that three weeks is the appropriate length of sickness on which to focus. But nevertheless I hope that she will accept that the Government's proposals will cover those employers most at risk should their employees have protracted periods of sickness.
The noble Baroness said that she wanted to repeat and put on record the fact that as a result of the proposals contained in the Bill, employers would be less likely to employ disabled people or those who suffer from poor health. If that were true, it would be cause for concern; but I strongly believe that that will not be the case. I gave an assurance earlier that we will be monitoring the implementation of the proposal. Several charges were made when SSP was first introduced, and later when it was extended to 28
126
weeks; but the fears expressed then proved to be groundless. The Government do not believe the result will be any different on this occasion.
I am sure many noble Lords are aware—and I wish to repeat the assurance I gave earlier and which other ministerial colleagues have given on many occasions—that any suggestion that people with disabilities make bad employees is very far from the truth. Quite the reverse seems to be the case. During Second Reading I gave some figures about the attendance records of disabled people and they bear repeating now. The very comprehensive report, Employment and Handicap, published only six months ago, indicated that half the people in work with disabilities took less than five days a year off work for sickness or treatment. Over a five-year period half had not had a single spell of sickness or treatment which lasted as long as a month. The House will agree that there is certainly nothing in these figures to deter an employer from taking on a disabled person. There would be no extra SSP costs for the employer.
I turn now more specifically to the proposed new clause. The important point I wish to make concerns the cost. I have to tell the House that setting the level at which any employer would get 100 per cent. reimbursement on SSP spells lasting more than three weeks and applying the provision to all employers would have an estimated cost on the Bill of £40 million in 1991–92. This would seriously affect the overall public expenditure savings from the Bill and is not a change which the Government could contemplate.
As I said, the noble Baroness's new clause goes further than the Government's proposals. I have explained to the House on previous occasions the offsetting savings which the reductions in national insurance contributions will bring for employers. The Government have come forward with proposals for small employers for whom the effects of these reductions are largely negated because of protracted sickness within their workforce. As I explained, the powers in the Bill have deliberately been kept very flexible to enable us to come up with the most practicable schemes. I have to tell the noble Baroness that I cannot go further than that. I hope, therefore, that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. However, although what he says about the sickness records of disabled people is incontrovertible, we are talking about general perceptions. That was referred to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is the view of the Disability Alliance which is concerned about the Bill. That is why I and other noble Lords have made constant reference in discussions on the Bill to the position of disabled people.
Nevertheless, it is not my intention at this time to press the amendment, though I still hold the view that there are strong arguments for it. Although it would apply to all employers, if the House takes the government statement that the average length of absence is three weeks, I assume that there would still be some savings because the reimbursement would not become payable for anybody until after the three-week period.

127
As I said, however, it is not my intention to press the amendment this evening. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Extent: sick pay condition
. The provisions of this Act, in so far as they amend section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 (recovery by employers of amounts paid by way of statutory sick pay), shall only have effect on employers offering occupational sick pay schemes to their employees.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment which we considered at Committee stage and then decided not to move because we wished to see the effects of the other amendments. Nevertheless, it is worth moving it now because part of the Government's case for the introduction of the Bill has been the growth in the number of occupational sick pay schemes. As we know, the figure of 91 per cent. has often been quoted from, I believe, a survey conducted by ITF Research Limited. This research, however, was oriented very much in the direction of larger employers and as we have often said on this side of the House, that does not mean that 91 per cent. of all employees are covered. It simply means that 91 per cent. of employers claim to operate some form of top-up sick pay arrangements.
The Government's argument is apparently that because these schemes are already in existence, in some cases paying up to full pay for a considerable time—but these are in the minority; the good schemes—the financial burden will not be as great as almost everyone in this House and a number of important organisations outside such as the CBI, the IOD, the IPM, the TUC and everybody else have been saying. The Government say that all those people are wrong and that it will not be such a burden.
Whether or not that argument is valid, it is nevertheless true that substantial numbers of employees are in employment where there are no such schemes. In the main, these employees are among the low paid—among those manual workers who may go from job to job as in the construction industry; among women who tend to make up the bulk of the really low paid; and of course part-time employees.
There is also evidence from citizens advice bureaux that such people have experienced difficulty under present arrangements in obtaining their statutory sick pay. Often they have had difficulty in getting the job in the first place and have been reluctant to pursue their rights in case they do not maintain the job. There have also been instances of dismissal of staff when sick. Without the employment qualification, such individuals cannot take their cases to industrial tribunals.
It is our belief that these cases are likely to multiply if the employer cannot claim reimbursement. What is therefore suggested in the amendment is that the new provisions in the Bill should apply only where there is in force an occupational sick pay scheme. By that, we
128
mean a real scheme, a contractual obligation, not a situation in which the employer decides at his discretion to top up statutory sick pay.
For the remaining businesses—most of them small—which do not have contractual arrangements the present situation of 100 per cent. reimbursement should continue to apply. Only in this way will it be possible to ensure proper protection for the low paid, the disabled and those generally disadvantaged in the labour market. Even so, there will still be problems, as the evidence from CABs suggests. There will still be employers who seek to renege on their obligations to sick and injured employees. However, at least the situation will be no worse than it is at present for such people. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not wish to go over all the figures again but I must correct the noble Baroness on one—91 per cent. In one way or another that figure has come up a great deal in the Bill. I never said that it was 91 per cent. of employees. The noble Baroness just said that it is 91 per cent. of employers. In fact 91 per cent. of employees work for an employer who has some such scheme, though there may or may not be exclusion clauses. I listened with enormous care to what the noble Baroness said in moving the new clause but I am afraid that I remain deeply confused as to the reasoning behind it.
I appreciate that retaining 100 per cent. reimbursement for firms without occupational sick pay schemes could be of particular benefit to many smaller firms because a great many of those do not have such a scheme. However, it would be unlikely to assist the employees of those firms. To tie reimbursement rates to whether or not the employer has an occupational sick pay scheme could result in a serious disincentive for such employers to develop sick pay schemes. There would be a danger that the welcome growth of such schemes—and there has been a welcome growth, as I am sure the noble Baroness accepts—would be brought to a halt. This would not only be contrary to good employment practice and the encouragement of such schemes, but would be to the detriment of the employees concerned. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not want that.
It is certainly true that there has been a widespread growth in schemes and the Government welcome that. We feel that it indicates an acceptance by employers of a much greater responsibility to cover short-term sickness among their employees. However, the Government do not consider that it would be right to reward those employers who do not provide such cover by enabling them to continue to receive 100 per cent. reimbursement while their fellow employers who have taken on the extra cost of providing occupational cover can only recover a reduced reimbursement rate. That would be a very strange logic indeed. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I listened with some interest to what the noble Minister had to say, and I think there is something in what he had to say. We put this amendment down with small

129
businesses in mind. We were often accused on this side of the House of not being in favour of small businesses, and I have to say that that is not so.
The amendment in respect of occupational schemes that we are now discussing was one submitted to us by the National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses. They were out to try to help small businesses who did not have their own occupational schemes and who were relying entirely on statutory sick pay to cover their employees when they were sick. It was to assist them that we put down the amendment in the first place. However, I note what the Minister has said. To that extent the amendment has some flaws in it, but it gave an opportunity to stress again the problems faced by small businesses without such occupational schemes. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Schedule [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved]
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 6, column 3, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved]
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 4, line 21, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 5, Part II, paragraph (b), the word "or" at the end of subparagraph (iv).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill

  Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  5.51 p.m.
  Read a third time.
  Clause 1 [Scottish Natural Heritage]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and
  (c) to protect, by preventing the dumping of radioactive waste under the surface of the land").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Scottish Natural Heritage will be the first agency in Scotland to have wide-ranging responsibilities and powers in relation to the environment. It therefore seems to us important that its responsibilities include the disposal of radioactive waste because of the potentially harmful effects on the environment.
  Clause 1(1) of the Bill requires the Scottish Natural Heritage to
  "have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done, whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable".
  We had this argument before, but there is no harm in going over it again. The deep disposal of radioactive waste is a matter for which the SNH should have responsibility, because compared with above ground on-site storage it does not allow for effective monitoring and retrieval, and therefore cannot be regarded as "sustainable". The Minister will be aware of the arguments—I think he heard most of them
  130
  before—and I only hope that he will have looked at them seriously and perhaps reconsidered the point of view he had last time. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I spoke on this subject when a similar amendment was introduced at Committee stage. I feel surprised that it should appear again today at Third Reading. I thought it had been completely disposed of at that stage. It requires me to repeat—and I shall say it as quickly as I can—what I said before. I shall summarise it and remind your Lordships that this amendment simply says "radioactive waste". The effect would be that the new body, Scottish Natural Heritage, would have to prevent the disposing of any kind of radioactive waste under the surface of the land, as I see it, anywhere in Scotland—the whole of Scotland.
  I pointed out that a large proportion of low-level radioactive waste—I have been informed by the scientists about 30 per cent. of it—is produced from the gloves, equipment, and other materials from radiotherapy in hospitals and other uses of radium in hospitals in the treating of cancer and other serious diseases, and also in research in universities in Scotland. This is all radioactive waste. There is nothing in this amendment which says high-level radioactive waste. It would include the low-level radioactive waste of the kind that I have described.
  The effect of this amendment would be that those items from hospitals in Aberdeen, Inverness, or wherever it may be, and the universities would have to be carted to England or Wales. Alternatively, it would have to be left, in the terms of this amendment, above the ground. What is the point of leaving low-level radioactive waste above the ground in Scotland when it would have been safer—although it is not a dangerous item—if it were below the ground?
  I pointed that out last time and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, quite quickly withdrew the amendment. I shall go on now and add this to what I said before: I deplore unnecessarily frightening people in Scotland about anything connected with radioactivity. You then court popularity as a populist politician by being against it all and by frightening people quite unnecessarily in the first place. This is what the SNP has done in Scotland, and it is the sort of thing it would do; but I feel dismayed and saddened by the Front Bench of the Labour Party joining in and putting this forward simply because they know that some people have been frightened by the SNP propaganda about any kind of radioactivity. This from the party which, in the late 1960s, when I was in another place, were keen on the "white heat of technology", and here we are dealing with technology that is beneficial and remedial.
  I hope that this will not be pursued. I must describe this as puerile, unscientific and uneducated. It is a silly amendment. I did not say that on the last occasion, as I was much too polite but now it has come up again. I think I referred to it all very politely, but on this occasion I will not do so. It is a silly amendment and I cannot possibly advise the House to accept it.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has said. But I have a further reason for

  131
  suggesting that the amendment should not be made. Subsection (1) of this clause endeavours to explain the general aims and purposes of the SNH and does so in clear terms. The amendment adds a particular purpose when many other particular purposes could have been included. Whatever the merits of finding ways of preventing the dumping of radioactive waste—and we have had other legislation that deals with this—this is not the place to introduce this matter. It would spoil the generality of this well drafted subsection.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, during the Committee stage I had hoped to satisfy the noble Lords apposite in whose name the amendment stands that it would be quite inappropriate to commit Scottish Natural Heritage to adopting a particular policy in relation to the disposal of radioactive waste in advance of considering any actual proposals. I appreciate the anxiety of noble Lords and others on this matter; but like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has got it wrong.
  I very much regret with my noble friend that the arguments at Committee stage did not succeed in convincing the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It may therefore be helpful if I respond in a more fundamental way to some of the considerations that evidently underly the amendment. The first point relates to the use of the word "dumping". This is most emphatically not a recognised term in the nuclear or indeed the waste disposal industry. The more extreme environmentalists—and I do not think that should include the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—use the word "dumping" to capture the headlines when they mean disposal.
  In the case of radioactive waste, the Government have a policy of achieving safe disposal in an engineered repository deep under the ground, such as already exist in Sweden and Germany. Before such a repository can be built, the normal planning procedures must be observed. Accordingly, there can be no question of dumping anything anywhere in the normal sense of the word.
  A further misconception which appears to have influenced the thinking behind the amendment is the view that Scotland is being used as a waste dump. I find this suggestion quite surprising since most of the radioactive waste which is produced in Scotland is, in fact, transported into England for disposal or reprocessing. It is perhaps a commentary on the absurd extremes to which current scaremongering now extends that some people believe such a blatant untruth.
  I hope that in view of what I and my noble friends have said, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will agree that his amendments will not help Scottish Natural Heritage, or indeed the natural heritage of Scotland itself.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I make no apology for raising this subject once again. I take note of the words used by the noble Lord, Lord
  132
  Campbell of Croy. I also took note of the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he said the subsection was not a suitable place for this provision. We always trust the great knowledge of the noble Lord in these matters.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, should be aware that it is not the Scottish nationalists who have raised the matter of radioactive waste. When bores were being drilled in the north and in the south of Scotland, people became very afraid. We are not talking about hospital waste in this instance. Most people are aware that we are talking about fairly active waste with a long half-life.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. However, I should point out that his amendment covers all radioactive waste. His amendment would cover the items that I have described. Since the Committee stage of the Bill I attended a meeting of the Foundation of Science and Technology which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Some noble Lords who are scientists were present at the meeting, as were other scientists from all over the country. I asked one of the speakers to give me the percentage of low level waste which is in question. I was given a figure of about 30 per cent.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his second contribution to this debate. However, I believe we were all roughly aware of the amount of waste involved. This amendment may be defective but I believe it will help those in another place to draft a more accurate amendment. I stress that I make no apologies for tabling this amendment. We shall continue to question what is happening to waste in Scotland. The Minister suggested that most of our waste was going to England. We accept that. However, the Minister also knows that there is a great deal of anxiety in Scotland as people feel that at some point the waste will no longer go to England but will be taken up to the north of Scotland to Dounreay.
  As I have said, this amendment will certainly appear in another place and it may be improved as a result of the consideration that has been given to it in your Lordships' House. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 16, leave out ("is sustainable") and insert ("secures the sustainability of that national heritage and the environment").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this matter. We have tried to introduce a slightly different form of words this time as we really wish to obtain a statutory definition of the word "sustainable". The Minister was unable to provide us with such a definition on the previous occasion when we discussed the matter. This is an important matter. It seems wise to secure a wider brief if only to ascertain that Scottish Natural Heritage will be able to advise against undertakings in Scotland which may adversely affect the environment even of areas furth of Scotland.

  133
  I feel that some attempt should be made to impress upon Scottish Natural Heritage that any development should be sustainable as regards Scotland's environment and heritage. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not wish to be hard on the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as he has already suffered today. However, I wish to ask him what the difference is between "sustainable" and "sustainability". I do not believe that the word "sustainability" makes the position any clearer. It would be far better to leave the word "sustainable" in the Bill.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment would make the subsection longer without adding anything to its meaning or effect.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend on this amendment I should, for the benefit of the House, say that we have at last apparently agreed on a definition of the word "sustainable" in this context. Last Wednesday in a debate in this House I raised the question of sustainable development as defined in the Brundtland Report. I was assured by the Government spokesman on that occasion that the Government accept the concept expressed in that report. I forget the exact words used, but the definition stated that we should so use the earth's resources as to ensure that we could meet our needs without depriving our successors of being able to meet their needs. Therefore we have a definition. I apologise for my slightly defective wording. On that occasion we obtained a definition of "sustainability" from the Government. I hope that that definition can be stated wherever the word is used in future.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I admire the perseverance which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has shown on the subject of sustainability. The concept is not only one new to legislation, which therefore deserves to be tested in the way the noble Lord has sought to do, but it is also fundamental to the work of Scottish Natural Heritage and all other statutory bodies dealing with the natural heritage.
  I do not consider, however, that this latest attempt to clarify this provision adds anything to the Bill. The phrase "secures the sustainability" simply echoes the word "securing" earlier in the clause and may therefore be confusing to the reader. This will be clear when I read the clause as it would be if the amendment were accepted. The duty would become,
  "Scottish Natural Heritage shall have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done, whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which secures the sustainability of that national heritage and the environment".
  The duty relating to sustainability, is, as I have said, one new to legislation. We therefore decided that the duty needed to be expressed as precisely as possible in an attempt to make it clear cut. That I believe we have achieved by focusing the duty on "anything" that is done to the natural heritage. SNH therefore has something concrete and tangible to look at and can consider the effect of such a provision on the natural heritage. The amendment, however, removes the
  134
  precision we have aimed at. It does so by shifting the focus of SNH's attention away from what might be done to affect the natural heritage directly onto the natural heritage itself.
  The Government's intention is that SNH will seek to persuade and influence all those whose work and activity in one way or another affects the natural heritage to undertake their activities in a sustainable manner. Certainly if anything done to the natural heritage is not done in a sustainable manner, then the natural heritage is not likely to be sustained. I submit therefore that the noble Lord's amendment is less precise in giving a clear statutory duty to SNH than is the Bill as presently drafted, and therefore makes it more difficult for SNH to know what is necessary to discharge that duty.
  I appreciate that this is a difficult point, and I have been drawing some fine distinctions. The subject is too important not to be dealt with as carefully as possible. I have given very particular thought to the amendment, and am resisting it because I am convinced it does not improve the Bill. Indeed, as I have tried to explain, it could go further and have a negative effect by making the provision less clear and less easy to apply.
  As for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, at Second Reading and in Committee, I spelt out the Government's view of sustainability. That situation has not changed. I do not know to what the noble Baroness was referring in last Wednesday's debate. I have not had an opportunity to read it, but I suspect that the government spokesman, the Minister for the Department of the Environment, would undoubtedly have agreed with my previous definitions of sustainability which are as wide and far-ranging as possible.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful for the care which the Minister has taken over this amendment and also for clarification of the Government's attitude to sustainability and the belief that it is better than the amendment that was down in my name, which is possibly true.
  I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Nicol for her contribution. I am sure that, if the Minister reads the report, as I am sure he will, he will appreciate that this is a very important subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 23, at end, insert:
  (""Amenity" means all those aspects of Scotland's natural heritage which engender its enjoyment including its accessibility, the appearance of managed, designed and natural landscapes, and the design and siting of facilities for recreation.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were taken together.
  It is unclear whether natural heritage as defined in Clause 1(3) of the Bill includes those aspects of the landscape which have been man-influenced. Furthermore, it is not clear whether SNH will be able to advise the Government on the design and location

  135
  of artefacts in the countryside such as buildings, roads, signs and so on, and on its work to further the undertaking and enjoyment of the natural heritage including the interpretation of rural ways of life.
  By helping to explain the meaning of the word "amenity", the amendment will ensure that such work can continue from other bodies into Scottish Natural Heritage. I am sure the Minister will be aware of what we are trying to suggest here. For example, one may go along a very beautiful country road and come to a once attractive small town where that attractiveness has been obliterated by signs of tea shops, curio shops, and so on. I want them to be there but some consideration could be given to the type of placards displayed. The Minister may be aware that Westminster Council has been taking steps because of the proliferation of estate agents' boards in the area. That type of thing is not "big brother" but just slight advice to try to improve matters. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 3.
  Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage is empowered to provide advice to the Secretary of State and other Ministers over the full range of its functions and expertise. Clause 1 of the Bill defines the aim of the Scottish Natural Heritage. It is,
  "to secure the conservation and enhancement of; and to foster understanding and facilitate the enjoyment of, the natural heritage of Scotland".
  As drafted, Clause 2(1) gives Scottish Natural Heritage the functions of advising Ministers on policies affecting the natural heritage. As the aims of SNH extend to facilitating enjoyment of this heritage, so also should its advisory functions. The amendment is meant to ensure that that is so. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment. Not only does it highlight the importance of the environmental functions of the new body, it also places some emphasis on the enjoyment of the countryside and the facilities for recreation. I sometimes feel that these environmental debates are conducted as though protection of the environment involved establishing wilderness areas. This amendment states what amenity is about.
  For example, I notice that south of the Border—now that we are free of the shackles of Peterborough we can perhaps look at their antics and activities—it has been established that in the south of England there is a great shortage of golf courses. That appeals to farmers who are not enjoying the best of times. However, some of the nature conservancy and so-called environmental protection bodies send letters to The Times saying that we must not have more golf courses and that somehow or other they affect the amenity of the area. I know of nothing more beautiful than a golf course, living as I do in St. Andrews. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, whose land is near Muirfield concurs with that view. It is important to emphasise in the Bill that golf courses and other forms of recreation are not an
  136
  offence to amenity but can in fact enhance the environment. Consequently, I support the amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is objection to the amendment because it is desperately circuitous. Clause 1(3) states that "the natural heritage of Scotland" includes amenity. But the amendment begins "'Amenity' means". It is a limited definition which restricts the Oxford English Dictionary meaning of "amenity" to precisely what is contained in the amendment. Surely that cannot be the intention when one considers the interesting observation of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. With respect, the wording would be desperately difficult to operate in practice.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am afraid that these amendments seem to be treading over much of the ground which we covered both in Committee and on Report. We have debated the issue of the role of SNH with regard to access to and enjoyment of our natural heritage and I have made it clear that the Government recognise the importance of these issues and are committed to SNH's role in pursuing them.
  However, perhaps I may take the opportunity to stress once again that with this Bill we are moving away from the language of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 which sets out the basis of such concepts at some length. In this Bill, we are seeking to set up a statutory framework within which SNH can operate.
  It is not proper to single out, on the face of the Bill, any aspect of the work of SNH. It is quite clear what SNH's role and remit will be, and I do not see that these amendments go any way towards improving upon that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that to define amenity is, in itself, unnecessary. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is neither possible nor even desirable to define every concept within the Bill. In this case in particular, I can see absolutely no need for a definition of amenity. What is meant by it is quite clear to all concerned, and has been throughout its existence in legislation since 1967. In any event, to include a definition which is apparently so precise would seem to exclude other things which might otherwise properly be construed as being part of amenity. We intend that the Bill should operate for many years to come in a positive and efficient way; so we would not wish to impose a tight definition on every concept at this stage.
  Perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Facilities are already covered by Clause 1(1) (b) of the Bill which gives Scottish Natural Heritage an aim of facilitating enjoyment of the natural heritage. I suspect that the noble Lord would agree with me that that should and would include golf courses.
  I trust that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which I found very full and interesting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

  137
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
  Clause 3 [Duty to take account of certain matters]:
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 2, line 39, leave out ("and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 6. I hope that it is convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 8 at the same time.
  The amendments seek to add to the interests which SNH should consider when exercising its functions. To the needs of agriculture, commercial fisheries and forestry, they seek to add other traditional land uses and sources of rural employment; and to the interests of local communities they seek to add those of landholders.
  I hope that it will be helpful if I give an example of one important interest which would thus be included in SNH's affections which without the amendments looks as though it may instead attract SNH's hostility—and very powerful that hostility would be. The interest to which I refer, which is literally vital to the Scottish highland economy and heritage, is that of our wild red deer and the deer management industry which depend on it.
  As your Lordships may be aware, at Report I probed SNH's attitude to our deer and their management and was a little surprised when the Minister said that SNH would approach them in exactly the same way as it would other users of the countryside.
  That in itself cannot be right. After all, deer management is a wider industry than the sporting interest in deer, which is itself very important. Deer management includes the whole welfare of our largest land animal, one which must be judged by any standards to be among the most beautiful. Deer management depends on the ownership or tenancy of land in a way that many other land uses do not.
  The Red Deer Commission estimates that some 600 full-time jobs depend on the wild red deer in Scotland, mostly in the remotest and most delicate areas of the highland natural heritage. For the cost associated with each one of those jobs I estimate that at least £20,000 per annum—or a total of some £12 million per annum—is being invested by the estates in the highland economy. Other economic spin-offs are considerably greater. Wild deer attract no subsidy from the taxpayer. They are also highly sustainable in the best sense of that expression as intended by the Bill.
  Be that as it may, there are clear signs that without the protection offered by the amendments SNH may be hostile to our wild red deer. Both the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, which are being merged to form SNH, are sending out some very worrying signals in this regard. For example, the Countryside Commission for Scotland cites over-grazing by too many red deer as one of its main reasons for wishing to create four large national parks, to be managed by SNH and other bureaucracies at a cost to the taxpayer of some £8
  138
  million per annum. It is odd that the Countryside Commission lays no blame on the two million or so sheep which share the 300,000 red deer's range and food supply.
  Since Report stage I have also acquired correspondence from the Nature Conservancy Council which shows that the Nature Conservancy Council agrees with the Countryside Commission that red deer are largely responsible for the alleged destruction of much of the flora of the highland heritage. The Nature Conservancy for Scotland would like to reduce the deer population in many areas to a level where natural regeneration of native trees and shrubs might occur without costly fencing, which the Nature Conservancy Council does not favour. That means shooting at least 90 per cent. of the current stock and continuing an intensive shooting programme indefinitely. The Nature Conservancy Council proposes to start that programme as soon as possible in an area which stretches from the headwaters of the River Dee to the A.9. That area coincides nicely with the Countryside Commission's proposed new national park for the Cairngorms.
  Yet the widely respected scientist most closely associated with the Nature Conservancy Council's own work on deer on the island of Rhum, Dr. Timothy Clutton-Brock, casts grave doubts on the Nature Conservancy Council's position on the matter. In a letter to me last week he said:
  "We know distressingly little about the effects of deer on upland vegetation … In addition to investigating how different deer densities affect plant and animal communities we need to know how different combinations of deer, sheep and cattle affect their environment … We currently know little about the causes of long-term changes in the ecology of the Highlands, and many factors other than changes in deer density are probably involved".
  So there are substantial differences of opinion among the scientists on this matter. I am happy to make copies of the relevant correspondence available in your Lordships' Library.
  Furthermore, I have to say that the Nature Conservancy Council's own record on deer management can be somewhat distressing. Let us look at the example of Creag Meagaidh, a hill in Inverness-shire which the Nature Conservancy Council bought in 1986. It then decided that it wanted the birch and rowan trees to regenerate naturally, and that meant getting rid of the deer. A fence was accordingly built along the road at the bottom of the hill and up two sides of the hill, but the fence was not completed along the top of the hill.
  Until that happened, the normal estate cull from that ground was about 50 deer per annum and that maintained a healthy herd. However, it did not permit the natural regeneration of birch and rowan—not exactly our rarest trees. In the past three years the Nature Conservancy Council has disposed of 832 deer, and the annual count of deer present on that ground has fallen from 600 deer in 1986 to 148 last year.
  The project has had a very bad effect on neighbouring estates because the deer are drawn in over the top of the hill to their destruction in the trap

  139
  below. I spoke to an eye-witness yesterday who on one occasion saw three helicopters taking out the carcases because normal extraction was not possible given the number of deer that had just been shot.
  That brings me to a perplexing procedural matter. My noble friend the Minister has said that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment when the Bill reaches another place to allow the Red Deer Commission to shoot deer to protect the natural heritage on the advice of SNH. The Red Deer Commission is very anxious not to have any obligation thrust upon it and hopes to maintain its statutory independence. However, as things stand today we do not know what the amendment will say so we cannot discuss it further.
  That is all the more perplexing because my honourable friend the Minister in another place said at a major conference on deer in Inverness on 22nd October that the amendment would be introduced only if reaction from all concerned was favourable following widespread consultation. No such consultation has taken place and so all those with the welfare of our wild deer at heart can perhaps be forgiven for being suspicious and hostile at the moment to that eventual amendment.
  Whatever that amendment may say if and when it is tabled, the situation is still very worrying because Clause 5 of the Bill as presently drafted would allow SNH to carry out massive deer culls even without the participation of the Red Deer Commission. Clause 5(3), if one looks at it closely, shows that SNH has all the powers it needs in that regard. I believe that we shall return to the matter under Amendment No. 11.
  I hope that I have said enough to show that the amendments are necessary, at least to protect not only our magnificent wild deer but also the unsubsidised industry, vital to the highland economy, which depends on them.
  I should also draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. If the interests covered by the amendments are not included in the Bill at Clause 3 they may not be represented on the board of SNH either. That would surely not be appropriate.
  Finally, I come back to the Minister's suggestion at Report that if the amendments are accepted, all sorts of other interests might expect to be included under Clause 3 of the Bill. I wonder whether that is so. I should have thought that all those other interests, most of them entirely honourable and appropriate to the purposes of the Bill, are already included in Clause 1 or under the rest of Clause 3. However, it is simply not accurate to say that our traditional land uses and sources of rural employment are included within the term "social and economic development". Development is surely something different. There is a very important place for it of course, but it is different.
  The amendments would make certain that, among other things, one of the most magnificent examples of our natural fauna is well treated in future, and that all our traditional land uses and the unsubsidised employment they bring will not be wrongly penalised by the future SNH. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I very strongly support the amendments which have been so admirably moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson. Almost exactly nine years ago we embarked upon a discussion of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act. That Bill is etched upon my mind, not just because I was the person who was persuaded to pilot it through your Lordships' House, but because of the very great experience and knowledge of many of your Lordships which was brought to bear on the subject and the very thorough debates which we had upon the Bill in all its stages.
  Although the amendments of my noble friend Lord Pearson refer to Clause 3, as he indicated, I do not think that we can consider that clause in isolation. I have real concerns, as he has, about the apparently sweeping powers of Clause 5 and the corresponding narrowness of the duties placed upon SNH in Clause 3. That is the theme that I should like to develop.
  I am the first to agree that some control of deer to prevent excessive damage to the natural heritage may be necessary. However, there should certainly be a full examination of all the implications—the kinds of things to which my noble friend has referred—and how they should be addressed in consultation with, and to achieve agreement between, all those who are concerned and know about these matters.
  My noble friend referred to a conference that took place on 22nd October on the theme deer, mountains and man which was addressed by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. During that conference full consultation on the subjects relevant to this Bill was suggested. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Strathclyde can say who was consulted and what has been the fruit of that consultation. Is he able to say whether any body has been particularly slow in coming forward with views?
  We shall deal with other aspects of Clause 5 later, but in so far as the clause affects deer, I think that two points are worth making. The first is that the word "scheme" appears in clause 5(1). There may well be a correlation between that term in the Bill and deer control schemes which are featured in Section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act.
  Again, as my noble friend describes, Clause 5(3) states:
  "SNH may undertake, promote or coordinate, either by itself or in conjunction with any other authority or person, measures to implement the proposals mentioned in subsection (1) …".
  That seems to me to be a most sweeping power when it comes to the control of deer.
  To add to that, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has forecast an amendment being brought forward in another place to amend the Deer (Scotland) Act.
  I am bound to say that I am more than a little surprised that it has not been possible to bring forward this amendment in your Lordships' House where so much expertise resides. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to say why and tell us which sections of the Deer (Scotland) Act he proposes to amend.

  141
  I hope my noble friend will realise that I believe there is an intention to amend Section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act to give powers to impose deer control schemes to protect the natural heritage. The powers given to the Red Deer Commission to arrange for control under varying circumstances are very carefully graded. First, in Section 6 of the Deer (Scotland) Act the Red Deer Commission:
  "shall authorise in writing … any person who in their opinion is competent to do so to follow and kill"
  deer under certain circumstances. That power is upgraded in Section 6A which introduces a further power of the Commission to deal with marauding deer. The final part deals with the matter of control schemes which can be imposed; I have to say to your Lordships that to the best of my knowledge in the 30 years or more since the passing of the Act they have never been invoked. I think it would be much more sensible to bring forward suitable amendments to Sections 6, 6A and 7 so that the graded response allowed for other purposes could be followed for the protection of the natural habitat, or whatever words might be used. To go straight to Section 7 is far to heavy-handed, and I am sure that such an idea would, very rightly, be strongly resisted.
  The fact that the SNH may require some special power to prevent excessive damage by deer to the natural habitat does not mean that they should have a sole or overriding interest, or that they should be the only source of advice to the Red Deer Commission. But that is what is currently proposed, and I hope that my noble friend can bring us up to date. While we are in this uncertain state over this issue we really do need other safeguards, and that is why placing additional duties on SNH, as this amendment proposes, goes some way to providing those safeguards.
  I hope that my noble friend will recognise that there are very real and genuine concerns over this matter. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that the process of consultation has been carried out in a way which is likely to take account of all the interests of deer management.
  I hope that my noble friend will be able to provide considerable reassurance on a matter which very seriously exercises many of your Lordships.
  Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, as Chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I would like to say that some time ago we provided about £750,000 of public money for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in order that they might acquire, first, Loch Garten and, secondly, a large slice of Abernethy Forest. The main purpose of the acquisition as far as Loch Garten was concerned was to preserve the osprey, and one of the other purposes was the regeneration of the natural forest.
  I do not think anybody ever contemplated that it would be possible to allow regeneration of the forest without fencing. When we were considering this matter with the RSPB I do not think we had any idea that, in order to ensure regeneration, we would have to get rid of 90 per cent. of the red deer and, I suppose, the same proportion of sheep. We had always assumed that this would have to be done by fencing. It seems
  142
  clear to me that the alternative to fencing is wholesale slaughter, and I very much hope that everybody will get that idea out of their minds. I believe it is absolutely essential that the SNH should be under an obligation to take into account the interests of the rural industries, of which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has spoken so eloquently.
  I should also like to speak about the inclusion of land holders in this clause. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has always taken the view that our heritage is best preserved by those who own it because they know and love it. Whatever views one may have on that, it is quite clear that land holders—by that I mean landowners and tenants—are an essential element in the equation. The fact that they are not mentioned in the Bill as it stands arouses in my mind and that of many others fears that the Government may have intentions against them. I hope therefore that this very reasonable amendment will be accepted. If so, I know that it will set many minds at rest. I very much support it.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to which I have put my name. Clause 3 provides that:
  "It shall be the duty of SNH in exercising its functions to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of—
  (b) the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry".
  The amendment, which is eminently reasonable, would include:
  "other traditional land uses and sources of rural employment".
  The provision of employment by sporting activities in the Highlands in particular is of immense importance. All the hotels and remote places, for example, depend enormously on fishing. I know that the term used in the clause is "fisheries" but that can mean many things. Rod fishing is of infinitely greater importance to many people in the Highlands than is either net fishing or rearing of salmon in fisheries.
  The case for red deer was made with great eloquence and at considerable length by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He gave an example of a public body doing something foolish. I can cite many more examples of land holders and landowners doing something even more foolish. One has only to look around.
  It is necessary for the public to take part in the preservation of our heritage; but we should consult the proper interests in the Highlands. Highlands landowners who are not traditionally the friends of the Liberal Party are under attack. In many cases they are very nice people and sometimes they are Scottish. They play an enormously important role. It would be only reasonable for the Government to mention those very important interests in the clause so that Scottish Natural Heritage can take note of them. This is a very reasonable amendment and I hope that those interests will be considered.
  I take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who said that it was curious that the Government should not introduce an amendment in this House. I can only suggest that it is a matter of a cowardly approach in that they want to get the Bill through the Commons. With their majority there, they

  143
  can defend it against the much greater expertise in this House. I can assure them that the matter will be looked at carefully.
  Before I sit down, I should like to return to the topic of deer. We must consider what part they play. When the Deer Commission was set up its first chairman was a friend of mine, Mr. Michael Crichton-Stuart. It had a clear remit to ensure that the deer population was kept within bounds and properly managed and to co-operate with the land holders or landlords in that respect. The fact is that there are far too many deer and in many places the population has doubled. There is no doubt that there is a problem. There is also no doubt that the Red Deer Commission in its present form has not managed to cope with it. I accept many of the arguments, but we ought to look closely at the matter.
  The amendment is a good and sound one and the Government would be very foolish not to accept it.
  6.45 p.m.
  Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. I was brought up in a deer forest and I have written about red deer. Throughout my life I have had great experience of deer and the Highlands generally. The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke of how some people could be very foolish. I agree. I have found that the Civil Service can be very foolish.
  Let me give an instance. Two or three months ago something remarkable happened: a new nature conservancy man had been appointed and, without approaching me or any of my staff, decided to put an enormous circle around my deer sanctuary, which consisted of some 12,000 acres within a forest of about 30,000 acres called Ben More. The area used to be famous for its stags, which were heavier than in Scotland, and it was beautifully managed. We went in for breeding. We were known for the big heads and the mature stags. There were also sheep.
  As noble Lords probably know, sheep came to the Highlands when the land was cleared. Before them there were cattle on the hills. Cattle are far better for the hills than sheep which ruin the vegetation. At the end of the 19th century a great many sheep were taken off the Highlands. It had to do with the development of Australia. I remember lambs being sold for two or three shillings a head. When the sheep went, the deer increased greatly.
  Michael Crichton-Stuart was also a friend of mine. He was a charming person but, with due respect to him, he did not know a great deal about deer. It is strange to note that the first two chairmen appointed to the Highlands and Islands Development Board were both professors of urban planning. How can anyone be so foolish as to appoint professors of urban planning to the Highlands and Islands Development Board? It is hard to imagine but it happened.
  I must defend the deer. They are a most beautiful animal. They are also a source of great employment. Deer which are properly managed bring in a great income to estates. There appears to be some plan or plot in BBC television to picture deer as eating all the trees in the Highlands and destroying the scenery.
  144
  That is nonsense. There are plenty of trees on my ground. It is the sheep which are the close grazers. They destroy the natural expanse of trees and cause harm. I do not want to go on but—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: —when the Red Deer Commission was formed there were many more deer in the Highlands because there was more grazing land. Their numbers were decreased deliberately as a result of the large amount of planting. We must not go too far. I know some people who are supposed to be experts but they have not been brought up in the country, with wildlife. They should take the advice of some landowners because they do not have practical experience.
  If we allow the Civil Service to control the wildlife of the Highlands soon we shall have no wildlife. For example, I have rare birds on my land but I am losing those because of the increase in the number of people walking over the hills. That is in spite of the fact that I had made paths and built roads and bridges at my own expense in order to help the hikers. As I said previously, a new conservation man was appointed and he turned a large part of my ground into an SSSI without asking me. I already had four SSSIs—
  Noble Lords: Order, order!
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is clear that most noble Lords believe that the amendment is about deer. It is an important subject and I am sure that Members in another place will pay a great deal of attention to your Lordships' comments. Members of this House have great expertise on the subject. However, the amendment does not mention deer. I wish to follow my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, along the lines of the more general sense of the amendment.
  Scottish Natural Heritage should take account of the effect that its decisions may have on job opportunities in an area and on the rural enterprise and land management that creates jobs. Careful consideration must be given to the remoter parts of Scotland where people and earning opportunities for them are few.
  I do not know whether the amendment is worded in the best way. I have never before heard the term "landholder" used in legislation but that may be due to my ignorance. If it means occupier or owner the Bill should state that because it would be clearer. Is the phrase "traditional land uses", picturesque though it is, sufficiently specific or flexible at a time of rapid change in the countryside? Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will comment upon that. I hope that my noble friend Lord Pearson will tell the House whether he believes that wording to be essential to the amendment.
  I wonder whether there are activities that are vital to people living and working in the countryside which do not have consideration under the Bill as it stands. I was unable to be present during previous stages of the Bill but after reading the discussions I wonder

  145
  whether all the necessary issues are not already covered. I appreciate that the specific subject of deer will be sorted out in another place.
  Must Scottish Natural Heritage take account, for example, of small businesses which smoke salmon and trout and the land that they use for car parks and so forth? Must it take account of farm shops? Must it take account of businesses which supply venison for home consumption and for export? Will it take account of the letting of shooting and stalking rights which are vital to the tourist industry and the rural economy? For example, the number of Italian farmers who now go shooting in Angus where I live is growing every year. It is an important part of the area's rural economy.
  If under the Bill any of those aspects could be ignored by Scottish Natural Heritage the Minister should accept the amendment as it stands or bring forward an improved amendment in another place. I hope that he will not ignore the matter completely and I hope that we shall not concentrate only on deer.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. I am a trustee of an estate in the Cairngorms. It means that I have a duty to consider how best to balance the long-term interests of the wildlife, the woodland, the people who live on and around the estate and the family who has looked after it for generations and will do so into the future. I hope that the estate will carry on for a great deal longer because that is what long-term planning is about. One does not achieve that so much from a person who holds a position for only a few years. It may be his lifetime but his children and family will not carry on the work after him.
  Without adding to the Bill the words contained in the amendments, Scottish Natural Heritage must consider some but not all of the factors. It is not impossible to take them into account. As trustees we have entered into management agreements with the NCC to regenerate areas of birchwood while keeping the deer which are essential to the area's economy. People often forget that the good, old traditional Highland sporting activities employ more people and contribute slightly more money to the Scottish economy than the modern activity of fish farming, which has already hit troubled waters. Therefore, a long-term view is essential.
  I have three major worries. The first is that centralising such decisions into one body means that any mistake that is made will affect the whole area, and possibly irreversibly so. The decision will probably be made in good faith. However, we do not know and cannot foresee everything; human beings are not infallible. My second worry concerns bad publicity. It is known that the NCC wishes to regenerate all the natural and birchwood forests. That is very laudable. However, it requires the killing of 80 to 90 per cent., that is, most of the red deer in Scotland. That is admitted.
  It is often forgotten that woods also harbour vermin. That will decimate the grouse, so bird interests
  146
  will be affected. All the forests were planted on flow land. New birds and new wildlife were introduced but so complete was the change that old bird populations were wiped out or moved off. Will that be popular with the conservationists? We know that grouse and other birds will not nest within half a mile of the woodland.
  My third worry is that this is socialist legislation. Expropriating the rights of private owners is socialist policy; it is not Conservative legislation. I was always given to understand that the present Government were in favour of private ownership and individual rights, not centralisation.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl. He is covering the whole position of nature conservancy which was debated at Committee and Report stages. We are now in the final stages. I wonder whether it is appropriate to deal with the whole range of activities of this new body, or whether the noble Earl should concentrate exclusively on the amendment.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I am about to conclude. The rights of private individuals, who are not given any representation, are being expropriated because landholders are excluded. I thank the noble Lord for raising the point; I had probably not made it clear. If landholders are to be included then I shall not worry. That is the point of the amendment.
  I am worried about the devastation of a wrong decision on the economy of the Highlands. It could be as bad as the clearances; the results could be similar. I hope that that does not happen.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, the mover of the amendment made a powerful case regarding the treatment of the red deer. I trust that he will receive a satisfactory answer. I know nothing about deer. I come from a part of the Highlands in which they are a rarity. There are some red deer in Orkney. They were imported. However, the man who imported them apparently did not realise that they could swim. They turned up in odd parts of Orkney because he thought the sea would do the job normally done by fencing.
  Valid points have been made about deer. I want to draw the attention of the House to the phrase in the amendment, "traditional land uses". In Orkney there is a suspicion that these conservation bodies are less interested in conserving the existing land, beauty and employment of Orkney than they are in drawing up new schemes for doing something different or designating SSSIs. I hope that those suspicions are wrong.
  There is a suspicion that the increase of bureaucracy in these bodies has led to a shift of emphasis from conservation to tourism, development and schemes of that sort. The amendment can usefully draw attention to the need to protect traditional land uses.
  It is perfectly justifiable to include landholders in the Bill. Landholders are not the same as the community. It is difficult to say what a local community is. But landholders are vital to the

  147
  countryside. They made it and they look after it. If the conservation bodies are wise they will make every effort to work with the landholders. Again there is a suspicion that they are against the landholders. That suspicion may be unfounded, but it must be eradicated.
  Therefore I share the view of those who do not like incorporating innumerable points into Bills. People will say that something else is left out. If one includes the community, which is extremely important, then one should also include landholders.
  Lord Dulverton: My Lords, having tried to say a few words of welcome a week or two ago to the new set-up for Scottish Natural Heritage, I have somehow missed out on a move within the Bill which causes me the most serious and indeed fearful alarm. That is the matter under discussion. It is a move that is taking place to give powers to SNH to advise—virtually to order —the Red Deer Commission, to destroy the native red deer of the Highlands in huge numbers.
  Having served both with the old NCC, and for many years with the Red Deer Commission, I know well the pressures from the NCC to reduce deer populations and so enable the natural regeneration of trees and shrubs, drastically reduced over the centuries at the hand of man.
  I digress and relate a personal experience. Having pursued an active policy over 20 years to get trees growing again at Glen Feshie in the central Highlands on what I believed to have been truly sound lines, I was under considerable pressure from the NCC to reduce the well-managed—I stress "well-managed"—deer population to enable natural regeneration to take place without protecting fences. That in practical terms—I checked with reliable scientific sources—would have called for a reduction from a total population of over 1,000 deer to around 40 head. Had that been possible to achieve and maintain, with other deer stocks all around, it would have meant the utter destruction of Glen Feshie's main asset. I succeeded in resisting such nonsense and at the same time did much to restore the tree and shrub cover, for which I received praise from a number of quarters.
  With those experiences behind me I must tell the House that I am full of fear that the SNH may be given powers virtually to direct the RDC to take an active part in destroying viable and valuable deer populations with all the employment that they generate. Apart from other deleterious considerations, that would have a most damaging effect upon what is an important land use in the Highlands as well as a truly magnificent population of noble and beautiful natural fauna. If the duty we have been speaking of were wished upon the Red Deer Commission the result would be to make it quite unpopular throughout the country. And it already has a difficult enough job to do.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson. If the clause is carried in its present form my noble friend says that the Government intend in another place to amend Section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act to provide
  148
  additional powers to the Red Deer Commission and Scottish Natural Heritage to control or decimate deer. In layman's terms that means a bloody slaughter of thousands of deer. I find that concept deeply upsetting and repugnant, as I am sure do other noble Lords.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have heard all the eloquent defences of the deer and I am sure that the Minister will pay attention to them. I want to speak on Amendment No. 8 which deals with the interests of local communities.
  We have heard most eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lord Charteris, that those who live on that land—the landholders and the tenants—know a great deal and are the best guardians of where they live. I hope therefore that the amendment will be accepted or that we are told categorically by the Minister what "local communities" means. I hope that includes what we have been talking about.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for giving us the opportunity of discussing once again the interests included in this provision of the Bill. I shall speak to the same amendments as my noble friend. The balancing duty placed on SNH will be crucial to the way in which it will exercise its functions. I can well understand noble Lords wishing to be quite clear as to the elements SNH should need to take appropriate account of. I am grateful to my noble friend for providing a useful opportunity to attempt to clarify the position regarding field sports, as I am aware that my remarks on this subject on Report caused my noble friend some anxiety.
  As I said on that occasion, field sports are a vital part of the financial viability of estate management. No one can deny the contribution that they make to employment in Scotland and to the country's revenue. I am most anxious to make that clear. But what I must also make equally clear is the fundamental point that the more we agree on the economic importance of field sports, the more certain it must become that they will be taken into appropriate account by SNH as part of Clause 3(c). That provision refers to the need for
  "social and economic development in Scotland or any part of Scotland."
  "Any part of Scotland" could of course mean a single particular estate. There should therefore be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Bill already does all that my noble friend wishes it to do in relation to field sports.
  I may have inadvertently misled my noble friend when I said that field sports are no different from other types of enjoyment of the countryside. There are two aspects to field sports. They can be viewed from the standpoint of those who provide the sport and for whom they are, as I have just said, a most important form of economic activity. But field sports can also be viewed from the point of view of the participant. It is from that standpoint that they can be seen as one of many forms of enjoyment of the countryside. Scottish Natural Heritage will have a two-fold interest in field sports, and will need to take account of both aspects in discharging its duty under Clause 3.

  149
  It may not be directly relevant to the amendments that we have before us, but most noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned the plight of deer. I intend to take some time to explain exactly what it is that the Government mean. I shall also explain why the amendments that I promised would be tabled in the other place will be brought forward there rather than in this House. I shall also explain the various anxieties which my noble friends have about the amount of consultation that has taken place.
  As regards providing new conservation powers for the Red Deer Commission, I can entirely understand my noble friends' apprehension. I am sure that my explanation of what is proposed will put at rest the minds of my noble friend Lord Pearson and other noble Lords. There is a common consent that in some areas there is an over-population of hinds. The Red Deer Commission, as the Government's statutory adviser on red deer, has made representations to both the Government and owners on this matter for many years. I know that there is disagreement about counting methods. But there is essential broad agreement that there are too many hinds.
  The old population of deer, particularly hinds, may in some areas result in damage to natural vegetation and habitat. Many areas of native woodland are failing to regenerate and could well disappear. That is widely regarded as being detrimental. As currently drafted, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 does not allow the Red Deer Commission to take into account damage by deer to anything other than agriculture and forestry. In particular, the commission has no statutory requirement to take into account damage by deer to natural vegetation or more generally to the flora and fauna and the landscape.
  The Government therefore intend to rectify that by seeking an amendment to the 1959 Act which will allow the commission to take action under Section 7 of the Act to reduce damage to the natural heritage interests in the same way as it can take action where there is damage to agriculture and forestry. I must emphasise that, in view of the views which have been expressed, we are not seeking new powers here. We are merely seeking a broadening of the definition of existing powers to embrace the natural heritage intent. I also understand that broadly speaking the Scottish Landowners' Federation which I met yesterday is essentially in favour of the proposal.
  Lord Burton: My Lords, my noble friend is wrong on that matter. I am a member of the executive. So far as I know, this matter has never been discussed by the federation. I do not know where my noble friend got that information.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is the impression I received, but I am quite happy to be corrected by my noble friend. I know that some of your Lordships are concerned about the effectiveness and strength of the commission's deer control scheme powers under Section 7 of the 1959 Act. I hope that I can allay these anxieties with the following explanation. As currently drafted, Section 7 permits the commission to draw up a scheme for the control of deer where it considers that
  150
  a cull should be undertaken to prevent further damage to agriculture and forestry, and where the appropriate reduction in the deer numbers cannot be secured voluntarily through consultation with the owners and the occupiers of land. Only where agreement is not obtained can the commission draw up a control scheme. That requires the Secretary of State's approval. These schemes are complex and they are considered to be very much a last resort. The Government and the commission continue to prefer the use of voluntary agreements; but these last resort powers will, as a result of the amendment, ensure that deer numbers can be controlled, and they will encompass damage to the natural heritage as well as to agriculture and forestry.
  I now turn to the role of Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to our proposals to amend the 1959 Act. SNH, under the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill, can give advice covering the natural heritage to anyone it considers appropriate. In the Government's view that advisory role is likely to be a major activity of SNH. It is vital that it is undertaken in a spirit of co-operation so that it is influential in bringing about improvements in the management of all aspects of the environment which affect the natural heritage.
  I must make it clear that we shall not legislate to allow Scottish Natural Heritage to dictate deer management policy to the Red Deer Commission. There is a great deal of misapprehension on that point. Both Scottish Natural Heritage and the Red Deer Commission are statutorily answerable to Parliament and they are funded by the Secretary of State. Both have important advisory roles to the Secretary of State. But neither can tell the other what to do although both can advise the other. In the case of deer management the Government expect that Scottish Natural Heritage could provide advice to the Red Deer Commission where there are effects on and implications for the natural heritage. The commission itself may seek such advice. Additionally, Scottish Natural Heritage may provide such advice.
  However, in either situation it is up to the commission to decide what to do with the advice in the light of its statutory functions and responsibilities. The commission may decide that it would be inappropriate for it to take action where fencing rather than culling appears to be the most effective solution. It may accept the advice and seek to secure the reduction in numbers in consultation with owners.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He speaks about "the commission". Is it correct to say that we are speaking about two commissions? Can the noble Lord define the area concerning the Red Deer Commission? Can he also say what will happen if there is a conflict about advice?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are not speaking about two commissions. We are talking about the Red Deer Commission and Scottish Natural Heritage. There will be new powers in that the Red Deer Commission will be allowed to cull deer on the basis that they are damaging the natural heritage. That is on the same basis under which it can currently take the

  151
  same action in respect of damage done to forestry and agriculture. I am not saying that Scottish Natural Heritage will have a right to demand that the Red Deer Commission cull deer because of damage to the natural heritage. It is that point which my noble friends have been so concerned about; namely, that an environmental body should have the power to dictate to landowners, shooters and everyone else involved in the deer industry. That would be highly detrimental to the industry, and would oblige the Red Deer Commission to act. That is not the position. I also understand that there is some difficulty because I have not produced any amendments. Those will be introduced in the House of Commons.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the Red Deer Commission, under which the population of deer has doubled, done its job properly? Does the noble Lord envisage any alteration in its set up?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as a Government, we already have a commitment that at some stage in the future we will review deer legislation as a whole. That is broadly welcomed by those who come across the Red Deer Commission and by those who are deeply involved in the deer world and would like to see adjustments to the legislation to make the management of deer more effective.
  I hope that I have both clarified the Government's intentions on amendments to the 1959 Act and removed the concerns of noble Lords about the relationship between the Red Deer Commission and Scottish Natural Heritage. When the Bill returns from the Commons we shall have ample opportunity to debate these matters.
  Perhaps I may briefly explain why the amendments were not brought first to the House of Lords. We announced our intention only at the end of October. Since then we have formally sought the views of three relevant statutory agencies—the Red Deer Commission, the NCC and the Countryside Commission—and have received views informally from other interests. Indeed we received further views from the Red Deer Commission only a few days ago—some of those ideas were picked up by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—and so we have not had time to digest them.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, have the Government sought the views of the British Deer Society?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware that the British Deer Society has made its views well known to the Government.
  We were therefore not in a position to make final decisions and to instruct the drafting of the necessary amendments in time for Third Reading in this House. I heralded that quite plainly at Second Reading in November. This is clearly an important issue and we must take time to make sure that we get it right. That is why we take account of all the views expressed. We have had an opportunity today to listen to my noble friend's views. Everything said in this debate will play a part in setting the framework of the amendments for when they come before the House of Commons. There
  152
  has never been any suggestion of cowardice on the part of the Government in bringing forward amendments to the House of Lords. I would much rather have had these amendments in the first place. We could then have got to grips with them while at the same time allaying the fears of some noble Lords about what will happen to the deer.
  Perhaps I may briefly turn to the amendments themselves. The reference to,
  "other traditional land uses and sources of rural employment",
  is somewhat vague and imprecise. My noble friend has not precisely defined what he means. I am not sure that the term covers anything that is not already dealt with in Clause 3(c) by "social and economic development". Indeed, the matter is well-covered in Clause 3(c). I also appreciate the reasons behind the wish to include a reference to the landholder. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked me whether that has appeared in other legislation. It may appear in ancient legislation but there is no recollection of it in newer legislation. However, that does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing.
  I am not disputing the needs behind the amendments. There are grounds for concern. I feel that the Government should look again at how Clause 3 is worded and we can consider how we can include some of the ideas put forward by my noble friends. I do not feel able to accept the amendments as they stand. I hope my noble friend Lord Pearson will understand that. I accept on balance that something more is needed in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the clause. I shall therefore take away the issue if my noble friend withdraws the amendment. I shall look again at the drafting and then bring forward an amendment in the House of Commons. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, several noble Lords have asked about the meaning of "local communities". Does the term include landholders and tenants? It is essential for us to have that question answered before we can make a judgment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to bear in mind another point when considering the drafting. The word "development" in paragraph (c) is one of limitation. It is a word of somewhat narrow effect. My noble friend should not rest upon that, thinking that it covers the various other things which my noble friend Lord Pearson has suggested.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have been asked two clear questions. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked about local communities. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pushed through an amendment at Report stage. The Government were keen not to include local communities on the basis that they were already included in paragraphs (b) and (c). However, the Government were overturned on that matter. We were not prepared to accept the amendment precisely because of the point raised by the noble Earl—what are local communities? I do not have a very good answer to that question. We shall have to see what happens when the Bill goes to another place.

  153
  In my assurance concerning the substantive amendments before us I said that I would review paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). That review will include a close look at what the House is trying to say when it refers to local communities and landholders. We can then ensure that landlords, tenants and all those involved on the rural side of the land are included within the definition. The idea of the definitions was to make the provision as wide and as all-encompassing as possible.
  I say the same thing to my noble friend Lord Renton. I understand the point that "development" is in some way limiting and that it deals with something new rather than old. That is precisely one of the issues I shall look at in my review of the wording.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanations. My noble friend Lady Carnegy queried the wording of the amendments and asked whether interests other than deer might be genuinely included in them. Unfortunately, the debate started off on that point and may have focused too much on that area. There are of course other major concerns. I would expect some of the activities mentioned by my noble friend to be covered by the amendments. One thinks of trout fishing. I hope that noble Lords will not think me facetious if one includes the cutting of peat and other activities of the traditional rural economy. I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said about landholders. He said that he does not object to telescoping expressions in an amendment of this kind. It is true that the wording was suggested by the Scottish Landowners Federation. It was rather windy of the word "landowner". I do not think that other noble Lords were so fearful this evening. The word "landholders" was aimed at landowners and their tenants and occupiers.
  However, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the assurance that SNH will in no circumstances dictate to the Red Deer Commission and for the other assurances which he gave. On the understanding that we shall be able to have close and proper examination of the alterations to Clause 3 on its return from another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 40, leave out ("sustainable").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to correct some confusion which crept into our proceedings on Report on 18th December. Your Lordships may recall that we divided on a pair of amendments moved successfully by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. The substantive amendment of course related to the inclusion in SNH's balancing duty of a reference to,
  "the interests of local communities".
  I confirm to the House that we shall look closely at that aspect of the matter. There was some confusion,
  154
  however, as to the correct number of that amendment, and as a result both the reference to "local communities" and the reference to "sustainable" earlier in Clause 3 were included. That was not intended. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 42, at end insert:
  ("(e) the need to conserve and interpret the archaeological, historical and cultural heritage of Scotland").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been put forward because the Bill as drafted does not appear to recognise the key relationships between the natural and the archaeological heritage. It is not just that archaeological and historic sites and monuments hold an intrinsic value—though obviously they do—but that their presence contributes to the visual beauty and diversity of landscape. Landscape is also the storehouse of information about the way our ancestors interacted with the natural heritage and, therefore, about the evolution of the landscape. Conservation of the landscape and its natural heritage requires that knowledge.
  The amendment would secure the recognition of such factors. It would allow Scottish Natural Heritage to take an interest in the evaluation of the heritage in its care and to work with other appropriate authorities, thus ensuring its future conservation and sustainable use. I do not think that this is an epic-making amendment, but I believe that it is a helpful one. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting the need to conserve and interpret the archaeological, historical and cultural heritage of Scotland. That is certainly a task which the Government strongly support. It is, of course, a role which is undertaken very successfully by, for example, the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland and the Historic Buildings and Monuments directorate of the Scottish Office Environment Department which is shortly to achieve agency status under the name Historic Scotland. The concept of the cultural heritage causes some difficulty, partly because of its wide-ranging nature but also because the word "cultural" is generally perceived as being in contrast to "natural".
  SNH will inherit the present close links with HBM which both NCCS and CCS have at present. There is a great deal of very useful co-operation between these bodies at the moment, both in general and on specific projects. While the importance of archaeology will be fully recognised by SNH, a specific reference to it in the Bill is not required as a result of the links already mentioned.
  There are a number of problems with the amendment. The reference to "interpret" would take SNH considerably beyond its logical remit. For those reasons I am not prepared to accept the amendment,

  155
  but I trust that the noble Lord will accept what I said in the spirit in which it was intended. I believe that it is worth explaining to the House exactly what are our views on such an important subject. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that we can proceed with the Bill as amicably as we have just dealt with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Nature conservation functions]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 3, line 5, at end insert:
  ("( ) The amendments made by Schedule 9 to that Act to enactments extending to Scotland shall continue to extend to Scotland.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 42. This group of amendments deals with the relationship of Scottish Natural Heritage to nature conservation legislation as embodied in, and amended by, the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Development projects or schemes]:
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 3, line 38, at end insert:
  ("(3A) Where, in the exercise of its functions under subsections (1) and (3) above, SNH proposes any development project or scheme other than the designation of an SSSI, it must give notice in writing of such project or scheme to the owners and occupiers of the land concerned and to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, and such project or scheme shall be subject to an appeal procedure to be set out in a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State.
  (3B) Any statutory instrument made under subsection (3A) above shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, we know that the Countryside Commission wishes to make four national parks in the mountain areas of Scotland. Whether that is a good idea is very much open to argument but it is one of the projects which we know that it wishes to undertake. We also realise as we read Clause 5 of the Bill, starting with subsection (3) and going back to subsection (1), that Scottish Natural Heritage,
  "may undertake … by itself … measures to implement the proposals mentioned in subsection (1)".
  Those measures are,
  "proposals with respect to any area for a development project or scheme … which fosters understanding or enjoyment of the natural heritage of Scotland".
  Reading that clause and taking it in conjunction with the amendments which we understand may be introduced in another place to the Deer Act 1959, it would be possible for SNH to put pressure on the Red Deer Commission to cull a large number of deer on the grounds that it wishes to promote the natural regeneration of woodlands without the expense of deer fencing. To achieve natural regeneration of
  156
  woodlands, mainly birch and without deer fencing, a really massive cull would be necessary. In fact, the near extermination of the deer population would be necessary because the level of deer population compatible with natural regeneration is between one and two beasts per hundred hectares.
  When that action had been taken and the deer forest destroyed for stalking purposes, the value of the land would plummet by, at present day values, about £20,000 to £30,000 per stag shot in the stalking season. At that stage SNH could, under the provisions of Clause 5, purchase the land compulsorily in order to establish the national parks. Compensation would have to be paid, but would it be paid at such a level? Have the Government actually considered the cost of compensation?
  As a result of such action many stalkers employed on the land would become redundant. This would happen because with little or no stalking potential and no stalking rents, or very inadequate stalking rents, there would be neither jobs for them nor the income to pay their wages. It is possible that some of them might be offered jobs as park rangers, but I do not gain the impression that experienced, skilled stalkers want to spend the rest of their lives picking up the litter left by hikers, or whatever park rangers do.
  Stalkers are young men. They have to be young and very fit otherwise they could not do the job. Such young men very often have young children. In Upper Glen Dee, above Braemar, which is an area that I know well, the only young people with children in the glen are the stalkers. The rest of the population are middle-aged or quite elderly. If the stalkers leave the area there will be no young people in the glen. That also applies in many remote areas. Is that what the Government want? It is certainly not what the people concerned want. If that were to happen, it really would be nationalisation by the hack door by an unelected quango created by the Government and accountable to no one.
  Amendment No. 11 creates an appeal mechanism. It would give those whose lives will be most affected by the situation that I have described, and whose livelihoods may be put at risk, a chance to make their views heard. To create a body such as SNH without there being any right of appeal against its diktats is unacceptable, undemocratic and worthy only of regimes such as Saddam Hussein's. I beg to move.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, I support the amendment to which I have put my name. The general arguments for a right of appeal have been rehearsed in the House at some length, and I do not intend to go over them all again. I find it extraordinary that the Government should hand these serious powers over rights of property to a non-elected body, without there being any right of appeal. I find it amazing that any government should do that. As a matter of principle, as the noble Lady said, I should have thought that that runs contrary to nearly everything our parliamentary system and law are supposed to stand for.
  As I said, the body is not elected; it is appointed. It appears to be able to bypass such elected bodies as

  157
  might be able to interfere. We are not talking about a minor matter. People are deeply suspicious about having their land designated as an SSSI, and not without reason. As I ventured to say previously, it is a deeply rooted tradition in the Highlands—
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, the amendment does not relate to SSSIs. It relates to everything except SSSIs.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, I fully appreciate that point. There is a deep-rooted feeling in the Highlands that the ordinary landowner, be it landlord, crofter or tenant, wishes to hang on to his land. He has had enough of having it run by absentee landlords or public bodies. As I have said, we are treading on delicate ground. We are putting our heavy feet down in a way which would not be tolerated in any other part of our jurisdiction. I therefore support the principle that SNH should be subject to certain appeal procedures and planning authorities when it proposes to take steps which deeply interfere with the rights of individuals.
  I pass from that topic to a point that I have already made: if we are to have proper conservation, it is vital that we carry with us the people who live on the land. At the moment we are losing them. There is deep suspicion in Orkney. Far too much of the land has been designated for one purpose or another. No one knows why. I asked the conservation people why the whole of the western end of Orkney has been designated, but there has been no sufficient answer.
  Secondly, I hope that the Government have read the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, and Lord Kimball on Report. They pointed out where conservation authorities' rulings, without a right of appeal, that overruled the landlords' recommendations had proved to be disastrous. There is no ultimate wisdom in those bodies. They are entitled to say only that they have considered matters carefully and that they are knowledgeable people, but that does not mean that they are God Almighty. No one will hand over decisions on ordinary law and justify that by saying that the judges are good people. We must get the law right. That is what we have so far not done in regard to these matters.
  I do not know whether it is in order to quote it, but I was given a letter from the chairman designate. I should like to know whether it is a quotable letter. The note with it said that the Minister might quote the letter. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he intends to quote it.
  Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is talking about the letter that the chairman of NCCS, Mr. Magnus Magnusson, wrote to me, a copy of which I put in the Library. It forewarns my noble friends of his ideas about the future of NCCS and its development into SNH. With respect to the noble Lord, that letter is not relevant to the amendment. It is relevant to Amendment No.30 which I hope we shall discuss soon.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, it appears to me to be relevant to all these amendments. I gather that it is in
  158
  order to quote from the letter. As I said on Second Reading, I have the highest admiration for the chairman designate. He is an admirable choice. In many respects the letter is useful and important, but I am not convinced by its main argument. I understand it to mean that he will reconsider all these matters of designation, schemes and so forth and would like matters left as they are until he has done that. I reject that argument. We have had a long experience of SSSIs and different schemes and they have proved to be unsatisfactory. Many Members of the House, including the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, have constantly raised this matter. It is not a new matter. We have experience of it, and we should act upon it.
  It is not right for Parliament to say, "We know that all this needs altering. We know that it is bad, but we intend to continue it for some indefinite period". It is difficult to decide how long it may take before a conclusion is reached. The right course is for Parliament to put the matter right, as it sees it now, and then if SNH wishes to amend the scheme in years to come, all well and good. Surely no one will say that, once a defect in the law has been proved, one should continue with the law. One should alter it as soon as possible.
  If the new body is to be successful, it is essential that it carries with it the people in the Highlands. I have said that four times this evening and on many previous occasions. The conservation body failed to do so a year or two ago in Orkney—the situation may now be better—because it rode roughshod over people. I know a man who was simply told one day that he could no longer cut peat from his peat bank which his family had worked for generations. That would be intolerable in any other part of this country. It is intolerable in the Highlands. It is essential that SNH starts off on the right foot, and that in the Bill the House amends the procedures which have proved to be unsatisfactory so as to give the new body a chance to say that it is starting on a better footing and, "We admit that our predecessors have been wrong in the past. We admit that there are things that need doing. Here is the first instalment. We shall consider the whole matter further. It may then need reconsideration, but in the meantime we agree that there are faults and that those faults should be put right".
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the noble Lord mentioned me perhaps I could intervene. I spoke on the Environmental Protection Bill last year which is the parent Bill. I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, but I must make it clear that the amendment relates to projects or schemes other than the designation of SSSIs. When I spoke on that occasion and on the Second Reading of this Bill, I dealt with the huge area of SSSIs and the feelings that have been generated in certain areas of Scotland that they blighted or devalued the land. They are feelings that are probably not justified but which nonetheless exist.
  I agree with the sentiments, but I must make it clear that when I was speaking I was not talking about anything to do with the amendment. I might be able

  159
  to help the noble Lord if I say that my understanding is that SSSIs were introduced in legislation about 1948 and were hardly used until the early 1980s when the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was enacted. As I see it, one of the reasons that we are not discussing the designation of SSSIs is that it is not in order to try to change a major statute—that is the Wildlife and Countryside Act—in the course of this Bill. Therefore we are discussing something different, that is projects and schemes.
  Perhaps it will save time if I say this now instead of on Amendment No. 30 where it could perhaps be more relevant. When I spoke on previous occasions I said that I hoped the changes in the Bill would help to promote confidence by bringing all the decisions and consultations much nearer to the people in the remote Highlands, central Scotland or wherever it might be. I drew attention to the fact that there was concern about the lack of an appeal. I hope that the changes that the Environmental Protection Act introduces and this subsequent Bill will help to promote better feelings in Scotland and overcome some of the difficulties.
  I am not sure whether the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, intends to pursue the point. She has given us a chance to debate it by suggesting a whole new procedure with statutory instruments on schemes and projects. I hope that we will not need to make a change like this in the Bill on Third Reading but will see how the new arrangements work. After all, there is quite a lot to swallow and much to be done, if we consider that the Nature Conservancy Council will be disbanded at the end of March, only a few weeks away. We have much to do and I prefer to see how the new organisation and the new arrangements settle down. I hope that they will lead to much better feelings in the areas concerned rather than trying to make changes like this. However, I congratulate the noble Lady on allowing us to discuss the subject by putting down the amendment.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, with this proposed amendment we are considering the relevance of the principle that there should be a right of appeal against designation of national parks or any project other than an SSSI. It could, I suppose, be argued against the amendment that it might lead to too much hard work for everybody. However, in this case where the designations will be few, that is hardly likely.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: It is not designations.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I stand corrected, it is not designations. Nevertheless it is a decision by the SNH to create national parks or something other than an SSSI. Even if what is proposed by the amendment were to lead to extra work, surely it would be unreasonable to contend that that is a more weighty matter than upholding the important principle of appeal.
  Another consideration is that if we do not have a system of appeal at all, we put far too great a burden on the SNH whose officers would have the unenviable task of enforcing an irrevocable decision which everybody might well live to regret. There was the
  160
  warning given by Winston Churchill about unelected bodies and institutions which are allowed to become too powerful and whose utterances become the solid masonry of unquestionable opinion and the padded cells of indubitable facts.
  On the other hand, it has been alleged that, while it may be in order to avoid such excesses and instead to maintain a sensible system of appeal in Scotland, it would not do at all to bring such well balanced arrangements south of the Border. If that fear really exists and we decide in favour of the amendment—as I hope we shall—it will not be the only time that north of the Border we have set a good example and done the right thing first.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we have had three speeches from the other side of the House and so far as I can gather none from this side. Perhaps I may intervene to say that I support the general view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, but we are not dealing with SSSIs. We may return to the theme of his speech on Amendment No. 30 which deals specifically with SSSIs.
  In so far as Amendment No. 11 contains provisions for an appeals procedure on decisions of the new Scottish Natural Heritage, I support it. I have always felt rather nervous about it having powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, pointed out, a body appointed by the Secretary of State and responsible to no one has complete powers in these matters. That is a dangerous precedent.
  The amendment refers not only to the owners and occupiers of land but also to the local planning authority. I have always felt that local authorities should be involved in these decisions. They are the elected representatives of the people who are affected by the decisions. The local planning authorities in most parts of Scotland have, by agreement, adopted in their areas a land use strategy. Surely any decisions of the new body should be related in some way to the thinking and the attitudes of the local people in the development of the land use strategy. Therefore, in so far as it introduces the appeals procedure and the rights of the local authorities and local planning authorities, I hope that the amendment will be approved.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have much sympathy for the amendment and for the amendment on SSSIs which was defeated in the House. It was a pity that the House did not allow the Government to go a little further and did not rule it out of order. That has been somewhat damaging to our discussion on the subject.
  It seems to me unfortunate to suggest that there should be an appeals system for matters other than SSSIs but not one for SSSIs. They are much the most likely to damage the interests of small people in agriculture and similar occupations. Justice demands that much more than this proposal. If we were talking about National Power that would be a different matter, but we are talking about any project other than SSSIs which seems to me to be a wide-ranging suggestion.

  161
  To talk of local planning authorities is not adequate. It may well be the strategic planning authority where there are separate councils, one of which is local, the other having strategic planning responsibilities. They should be included. Of course landowners, land users and land occupants should be asked about developments. That would not be setting a precedent; the Countryside Commission consults with landowners all the time about different projects which it undertakes. It seems to work quite well, although occasionally there is a squabble and there can be a compulsory purchase. However, I should not have thought that to adopt this amendment when there is none similar for SSSIs is the right way round. I think it is overdoing things; it would be enormously expensive and unwieldy. The amendment is a good vehicle for discussing the issue but it is not at all a good amendment.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Grimond on the amendment. It was brought forward because unfortunately the Labour Party did not support the amendment on SSSIs. That is why this amendment was tabled. It is not just to protect the interests of the owners of deer forests but, as my noble friend said, of the man who cuts peat. I feel more deeply for his interests.
  This is a principle to which the Government must pay attention. I was having lunch today with a distinguished Scottish lawyer. He said that in his opinion an appeal to the European Court of Justice on the point of no appeal against decisions by an arbitrary appointed body would probably succeed. The Government would be wise to pay some attention to this notorious injustice.
  8 p.m.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, we are creating—and I welcome it—Scottish Natural Heritage. But let us be quite clear: we are also creating a quango. It may be, and I hope it will be, a good quango doing a wonderful job along the lines of the Bill. In general principle, I believe all noble Lords welcome it. However, we are giving it powers that can affect the lives and well-being, indeed, the very livelihood, of those who live in Scotland. Have they, after consultation, if the quango decides otherwise, anywhere to go to protect themselves? No. There is no appeal.
  Nor is there any appeal, it is argued, in England and Wales. Very well, England and Wales might well follow the lead of Scotland, as has so often happened. To argue that a lack of trust is being shown in the new body is totally unrealistic. It may well be that for five years it will behave well. But what about after five years? Who knows? I hope very much that your Lordships will go along with the amendment. It is vital to our confidence in the heritage body. It is a pity that we cannot also cover SSSIs. However, there is another method in Amendment No. 30 for tackling that matter. I ask the Government to recognise the importance of what we are asking.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I stress
  162
  to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that the Bill applies only to Scotland and to Scottish interests and has no effect on any other part of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the clause is totally against the Arbroath declaration of independence and that to allow any body, however praiseworthy its aims, to take total power without any redress to the individual is an utter negation of personal liberty and freedom, and as such should be resisted by anyone who upholds democracy.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to add to what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said about Clause 5. To get an understanding of its sweeping powers one has to start with subsection (3), which allows Scottish Natural Heritage to undertake by itself almost any of the measures in subsections (1) and (2). So far as I can see those powers would allow the SNH to set up national parks without appeal and would certainly allow SNH to carry out control schemes for deer with or without the Red Deer Commission.
  It might be helpful if I say that I understand that the reason for such sweeping powers being included in the Bill is that SNH is to embody the powers of both the Nature Conservancy and the Countryside Commission as they were separately. When they were separate, they often used to squabble about things. Now they are being merged they are likely to be agreed about some highly undesirable objectives. Two of those objectives are setting up national parks and shooting huge numbers of deer. I cannot help feeling that an appeal procedure in the background would make them behave much better in regard to these issues and others mentioned by noble Lords. That is why I feel that some form of appeal is so appropriate.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister a question? We shall soon be discussing Amendment No. 30. It seems to me in retrospect a pity that these amendments were not grouped. We have really heard all the arguments for Amendment No. 30. I do not think we have missed any. I wonder therefore whether the Minister would consider grouping them. It is now Third Reading. It would assist expeditious control of business if that were done.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say that I think it is too late now? I agree that it would have been better if the two had been grouped, but it would be a little unfair. All I suggest is that we have a self-denying ordinance and do not repeat ourselves on Amendment No. 30.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if I may join in this debate, Amendment No. 30 deals with SSSIs and an appeals procedure, and I look forward to, and relish, the discussion we shall have on that amendment. Amendment No. 11 has nothing to do with SSSIs, although it has an appeals procedure. What I hope to explain in the course of the next few minutes is that the amendment is totally unnecessary and that noble Lords have misunderstood the provisions of Clause 5.

  163
  There is nothing to get worried about, and I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will withdraw her amendment.
  The type of projects which we intend SNH to carry out under the provisions of this clause are very much of the type already undertaken by the Countryside Commission for Scotland in relation to countryside matters under Section 5 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Indeed, the clause is very largely an updating of the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the 1967 Act and does not propose any new mechanisms for undertaking projects. There is no question of it contravening the declaration of independence of Arbroath, which my noble friend Lady Strange mentioned. At least, I hope not.
  SNH, like the Countryside Commission for Scotland, would be quite able to carry out projects on land which it owned itself. In the case of land belonging to someone else it would obviously require the agreement of the landowner concerned before SNH could implement the proposals for the particular projects. It might be useful if I attempted to explain what might be involved in such schemes. Many similar schemes undertaken by the Countryside Commission for Scotland in the past have been concentrated on urban fringe areas, notably the Kilpatricks and Clyde-Calders projects, and have made a valuable contribution to the regeneration of the countryside around towns. Certainly, we would wish this sort of work to continue with the creation of SNH.
  This is a completely different type of arrangement to an SSSI. It is intended that these development projects should in some way improve upon an existing situation and so they are not, as such, designations geared purely to the conservation of an area, as is the case with SSSIs. We had a valuable discussion on Report concerning the scope of Clause 5, and I think it would be useful to emphasise some of the points which were made then in order to reassure your Lordships as to how the clause will operate.
  Clause 5 does not empower Scottish Natural Heritage to set up and run any kind of project which might be considered appropriate to achieving its general aims and purposes. It is deliberately restricted to projects which will demonstrate new approaches to natural heritage issues. Emphasis is to be on experimentation and creativity and this is achieved by requiring any proposals prepared by Scottish Natural Heritage to meet both of the criteria specified in subsection (2). Thus, while a proposal may involve the application of established, as well as entirely innovative methods, concepts or techniques, it must also be designed to show the appropriateness of the project to the area in question or to similar areas. If it does not overcome that second hurdle, because, for instance, an identical project has already been undertaken in a similar area, the project is not one with which Scottish Natural Heritage may get involved.. I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the restrictive nature of Scottish Natural Heritage's powers under this provision.
  Turning to the question of Scottish Natural Heritage's powers under Clause 5 vis-é-vis landowners, in most instances where the Countryside
  164
  Commission for Scotland has used such schemes previously, the agreement of the landowner has been very easy to obtain since the land concerned has generally been of little value and not in any gainful use. I anticipate that the same will be done for any order put forward by SNH. Consequently, the procedures proposed in this amendment are not necessary. In the unlikely event of SNH wishing to pursue a project where the landowner does not consent, it could in theory do this by means of compulsory acquisition of the land, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. It is very unlikely that such a situation would arise for the reasons I have just explained; but if it did, such action would be subject to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 which allows for objections to be made to the compulsory purchase order and a public local inquiry to be held if necessary. This in itself is sufficient protection for landowners and local people in the event of a dispute.
  Noble Lords may be anxious about the apparent scope of subsection (3) of Clause 5. I can give a categorical assurance on this point. Subsection (3) merely confers a power on Scottish Natural Heritage to take measures to implement its proposals. This does not affect the rights of third parties. More specifically, it does not mean that Scottish Natural Heritage is exempted from complying with any requirement under the general law which might be applicable to the measures that it proposes to take.
  If I may use an analogy, subsection (3) is like part of the memorandum and articles of association of a limited company. A company can do only what it is expressly empowered to do by those documents. Similarly, a statutory body such as Scottish Natural Heritage can only have functions conferred on it by statute. A company may be empowered by its memorandum and articles of association to operate licensed premises, but to do that it must first acquire suitable property, by agreement, and then obtain a liquor licence. Likewise, subsection (3) empowers Scottish Natural Heritage to implement its proposals for a development project or scheme. However, before doing so it must obtain any planning permission that might be necessary, and also the consent of the owner of the land on which the measures are to be taken. Failing such consent, Scottish Natural Heritage's only alternative is to acquire the land and, as I have already mentioned, there are already adequate procedures laid down to protect the landowner's interests in this situation. There is nothing in Clause 5 which will override these general principles. Scottish Natural Heritage has no other powers available allowing it to carry out a development project or scheme against the owner's wishes. There are some specific objections to the terms of the amendment, for example that the appeals procedure is unnecessarily heavy-handed. I shall not delve any further into that.
  The current provisions in the 1967 Act on which Clause 5 is modelled have operated successfully for more than 20 years and I am not aware of their causing any difficulty so far as concerns landowners. I can assure noble Lords that, as a matter of law, the

  165
  amendment is not necessary to limit the powers of Scottish Natural Heritage under this clause and so I trust that the noble Lords will withdraw it.
  I shall respond to the fear expressed that Scottish Natural Heritage could use the powers under this clause to introduce national parks. That clearly would not be possible under the terms of this clause. It is for the Government and not for Scottish Natural Heritage to make a decision on national parks. Scottish Natural Heritage can advise on such matters and that would be expected; but it is for the Government to make such decisions. I hope that I have made myself clear.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but that is not what the clause states. The clause says:
  "SNH may undertake … by itself … measures to implement the proposals mentioned in subsection (1) above".
  Subsection (1) refers to a,
  "scheme which … fosters understanding or enjoyment of the natural heritage of Scotland".
  That is all the clause states. That is the only way one can read it. It does not mention other legislation.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Clause 5(2) (a) qualifies that by stating that proposals shall,
  "in relation to that area involve the application of new or developed methods, concepts or techniques".
  National parks would hardly fit into the criteria of Clause 5(2) (a) or (b). I hope the noble Lord will accept that point.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I must confess that I have not had time to examine that point. However, on the other hand, the provision is designed to illustrate the appropriateness of a project. Certainly the scheme we are talking about could relate to our old friend, the mass culling of deer. The clause seems to be very powerful. It certainly requires some form of simple appeal which the Secretary of State himself can decide.
  Lord Burton: My Lords, I take it that if a cycle track or a long distance path were desired, the heritage body would be able to implement such facilities without any appeal.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I have explained, SNH needs to obtain the agreement of the landowner. I understand that as a matter of general law nothing more is needed in this clause. Clause 5(3) does not allow Scottish Natural Heritage to do anything unlawful. Therefore SNH cannot do things which break the general law. This measure is not an overriding power on anything that Scottish Natural Heritage would wish to do.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in spite of all that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said, it still seems to me that Clause 5 gives SNH considerable powers. If the appeals mechanism that we have suggested is heavy-handed, it can possibly be amended at a later stage. I still stand on my premise that to create a quango—SNH is a quango—without an appeals mechanism for any of the projects that the quango may introduce which may affect people's lives and livelihoods is intolerable. I accept that there is an
  166
  appeals mechanism for compulsory purchase, but there are all kinds of other things which the body may wish to undertake for which there is no appeals mechanism. In view of the amount of support that this amendment has gained on all sides of the House, and as I am still not convinced about the matter, I shall ask the opinion of the House.
  8.16 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 45.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Monson, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Burton, L.

  Newall, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Craigavon, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

  Dulverton, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Perth, E.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Rees, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Renton, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Greenway, L.

  Russell, E.

  Grey, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

  Grimond, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Strange, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Swansea, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Vestey, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Winstanley, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Woolton, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Arran, E.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Astor, V.

  Kagan, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Layton, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Blease, L.

  Long, V. [Teller.]

  Blyth, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Borthwick, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Parry, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Prior, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Reay, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Romney, E.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Henley, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Hives, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  8.25 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 12:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
  ("Vehicle restriction orders
  .—(1) For the purpose of preventing damage to the natural heritage, SNH may, by order (hereinafter referred to as a "Vehicle Restriction Order") restrict the use of all-terrain or other vehicles on land. An order made by SNH under this section shall be submitted to the Secretary of State and shall not have effect unless confirmed by him.
  (2) Such an Order shall define—

  (a) the area of land within which the use of such vehicles is to be restricted;

  (b) the restrictions which shall apply; and

  (c) the reasons by which SNH were motivated to make the order.

  (3) An order made under subsection (1) above may relate only to land which is—

  (a) a nature reserve within the meaning of section 15 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or an area which is subject to an agreement under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 (Areas of Special Scientific Interest);

  (b) a National Scenic Area designated under section 262C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;

  (c) an area in respect of which SNH has prepared proposals for a development project or scheme under section (5) above; or

  (d) a long-distance route within the meaning of section 54 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967.

  (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, no person shall use all-terrain or other vehicles on land defined in an order made under subsection (1) above in contravention with restrictions defined therein.
  (5) Subsection (4) shall not apply if—

  (a) the use of the vehicle was made with the written consent of SNH, or

  (b) the use of the vehicle related to an emergency, particulars of which were notified to SNH as soon as practicable after the emergency.

  (6) A person who contravenes subsection (4) above, shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  (7) An order made under this section shall be registered either—

  (a) in a case where the land affected by the order is registered in that Register in the Land Register of Scotland; or

  (b) in any other case, in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

  (8) The provisions as to the making, confirmation, coming into operation and validity of orders in Schedule 3 to the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 shall also apply to orders made under this section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 is to insert a new clause. Perhaps it would be helpful if we took with this Amendment No. 41.
  This is rather a long amendment. I am sure the Minister will be well aware of its purpose, and I am anxious to get his point of view on it. The insertion of this new clause would allow Scottish Natural Heritage to make vehicle restriction orders because there are
  168
  increasingly numerous and significant problems which can be controlled in no other way. To use all-terrain vehicles, ATVs, or off-the-road four-wheel-drive vehicles, has been of enormous value in countryside and estate management, in deer management, for transportation of sportsmen to lochs and river banks, and for other aspects of countryside work. They have all been assisted through the use of such vehicles, but there has been a downside. This has brought significant problems to certain areas of land. Frequent use across fragile terrain, for instance high on the hill or across wet and peaty areas, can result in considerable damage. Ongoing erosion disturbs natural communities, and causes visual scarring.
  Vehicle restriction orders are by no means intended to prevent the use of ATVs but to regulate their use within the environmental constraints of various areas, and to ensure that they are used within the resilience of the vegetation, the soils and the physiography of each site.
  The more I look at the amendment, the more I become conscious of its rather wordy nature, but it was given to me with the best of intentions. I should like the Minister to explain how the Government see the Scottish Natural Heritage resolving the problem of off-road vehicular uses without the use of some vehicle restriction orders given the difficulties of securing agreement with landowners and other land management interests and given the significant problems highlighted by the recent case in Strath Dearn.
  There is a wider issue. The Minister must be aware that in more populous parts of the country close to large urban areas there are complaints about too much use of mountain bikes and motorbikes, and certain areas are being very severely affected by them. This amendment is to try to give the Government some idea of the way we think a restriction order could apply. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think I know something about the case that prompted this amendment, which is the case of a proprietor of a river in the far North. He used multi-wheeled vehicles to take his fishing guests and fishing tenants—and the income was very important—up to the top of the river. That was causing some damage. I am not taking his part or anyone else's, but merely setting out the conflicting interests in this case. It reached such a point that both sides drove their heels in. At one point he said he would make a branch road. He offered solutions, and the solutions were turned down repeatedly. I do not know what the ultimate outcome was, but this is a perfect example of the need for some form of arbitration procedure or some form of appeal. I do not know how the issue was resolved but I know that both sides dug in their heels.
  The proprietor had a very strong case in that many of his tenants, who were paying rent and maintaining employment on the estate, were elderly chaps. They could not possibly walk to the head of the river where they fished and where some of the best beats were. That was one case of the type which we considered in relation to the other points and I hope that the Minister will address both sides of the problem.
  Lord Burton: My Lords, I noticed that in moving the amendment the noble Lord appeared to think that the amendment covered mountain bikes. I wonder whether that is the case because they are not mechanical vehicles. I believe that it is highly desirable that they should be included because they are among the most destructive of vehicles. They have a narrow wheel which makes a track down the hill. The water starts running in the track and then one has a burn running down the road. Therefore I hope that mountain bikes will be covered by the amendment but I am not sure that the proposed wording covers them.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may explain that I raised the question of mountain bikes because wheeled traffic on hills is a growing problem. I recognise that they could be covered without causing too much disturbance to anyone. I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The matter has to be handled very carefully. That is why I asked the Minister for advice. We have seen in the popular press that that is an activity which is increasingly becoming a worry to those in the countryside.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to see the amendment being tabled today. I know that the use of vehicles in an off-road situation is of concern to some people in particular areas and can cause erosion and create noise and other nuisances. Nevertheless, I regret to say that the Government have not previously been advised of such anxiety by our statutory adviser, the Countryside Commission for Scotland. I should have thought that if there was a pressing or vital need for the introduction of a provision such as the vehicle restriction order proposed here the Countryside Commission for Scotland might well have drawn it to the attention of the Government on a previous occasion. The commission's recently published report reviewing the conservation and management of the mountain areas of Scotland—which is the most authoritative recent statement on these matters—does not analyse the problem or propose the solution set out in the amendment.
  I have some difficulty in accepting the detail of the provisions. The Government have stressed that SNH will build upon the voluntary principle developed in nature and landscape conservation over many years. To instigate a system of the sort envisaged by the amendment which allows the imposition of an order without offering the opportunity of agreement with the landowners concerned would go against that essential principle and consequently would damage much of the good will which has been established in such areas.
  I also feel that much consultation with all concerned and further investigation of the problem would be required before we could seriously consider a statutory provision along the lines proposed in the amendment. To rush through legislation of this kind is obviously not desirable, nor does it appear to be necessary. It is important that if controls were to be imposed they should be enforceable. Further
  170
  consideration would be needed on how to achieve that, and quite clearly that is a difficult aspect of the proposal.
  In the light of those comments I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
  I do not wish to detract in any way from what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. I was not sure whether he was in favour of or against the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I rather suspect that he was against them. He made other points concerning SSSIs and we shall come to that issue.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may explain that my point was that the case that I mentioned illustrates the need for some form of appeal or arbitration.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am satisfied that the Minister has got the message from those who took part in the discussion. I am surprised that he was not aware of the problem. I believe that the problem is particularly severe in the Lake District, and it is a growing problem in some parts of Scotland.
  I can see the difficulty in rushing legislation through. I am sure that he is now aware that this is a problem which, while it may not be enormous now, is likely to grow. The more accessible the countryside becomes the more people will take four-wheel drive vehicles out to the hills.
  I hope that the Minister will take the proposal back and have it put in the department's archives so that it can be pulled out when appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 [Powers of entry]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 4, line 42, at end insert:
  ("( ) the making of an access order by SNH under Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 31 to 36, 39 and 40. The amendments result from a number of undertakings that I gave when we discussed the provisions of Clause 6 both in Committee and on Report. The amendments fulfil those undertakings.
  Essentially they concern the rights of entry of Scottish Natural Heritage and rectify several anomalies. I am quite happy to speak to specific amendments if requested. Generally speaking, I believe that they improve the Bill. We have brought together the different rights of entry in different parts of the Bill. We have extended the period of notice from seven days to 14 days. We have also provided that where practicable SNH should contact the owner. I hope that that will suffice. I beg to move.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the amendments, which fulfil his undertakings given at Report stage.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 26:
  Page 5, line 2, leave out ("by virtue of this Act by SNH") and insert ("by SNH by virtue of—

  (a) Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967; or

  (b) this Part of this Act;").

  Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("by") to ("may") in line 5 and insert ("SNH").
  Page 5, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").
  Page 5, line 11, at end insert ("and, where practicable, to the owner").
  Page 5, line 14, after third ("the") insert ("soil or"). Page 5, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(5A) Subject to subsection (5B) below, if the sheriff is satisfied that there is a reasonable ground for entry upon any land which a person is entitled to enter in pursuance of this section and—

  (a) that admission to that land has been refused;

  (b) that such refusal is apprehended; or

  (c) that the land is unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent,

  then the sheriff may grant a warrant authorising that person to enter t he land, if necessary using such force as is reasonable in all the circumstances and a warrant issued in pursuance of this section shall continue in force until the purpose for which the entry is required has been satisfied.
  (5B) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, in any case to which paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (5A) above applies the sheriff shall not grant a warrant unless he is satisfied that a notice of the intended entry has been served on the occupier of the land and, where practicable, on the owner not less than fourteen days before the demand for entry was made.").
  Page 5, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("and such equipment").
  Page 5, line 27, leave out ("premises") where it first occurs and inset ("land upon").
  Page 5, line 27, leave out ("premises") where it second occurs and insert ("land").
  Page 5, line 28, leave out ("premises or) and insert ("land from").
  Page 5, line 28, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").
  Page 5, line 29, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").
  Page 5, line 33, at end insert:
  ("(7A) It shall be the duty of SNH to compensate any person who has sustained damage by reason of—

  (a) the exercise by a person authorised by SNH of any powers conferred on him by virtue of this section; or

  (b) the failure of a person so authorised to perform the duty imposed on him by subsection (6) above,

  except where the damage is attributable to the fault of the person who sustained it; and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation in pursuance of this subsection or as to the amount of the compensation shall be determined by arbitration.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Grants and loans]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 6, line 7, at end insert (", including payments to persons or bodies outwith Scotland whose purpose assists SNH in attainment of these aims and purposes.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage will continue to provide grant aid for bodies operating in the whole of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to international bodies with objectives and aims parallel to those of SNH. In that way we can be certain
  172
  that SNH will be able to continue important work currently carried out both by the NCC and the Countryside Commission for Scotland in supporting bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has a UK remit, and agencies such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (a component of UNESCO) and the European federation of nature and natural parks.
  The amendment will also strengthen the resolve and statutory ability for co-operation through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and statutory conservation agencies in Britain. It will assist in giving clear legitimacy to cross-border projects. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no need for the amendment. Scottish Natural Heritage will be a Scottish body dealing with Scottish issues. Its general aims and purposes, as listed in Clause 1(1) will relate to the natural heritage of Scotland. Under the provisions of Clause 8(1) as drafted, SNH will be able to make a grant or loan to any person or body which does anything conducive to its general aims and purposes. There is no restriction on such grants or loans being made only within Scotland. There may well be situations where a British or international organisation wishes to carry out a project which is helpful to the natural heritage of Scotland in some way or another and thus conducive to the general aims and purposes of SNH. In those circumstances, SNH would be perfectly entitled to offer it a grant or loan. I am sure that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 [Directions by Secretary of State]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
  Page 7, line 20, at beginning insert (Subject to subsection (3) below,").
  Page 7, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(3) The Secretary of State shall not give directions under this section in respect of functions conferred on SNH by virtue of section 4(4) of this Act.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 30:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
  ("Reviewing of existing SSSI's
  . — (1) Within 5 years from the appointed date in section 12 below, it shall be the duty of SNH to conduct a review of all Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated at that date, particularly as regards—

  (a) potentially damaging operations;

  (b) consented activities;

  (c) management agreements;

  (d) Nature Conservation Orders; and

  (e) compensation arrangements,

  within the meaning of the Code of Guidance for SSSI's and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  (2) On completion of its review, SNH shall publish a report on the existing SSSI's, containing for each SSSI a recommendation whether the designation of that area as an SSSI shall be continued or withdrawn.
  (3) Where, following publication of the report under subsection (2) above, SNH receives objections from the owners or occupiers of the land or from the local planning authority in whose area the SSSI is situated as to the continued designation of their land as an SSSI within a period of 6 months from the notification of the proposals, and where, after considering the said objections SNH remains satisfied as to the merits of the designation, it shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall—

  (a) cause a local enquiry to be held; or

  (b) afford any person or any representative of SNH, the owners or occupiers of the land and the local planning authority an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

  (5) On considering any representations made and the report of the person appointed to hear those representations under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may either—

  (a) confirm the continued designation of the land as an SSSI; or

  (b) make an order revoking or amending the designation, as he thinks appropriate in the light of the report, representations or objections.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to place a duty on SNH to review all sites of special scientific interest which have been already designated on the date SNH comes into being. SNH would complete and report on this review within five years. If owners or occupiers or the local planning authority are not satisfied with the result of that review, this amendment will grant them a right of appeal.
  During the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House my noble friend the Minister has made more than one statement to the effect that he agrees the Nature Conservancy has been insensitive and that there has been something essentially wrong with the way the Nature Conservancy has operated in the past. He has asked us to trust the new SNH not to behave in a similar fashion in future. Yet as I understand it, all the present staff of the Nature Conservancy, and indeed the Countryside Commission, are being offered employment in the new SNH. The fact that they will in future be based in Scotland is not very reassuring as to their future attitudes, which may well stay the same as their recent attitudes.
  The same narrow scientific minds will be applied to the unfathomable mysteries of nature, and it is inconceivable they will always be right. I happily concede that under the new board of SNH, particularly under the guidance of its new chairman, SNH may make many fewer mistakes than did the NCC in the past. As it happens, this amendment does not seek to set up an appeal against SSSIs designated after SNH comes into being; it seeks to re-examine the past which the Minister admits has been unsatisfactory.
  I understand that SNH may be intending to conduct its own review of the designations and restrictions made over the past seven years or so. Surely, that must be appropriate, but many of the same scientists who insisted on the designations and
  174
  restrictions in the first place will now be involved in their revision. It will not be easy for them to admit that they got it wrong. In addition, some restrictions which may have seemed reasonable seven years ago may have become inappropriate in the meantime; but that will not be easy to admit either.
  I know that SNH is setting up a new science research and development board which may help SNH towards objectivity in this regard; but I cannot help feeling that it would be very helpful to them to have the knowledge in the back of their minds that if the landowner, occupier or local authority was still not satisfied with their judgment, at the end of the day they could be taken to appeal. I am sure that in those circumstances the appeals would be few and far between and Scotland's natural heritage would be all the more healthy for that. I beg to move.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to give an example of the consequences of the Nature Conservancy Council's intransigence regarding the management of an SSSI.
  In June 1986 part of Invereshie Farm near Kincraig in Inverness-shire was notified as an SSSI. This was confirmed in 1987, and the Nature Conservancy specified certain operations as damaging. In 1989, a further and overlapping part of Invereshie Farm was notified as an SSSI on the grounds that it was marsh and mire. When the owners pointed out that it was in fact hard gravel, the NCC changed their grounds to "semi-natural woodland and the habitat of a rare biting insect". It is perhaps worth observing here that both the woodland and the rare biting insect were existing very happily before the NCC notified the SSSI and the potentially damaging operations began.
  On February 4th and 5th 1990 the River Feshie burst its banks and did considerable damage to both forestry and farmland. The NCC refused to allow the owner to take the necessary steps to reinstate the river to its pre-1990 course. While argument was going on, further damage occurred to the river banks due to flooding later in the year. The February flood reached the farm steading. The boathouse and a chalet at Loch Insh Watersports received damage; the public highway was damaged; at Lynchat there was damage to the railway line, and to roads and bridges in the vicinity. Lynchat and Kingussie sewage works were flooded and the waters came right up to Kingussie School. If the only works that the NCC will agree to are carried out and steps are not taken to restore the river to its proper course future flood damage may be even more severe, but the owners have no option but to sign a management agreement with the NCC, insure so far as possible against flood damage in case they are unable to prove consequential damage against the NCC and negotiate as favourable an agreement in terms of compensation as possible.
  It is also interesting that before the land was flooded, there was an abundance of varied bird life: Hoopus swans, rare wild duck and others. This is diminishing as the cessation of grazing and arable farming has destroyed a lot of the birds' sources of food. The Secretary of State, when appealed to, could do nothing because there was no right of appeal against the conditions imposed by the NCC.

  175
  I have read a letter sent to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by Magnus Magnusson, chairman of NCC Scotland and chairman-designate of SNH, virtually saying: "Please do not let anybody make nasty rules about the rights of appeal. We know we have been a bit naughty in the past, but if we promise to try to be good boys in the future please give us a chance". The formal appeals procedure, which he says the nine-month consultation period represents, is about as much use as the right of Little Red Riding Hood to appeal to the Wolf, because SNH will be judge and jury in all matters. As for the law having to be amended in England and Wales, that is the most feeble argument I have ever heard. Let it be amended.
  In an article on 12th January in the Daily Telegraph the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, chairman-designate of English Nature—the English branch of NCC—was quoted as having said that he would he wary of giving the NCC the absolute power to protect important areas of the British Isles as the British, with their sense of justice, would then demand an appeal system. I am demanding an appeal system, because, as I said before, it is monstrous to create this quango, of which the NCC would be a part, which is an appointed body, not democratically elected, and give no right of appeal against arbitrary and very often ill-informed decisions which not only have the reverse effect to that which they are intended to have, but also cause extensive and dangerous damage to public and private property, and also possibly destroy the livelihoods of the people who live in the area.
  I appeal to noble Lords on all sides of the House to support this amendment in the name of freedom and democracy.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty because I am a very old friend of Sir Magnus Magnusson—if that is the correct name to use. The last thing I want is to give the impression that I want to give other than a fair wind for the body over which he is going to preside. I am the last person to suggest that the NCC, whose decisions we are now asking him to review, have not had a very important part to play, and that on many occasions I think they have done well. There are many instances of excellent co-operation, due primarily I think to the tactical approach of the NCC's representative. After all, diplomacy is crucial if a farmer is to be persuaded to stop farming part of his land in a way to which he has learnt it will best respond in return for an unknown amount of compensation. Things get very much worse if in response to the farmer's misgivings he is told—I do not say it has happened all that often, but it has happened occasionally—that, whether or not he likes it, this is how it is going to be.
  Sadly that is what has happened in what I hope is only a minority of cases. I suppose the effect on the NCC and attitudes toward it is equivalent to that felt by a lady who ran a successful hotel in Scotland. She said to me, "One bad meal takes 50 good ones to undo the damage".
  I want to give your Lordships two examples of an area where I think a review is badly needed. First, it is
  176
  needed on the Island of Stroma off the coast of Caithness which is 1,000 acres in all. One day the whole island was designated as an SSSI. The reseeding which the farmer wanted to do was declared to be impossible. There was an obvious loss of income and although the area under the SSSI was ultimately reduced from 1,000 to 340 acres, the loss of income as calculated by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, which is a fairly expert body, came to £14,500 a year. The NCC offered £6,500, then £7,800 and ultimately £12,000, five years after the notification, the farmer having to pay all the costs involved.
  Secondly, there is what I suppose may be called the notorious Alcock case in Aberdeenshire. In a way this is perhaps the most ironical example. A farmer who was enthusiastic about wild flowers and was doing his own thing, keeping cattle off the hill at the relevant time of year so that the orchids could grow, was so enthusiastic that he did not demur when a friend asked if he might bring someone from the NCC, which was bound to be interested in what the farmer was doing. Indeed it was. No longer was he able to do his own thing. An SSSI designation was slapped on the land with, to use his own words, "a whole list of restrictions which prohibit virtually all agricultural and most other operations on the land involved".
  Of course there was an argument about compensation. I am not aware whether or not the figure has yet been settled but according to him the figure will fall well short of the one that the farmer originally suggested. In his words, "The strings attached to conservation projects can have the misfortune of turning into nooses". The case formed part of a farming programme on the Scottish radio wavelength. The other half of the programme was devoted to an experience with an SSSI in Berwickshire which had gone like a charm.
  I come back to what I believe is the secret of the whole matter; namely, the approach by the NCC in the old days. As I said, I think—at least I hope—that it is only in a minority of cases that injustice is done. But one should not neglect the minority. That is why I strongly support the principle of appeals.
  This amendment asks for a review of existing SSSIs. It may well be a stepping stone—I hope that it is—for a review of all future designations by the Secretary of State. As I said at Report stage, it seems to me that this is a golden opportunity for the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is a totally new set-up. Peterborough will no longer have influence. There will be the Secretary of State and all his departments—including environment and agriculture —with their Ministers working on the same corridor as himself.
  I recall that when I served in that office one almost hoped that there might be a dispute because when there was a dispute one was invited into the Secretary of State's office to discuss the matter over an excellent beverage before the Secretary of State came to his decision. That is unlike what may happen here, where I can well see difficulties arising and Ministers who say, "Don't let us have this sort of thing. We shall have to go across to the Department of the Environment and argue it out".

  177
  We have the golden opportunity to take a step forward. I profoundly hope that we shall do so.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I shall not speak for very long on this amendment. After all, our decision was made on the matter of appeals to the Secretary of State and I am rather surprised that the debate has been reopened. I believe that review and monitoring is an essential part of any sensible SSSI programme. In fact that happens. It will be seen from the reports of the Nature Conservancy Council that SSSIs are denotified. That means that for whatever reason they are no longer suitable to maintain in that category. Therefore I do not object to the suggested review.
  However, I question whether it is realistic to ask that body to complete a review in five years. When the Wildlife and Countryside Act came into force in 1981, as part of that exercise the Nature Conservancy Council had to renotify all the SSSIs that had been designated up to that time. It took nine years. That was because the resources were not available to it. There was neither the money nor the manpower to make it possible.
  If the Government are saying that they will make money and manpower available to enable Scottish Natural Heritage to complete its review in five years, I should have no objection to it. Failing that, it is not a very reasonable programme to suggest. I hope that the Government will make clear in their response that they will either refuse the review, offer longer time or offer more money.
  Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to make two short points. First, I believe that there is a need for a re-designation because in many cases it has never been specified—the grounds are unknown to anyone else, so far as I can see—why an area has been designated or indeed what it is intended to protect in that particular area. I know of one SSSI which affected me. I tried my best to find out what was wanted or what was involved and could get no information. My noble friend Lord Stodart raised that point. It is important that the designation is explained carefully. One will have the co-operation of the owners in most cases when they realise that something needs protecting. That applies in Caithness at the moment, where there is a great deal of unhappiness about some of the areas specified. No one knows why an area is to be protected. I was at a very well attended meeting of a FFWAG (farming, forestry and wildlife advisory group) there. It was a well attended meeting. The NCC was supposed to tell the meeting why such a designation had been made and what was being done. It was deplorable to find that we could not get any answers from it. I think the answer was that the NCC itself did not know.
  The other point which I should like to raise is that I am not quite sure whether designations under the ancient monuments legislation are involved in any way. I should have thought it rather important that any heritage body should look after those.
  A particular piece of land caused great excitement because it was believed that it contained a number of circles. Having received a map I went to investigate
  178
  and discovered that the Pony Club had been schooling its ponies. I am fairly confident that another recent case of a circular feature is on land where cattle have been feeding in seven metre circles. In spite of my suggestion that the council should investigate before designating, designation is to continue. Such matters should be the responsibility of our heritage body and not be left to the few good ladies of Edinburgh.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, the amendment was admirably introduced and it is clear. I believe that it will appeal to your Lordships' House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that the areas of designation are far from clear. Far too large an area of the Highlands has been designated and therefore the whole procedure has been devalued. Surely it is essential to reconsider the situation. If any noble Lords are in doubt, that appears to be the belief of the new body. It proposes to review the procedures and is bound to review the effect on different areas. Therefore, we are merely putting into legislation directions that the new body will welcome.
  It was rightly said by the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that scientists are extremely obstinate and never more obstinate than when they are wrong. Indeed, they are wrong three or four times out of five. The protection against that is the appeal written into the amendment. If we do not like the decision recommended by the scientists we can appeal against it. I agree that one of the great dangers is that although scientists are upright, splendid men, they are extremely pig-headed. I do not like to mention names but certain organisations contain scientists who are great friends of mine and they are obstinate almost beyond belief. They were wrong to a degree that only scientists can be wrong. Therefore, we are right in insisting that there should be protection against the decisions.
  We are taking the path that the new body wishes to take and I can see no reason why the Government should resist the amendment. It is apparent that the SSSIs cannot be fixed for all time and must be reviewed. It is arguable whether this timescale is right but we cannot write SSSIs into the history of the world for ever. This is a suitable moment for insisting on review by the new body.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, if we believe that all SSSIs are sensibly designated, we must reject the amendment. However, during previous stages of the Bill in this House my noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to the unsatisfactory basis upon which, until now, Scottish decisions have been made in Peterborough. Many noble Lords have given convincing examples of contradictions and absence of wisdom in previous designations. A significant proportion of existing SSSIs are satisfactory and, therefore, when they are called for reconsideration after five years they will in all probability remain so designated. I hope that that consideration will give comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The

  179
  amendment allows the correction of the anomalies and mistakes which have already been fully drawn to our attention.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It raises again the important principle that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, mentioned in an earlier debate; that is the opportunity for review. We are not talking about reviewing the decisions of the new body but about reviewing the decisions that were made in Peterborough. The fact that the Government in their wisdom decided that the exercise should be decentralised and decisions should be made closer to the area in question is the justification for review. I believe that the new body will welcome that step because it will stamp its authority on decisions made before its existence.
  The new body will have difficulty in receiving acceptance of its authority. It made an excellent public relations move when Mr. Magnus Magnusson was appointed as chairman because he is a highly respected individual. The new body must gain acceptance but because in some cases it has inherited the decisions of the Nature Conservancy Council in England it is slightly prejudiced. Therefore, it is a good idea that the new body should look at decisions after a period of five years.
  We are not talking about small areas of Scotland. We are talking about 1 million hectares—that is 10 per cent. of the land surface of Scotland—which has been designated as SSSIs by the Nature Conservancy Council in Peterborough. It is right and just that we should look at those decisions because we are nearer the ground, nearer the local authority, nearer the people who find employment in the areas and, above all, we are sensitive to our responsibilities to protect our heritage and amenities. I wish to support the new body. We should give it greater authority, greater respect and greater acceptability by saying, "All right, you are starting anew. Just look at what you have inherited and find out whether it is consistent with your view of your new responsibilities".
  After the last debate the Nature Conservancy Council, through the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was good enough to send me the guidebook of its work in the designation of SSSIs. There is no doubt about its power and authority. Of course it notifies you that your area is to be designated and you are allowed three months in which to make representations to the council. It will then consider the matter but in the meantime your area is designated. After considering your representations as a landowner or as someone with an interest in the area it delivers the punchline, that its decision ultimately determines whether or not the notification is confirmed.
  That means that it is a quango, appointed by the Secretary of State, which makes the final decision against which there is no appeal. It is that principle to which we are opposed in the amendment.
  I received representations from the Highland Regional Council, which covers one of the areas most affected, as can be imagined. It is the elected representative of the people of the Highlands. I do not know the political affiliation of its members, but they point out that,
  180
  "it is singularly disappointing to the Regional Council that the provisions of Section 28 of the Wildlife Act should provide the power of judge and jury to the Nature Conservancy Council … Highland Region would not be so alarmed at the situation if the powers conferred on the NCC were exercised in a selective and discriminating way".
  Its experience does not justify support or confidence in those judgments.
  Over 15 per cent. of the entire area covered by the Highland Region is now designated as SSSIs. Surely it is right and proper that we should ponder for a moment whether the uniform coverage of a whole area of Scotland should be designated as a SSSI. Is it not right that after a five-year period that designation should be examined and consideration given to whether the decisions were well made?
  Local authorities have their own land use strategy studies. Is it not right that they should be brought into the picture to see whether their ideas of the development of land use in their area are consistent with the decisions of a quango? Therefore I strongly urge the House to support Amendment No. 30 as being one way of ensuring a degree of local democracy and, at the same time, giving new and added authority to the body now being set up.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I also support the amendment for reasons which have already been given. However, I ask the House to bear in mind that nothing will happen for five years. A somewhat elaborate and costly exercise which ought to take place will take place. We have already been given examples of SSSIs which are obsolete or which may have been inadvertently destroyed or damaged by climatic change. I am aware of one specific area where a two-year drought in effect destroyed vegetation which was the reason for the SSSI designation. In those circumstances, bearing in mind that the land is meanwhile sterilised, why should the owner and occupier wait for five years before something is done?
  Therefore, I support the amendment and hope that it will be added to the Bill. However, I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if it is included in the Bill and goes to another place, he should also consider giving leave to the owner or occupier to apply to the SNH for a review of the specific SSSI designation that has become obsolete. The SNH should be informed that the designation interferes with legitimate alternate land use and be asked to decide whether or not the area should continue to be so designated. If SNH persists, it may be reasonable for the owner or occupier to be given the opportunity illustrated in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the new clause, of having the matter raised and being sent to the Secretary of State.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did I understand him to say that the SSSI designation was absolute? I wish it were so. We are constantly asking that the SSSI designation be absolute. In fact it is not. It is constantly being overturned by developers throughout the country. Therefore to say it is an absolute designation is incorrect.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has asked about that matter perhaps I may say that I feel

  181
  bound to agree with her. Where sometimes there has been an inadvertent interference with the land containing the SSSI, alas, the damage has been done and it may not be possible to put the clock back.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a previous occasion I said that I was sorry that we had not progressed further on the possibility of allowing appeal by people against designation. It is important that the Government continue to consider the matter and find a way, whether a statutory or informal form of appeal, to enable people to question the designation of their specific area.
  We have had many examples to show why that is true. The amendment worries me. I understand perfectly why it has been moved. It is possible to have a review within five years of all the existing designations in Scotland. I do not know what it would cost because there are many hundreds of them. I hope that my noble friend can supply that information. The review would have to consider every single one and even those about which everybody is perfectly happy. It seems an idiotic measure to impose through legislation a review of that kind.
  It is possible to publish a report. But what will happen if a local authority or an owner or occupier objects and Scottish Natural Heritage continues with its view? The whole panoply of a public inquiry is opened up. Alternatively, a person has access to the Secretary of State. I expect that public inquiry will be chosen more often than the alternative. That will be enormously expensive, cumbersome and time-wasting. A very odd way around the situation has been proposed because we have not progressed any further with a system of appeals. The small farmer struggling to make a living who finds himself frustrated by designation should have a right of appeal. That is common justice. There should be a comeback.
  I applaud my noble friends and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for not giving in on this issue. They are quite right to pursue it. This amendment is not the answer. I hope that we shall not add it to the Bill. The provision will not work for a number of reasons which have already been given. The measure would be very time-wasting and expensive. I hope that my noble friend can say that he sees a way forward for people to have some comeback against Scottish Natural Heritage.
  The reason for the change is a sad story. We have the new body because the old one was by no means always sensitive to the particular needs of Scotland. I am opposed to the proposed procedure and I cannot support the amendment.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I misheard the noble Baroness. I think she said that the plaintiff, as it were, would probably opt for a local inquiry. The decision as to whether a local inquiry should be held is for the Secretary of State.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as the argument continues I find myself becoming more and
  182
  more perplexed. I have discussed the issue with a number of noble Lords outside the Chamber. They are aware that it is rather a cumbersome amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that if it is accepted it will lead to considerable problems. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, gave the example of a small farmer who might fight a case of this kind and who might require lengthy legal advice. He spoke in terms of £5,000 in costs. The amendment is meant for the person who can afford to go to a QC to put his case for him.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, that is a perfectly fair point but two blacks do not make a white. The case I gave related to the island of Stroma and was one in which considerable legal costs were involved. It took five years to reach a decision. I would like to see decisions made much more quickly, as they should be if there were a proper appeals system. What the noble Lord explained has been taking place already.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the reason why I said that I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was that the small farmer and landowner would be disadvantaged. There are probably not many farmers who can cope with a local inquiry. Subsection (4) (b) of the new clause states:
  "The Secretary of State shall afford any person or any representative of SNH, the owners or occupiers of the land and the local planning authority an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose".
  Obviously that is going to be a long drawn-out problem. The Minister has already been asked whether he can give some idea of how many outstanding cases there are. In four instances the sites concerned have already become SSSIs. Has the Minister any idea of the resources necessary to fulfil the task? It has been mentioned in a number of contributions that even the people affected did not know why an SSSI had been designated.
  The amendment would result in a bureaucratic nightmare. I have been reading the handbook. If it is still going to be used—it was certainly used in the old cases—that seems highly unsatisfactory. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the handbook from which I read covers SSSIs which have already been designated. Under this amendment we are looking at those made under the handbook.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will spare us his brief and simply accept the amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a kind suggestion. Unfortunately, I have a greater responsibility. I should like to examine the amendment, point out its flaws, explain why the Government are in their present position and then request my noble Friend, Lord Pearson of Rannoch to withdraw it.
  The amendment contains two distinctive elements. First, subsections (1) and (2) would place a formal statutory duty on SNH to review all sites of special scientific interest which are designated at an appointed

  183
  date and to publish the results of its review. Secondly, subsections (3), (4) and (5) seek to institute a right of appeal for all such SSSIs to the Secretary of State through the establishment of a hearing procedure. Many of the provisions in both parts of the amendment are, I am afraid, flawed and I suspect impractical.
  The Government are not against the reviewing of sites of special scientific interest. Indeed, that has been the practice of NCC over the past nine years, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. In the past decade, NCC has had to reconsider all sites notified under the 1949 Act in the light of the provisions set out in Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It has therefore reviewed all sites and decided whether a site should be notified in its original or amended form, both in terms of the area covered, and therefore the site boundaries, and the activities which would be permitted within the site if the scientific interest was to be maintained.
  This substantial renotification task is now almost complete. In Scotland, 97 per cent. of sites notified under the 1949 Act have been renotified. To undertake the review process all over again is in our view totally impractical. It is a misuse of the resources that we provide to the NCC and diverts staff effort from the more positive tasks. I also wonder how many owners and occupiers would welcome a reassessment.
  Subsection (1) is also impractical as it would require SNH staff to deliver the majority of its resources to the review of sites as the amendment as drafted suggests that a review has to be completed within five years. There are also a number of technical flaws to subsections (1) and (2). I shall not go into them in detail. I am sure that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun and my noble friend Lord Pearson accept that their drafting is far from perfect.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the appeals procedure set out in subsections (3), (4) and (5). We have had two previous debates on the principles and practice of an appeals procedure. The proposal for a right of appeal, for example, appears to misunderstand the statutory procedures laid down in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those are fundamental to the way that the system operates. I shall not repeat them as I have made this clear on previous occasions. Giving the Secretary of State the right to determine whether an SSSI should continue to be designated or revoked or amended, as subsection (5) suggests, would place him in an almost impossible situation.
  Your Lordships will appreciate that the Secretary of State is the planning Minister for Scotland and in that quasi-judicial capacity has the opportunity to determine planning applications, particularly on SSSIs where the NCC or SNH object to a development proposal. If in that situation the Secretary of State has already decided that the scientific interest of the site justifies that it should be notified as an SSSI, then he is fettering his discretion to make a decision on a planning application which would undermine or affect the scientific interest of the site. In effect, he is deciding before any planning application for any type of development is made that the nature conservation status is likely to outweigh a
  184
  development proposal. I therefore submit to noble Lords that the proposals for the role of the Secretary of State are fundamentally flawed.
  There are also considerable practical problems with the subsections (3), (4) and (5). The right of appeal procedures which are proposed in the amendment would be costly and would require a new level of bureaucracy to make judgments on a body which has been set up by Parliament with a specific statutory duty.
  I am surprised that nowhere does the amendment state on what basis representations might be made against the continuation of an SSSI. Your Lordships are well familiar with the fact that SSSIs are notified on the basis of the special scientific interest of an area. However, my understanding of subsections (3), (4) and (5) is that representations may be couched much more widely than scientific ones.
  Finally, I have both in Committee and on Report indicated the new procedures which the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland intend to operate from April of this year. Magnus Magnusson, the chairman designate of NCCS, has given a written assurance as to how he expects the new procedures to operate. As noble Lords know, I have circulated a copy of that letter and placed it in the Library. Nevertheless, perhaps noble Lords will bear with me while I quote some of the salient points which I believe to be relevant to the new style of operation of both NCCS and, in the future, Scottish Natural Heritage. In doing so, perhaps I may make the plea that we should not prejudge this new organisation. In his letter Mr. Magnusson places great stress on consultation with owners and occupiers. He says:
  "We will be looking at ways to improve and extend the informal consultations which our staff hold at present with potential SSSI clients. We recognise that the present procedures make unusual demands on the capabilities of individual staff members to undertake this often difficult and sensitive task and we shall be considering carefully what implications this might have for the organisational structure of SNH on the ground. We should also consider whether we can alter the present nomenclature of potentially damaging operations to something more user friendly and constructive such as operations requiring consultation. I take the view that it would be best for NCCS to see what it can achieve informally during the course of the next operational year and subsequently assess whether any formal adjustment should be made in the enabling legislation to facilitate improved consultation and operational procedures at the local level."
  The chairman designate goes on to indicate that the regional boards which are being established by NCCS will be the first level of decision-making. He continues to say that:
  "they are to be established in order to improve local accountability and sensitivity of administration on a whole range of environmental initiatives and casework issues including of course SSSI designation."
  I shall not quote more from Mr. Magnusson's letter because, of course, it is available to all noble Lords. However, I hope that I have made clear the fact that the review proposals in the amendments are inefficient, costly and technically flawed. Moreover, they would negate much of the work which has been undertaken by NCC in Scotland over the past decade.
  I hope that I have fully explained the Government's position. I understand what noble Lords have said. I must now ask my noble friend Lord Pearson of

  185
  Rannoch to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will understand that my hope for the future is very much shaped by what Mr. Magnusson says about the new organisation, Scottish Natural Heritage; namely, that it is there to work wholeheartedly with landowners and occupiers of land to preserve the heritage of Scotland.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I too have read the letter from Magnus Magnusson. I am afraid that I do not find it convincing. We are all prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt over the future of his new organisation, but what he says about the past is that any adjustment to past SSSIs might have a demoralising effect on the staff, and so on. He feels that criticism might be perceived as being overdone.
  I accept that all the subsections of the amendment may not be perfect; but I do not accept that it would necessarily be expensive to operate for the small farmer. Nevertheless, if we were to approve it, it would give your Lordships' House the chance to look at anything decided in another place on the amendment and indeed the whole area. From that point of view alone it must be worth testing the opinion of the House.
  9.31 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 33.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Boardman, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

  Brightman, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Burton, L.

  Renton, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Rochester, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Russell, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

  Dundee, E.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Strange, B.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Grey, E.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Grimond, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Vestey, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Woolton, E.

  Kimball, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ampthill, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Arran, E.

  Davidson, V.

  Astor, V.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Blatch, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Henley, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Long, V. [Teller.]

  Caithness, E.

  Nicol, B.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Parry, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Prior, L.

  186

  Reay, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Romney, E.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  9.38 p.m.
  Clause 17 [Rights of entry and inspection]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 31:
  Leave out Clause 17.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Rights of entry and inspection]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 32:
  Leave out Clause 21.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 33:
  After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
  Rights of entry and inspection under Parts II and III
  (" .—(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by a river purification authority, a water authority or a water development board may at any reasonable time enter upon any land for the purpose of—

  (a) exercising any power or performing any duty conferred or imposed on the authority or board or that person by virtue of Part II or III of this Act;

  (b) determining whether circumstances exist which require the exercise of such a power or performance of such a duty and, if so, in what manner such power or duty should be exercised or performed;

  (c) determining whether any provision of either of these Parts of this Act or of an instrument made by virtue of one of these Parts is being complied with; or

  (d) carrying out such inspections, measurements and tests on the land or of any articles, including water, on it and taking away such samples of the land or such articles as he considers appropriate for such inspections, measurements or tests.

  (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, if the sheriff is satisfied that there is a reasonable ground for entry upon any land which a person is entitled to enter in pursuance of subsection (1) above and—

  (a) that admission to that land has been refused;

  (b) that such refusal is apprehended;

  (c) that entry upon the land was sought in an emergency;

  (d) that the land is unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent; or

  (e) that an application for admission to the land would defeat the object of the entry,

  then the sheriff may grant a warrant authorising that person to enter the land, if necessary using such force as is reasonable in all the circumstances.
  (3) Without prejudice to subsection (6) below, in any case to which paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above applies the sheriff shall not grant a warrant unless he is satisfied that a notice of the intended entry has been served on the occupier of the land not less than seven days before the demand for entry was made.
  (4) A warrant issued in pursuance of this section shall continue in force until the purpose for which the entry is required has been satisfied.
  (5) A person authorised to enter upon any land in pursuance of this section—

  (a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before he enters upon the land; and

  (b) may take with him on to the land such other persons and such equipment as may be necessary.

  (6) Admission to any land used for residential purposes and admission with heavy equipment to any other land shall not, except—

  (a) in an emergency;

  (b) in a case where land is unoccupied; or

  187

  (c) in a case where to serve notice of intended entry would defeat the object of the entry,

  be demanded as of right in pursuance of subsection (1) above unless a notice of intended entry has been served on the occupier not less than seven days before the demand is made.
  (7) A person who, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by virtue of this section, enters upon any land which is unoccupied or from which the occupier is temporarily absent shall leave the land as effectively secured against unautharised entry as he found it.
  (8) A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (9) It shall he the duty of the river purification authority to compensate any person who has sustained damage by reason of—

  (a) the exercise by a person authorised by the authority of any powers conferred on him by virtue of this section; or

  (b) the failure of a person so authorised to perform the duty imposed on him by subsection (7) above,

  except where the damage is attributable to the fault of the person who sustained it; and any dispute as to a person's
  188
  entitlement to compensation in pursuance of this subsection or as to the amount of the compensation shall be determined by arbitration.
  (10) Any reference in this section to an emergency is a reference to a case where a person requiring entry upon land has reasonable cause to believe that—

  (a) there is a reduction in the volume, or a deterioration in the quality, of water such as would be likely to endanger human life or health or adversely affect the viability of aquatic flora or fauna; and

  (b) immediate entry is necessary to verify the existence of these circumstances or to ascertain their cause or to effect a remedy.

  (11) In this section "land" includes a vessel.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Service of documents]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
  Page 18, line 5, leave out ("premises") and insert ("land").
  Page 18, line 7, leave out ("premises") and insert ("land").
  Page 18, line 9, leave out ("premises appear to be or are") and insert ("land appears to be or is").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Constitution and proceedings of Scottish Natural Heritage]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 20, line 17, at end insert ("shall consult such associations or bodies appearing to him to have significant expertise in management of, or knowledge about, the natural heritage of Scotland, and.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would give the opportunity for the quango to be a bit more democratic. Until now most quangos have been based on political patronage. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State consults widely with knowledgeable bodies before making appointments to the Scottish Natural Heritage. This should assist in identifying the best people for these important appointments and in winning public respect for the authority of the SNH; it would also improve relations between the SNH and key partner groups.
  A requirement for the Secretary of State to consult before making appointments to the board of the Countryside Commission for Scotland was contained in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. To omit such a requirement from the Bill appears to be a rather backward step, which I hope the Minister will refuse to take. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must resist the amendment for practical and technical reasons. The practical reason is that the formulation contained in the amendment is imprecise. There is an enormous range of bodies interested in the natural heritage of Scotland, and it would be impossible for the Secretary of State ever to decide where to draw the line in consulting them, or whether he had properly fulfilled the duty imposed on him under the amendment. I can also foresee that there could be a great deal of difficulty in deciding whether a particular body had "significant" expertise about the management of the natural heritage or "significant" knowledge of it.
  The technical objection is related to that uncertainty. The amendment would lay the Secretary of State open to the objection that he had not consulted every organisation or body which he ought, according to an objector, to have consulted. That situation could be used to challenge any appointment which the Secretary of State had made. The validity of those appointments would be brought into doubt as a result. That is an undesirable position.
  These considerations led us to decide not to include a similar provision in the Bill. I can, however, give the noble Lord an assurance that the Secretary of State will indeed consult bodies with an interest before he makes any appointments to SNH of fills any vacancies in the board of the body. In addition, he will also consider any nominations made to him direct. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, before the Minister sits down can he tell us whether these problems arose under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967? Were there objections about consultation then? We are simply asking that the same, or close to the same, provision be included in the Bill as is in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. It is seldom that an
  190
  amendment is accepted for practical reasons. Usually the Minister takes it away, but here there is no chance of bringing another amendment except in another place. However, it would be interesting if he was able to answer the rather obvious question as to how the consultation worked under the old Act, or whether it worked at all.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that I have not the faintest idea how it operated in 1967, but I feel that I have made a fairly logical defence of my own position and the noble Lord has not refuted what I have said. Perhaps one slight reason why the 1967 Act was different was that there was a much narrower range of interests under that particular Act, and therefore it was much easier to define the number of people to be consulted. The Scottish Natural Heritage, as we have seen, has an enormously wide variety of interests. In addition, since 1967 the number of people involved in the environment and the natural heritage has expanded enormously. I think that that is rather a good reason.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, if the Minister had told me that earlier I would have been delighted, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 22, line 41, after ("members") insert ("or employees").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides additional flexibility which may be of real value to Scottish Natural Heritage. The intention appears to be to have a small, powerful executive board, perhaps comprising as few as eight members and certainly not more than 12. As drafted, this clearly limits the number of committees which may operate at any one time.
  Given that there is a drive to secure much better community involvement and local accountability in the work of SNH than has existed with the Nature Conservancy Council, local committees—sometimes these may be subject based and may exist for relatively short periods—may become a commonplace modus operandi for SNH. That would be impossible if one member of each committee always had to be drawn from a pool of eight to 12 SNH board members. If an employee of SNH were able to be a member of such committees, greater flexibility would be achieved. The chairman would decide which committees employees could sit on and which committees had to include a board member. The amendment is intended to be helpful. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the committees appointed by SNH, particularly those set up as regional boards, will play a vital role in SNH's work, especially at local level. We believe it is essential that there should be at least one member of the board of SNH on each such committee to ensure uniformity of policy and approach, together with a mechanism for reporting to the main board.

  191
  It would be entirely possible under the amendment for the member of SNH to be replaced on those committees by an employee of SNH. While SNH's employees will play an important part in the development and implementation of its policies on the natural heritage, it will not be for employees to decide what those policies ought to be. That being so, it would not be appropriate to allow a committee to be established the membership of which comprised one employee of SNH while the remainder were other varieties of non-members of SNH.
  There is of course—this will, I think, be helpful to the noble Lord—nothing in the provision as it stands in the Bill at present which would prevent an employee of SNH being appointed to a committee, as employees of SNH are all within the category of non-members of SNH. But that appointment would need to be in addition to the SNH member. In this case, I can give the noble Lord his cake and he can eat it.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister has not, of course, given me icing. As I said, the amendment is intended to be helpful. I believe that if there were too many committees and only eight members of SNH were represented on those committees, those members could be put under strain. I do not know whether the Government will take up this matter in another place. However, I must be grateful for the Minister's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 7 [Further provisions regarding drought orders]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
  Page 38, line 48, leave out ("21") and insert ("(Rights of entry and inspection under Parts II and III)").
  Page 39, line 6, leave out ("21(2)") and insert ("(Rights of entry and inspection under Parts II and III)(2)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Miscellaneous Amendments]:
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 47, line 5, at end insert:

  ("1965 c. 74.

  Superannuation Act 1965.

  In section 39(1), in paragraph 7 the words "The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Amendment (privilege) made.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
  The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill is designed to establish SNH by merging the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. This is an administrative change to provide the new body's basic aims and purposes, set down its general functions and responsibilities and update particular powers in the
  192
  present countryside legislation. It also ensures that the new agency continues to operate under all the relevant Great Britain nature conservation legislation, including Part VII of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  During the course of the passage of the Bill through this House we have considered its terms very carefully. As a result of our very useful debates amendments have been made. We have extended the balance in duty in Clause 3; clarified in Clause 4 the read-across from the 1990 Act; revised the powers of entry in Clause 6; and have given SNH the power to make access agreements and orders. We have also had illuminating debates regarding the Government's intentions, on the meaning of sustainability, on powers regarding red deer and on the operation of the SSSI system.
  Although the parts of the Bill dealing with water resources have perhaps attracted less attention, they are nevertheless of importance dealing as they do with subjects such as drought and the control of extractions for irrigation purposes. Various minor and technical amendments have been made to Parts II and III.
  I am confident that the Bill leaves the House in an improved state, albeit that the Government have sought to defend their position and the House has chosen not to accept that advice. However, this Bill now goes to another place and I am sure that when it returns it will be in an even better state. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to our discussions, and I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I had not realised that he had conceded as much in the Bill as he read out. I think that was the one part he read slowly. It has been an interesting Bill, but clearly there are parts where he is not going to get agreement in the House. I just wonder how the Government will handle some of the problems when dealing with the amendments we have made. We owe them a great deal concerning this Bill, partly due to the composition of your Lordships' House, and I hope that when the Bill goes to another place it will be as well discussed as it has been here.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, this Bill supports the reorganisation to be brought about by the Environmental Protection Act of the last Session. I am glad that the Government have introduced this Bill at the beginning of this Session and I hope that it will become law in the summer, no doubt after full debates in another place on local communities, red deer and other points which we have left to them to look at again.
  I concern myself with the parent Bill. I was a member of the Carver Committee which started work over a year ago. Our recommendations in that committee were accepted almost in toto by the Government. A suggestion of mine to change the name of the Scottish Development Department, which I advocated at least twice in speeches in this House, has now been accepted. Therefore, I feel that I must

  193
  take this opportunity of congratulating the Government and thanking them because earlier this month they announced that the Scottish Development Department will in future be called the Scottish Office Environment Department. That will help the public in that the department's main functions will be clearer and also that it carries out in Scotland what the Department of the Environment does in England, including housing and local government.
  The Environmental Protection Act and this Bill will lead to consultations and decisions taking place much nearer to the sites and areas concerned than in the past. I hope that this will promote confidence among those who reside in those areas who feel that their lives will be affected and that it will also lead to co-operation in preserving valuable habitats and natural treasures in our countryside.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank very warmly the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his unfailing help and courtesy throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank him for what he has conceded and commiserate with him for what has been wrung out of him in Divisions. I hope that amendments will be produced in another place to introduce an appeal mechanism against the notification of SSSIs.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for the extreme courtesy he has shown both on and off stage. I hope that we may look forward to further discussions on the Bill in future.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill
  9.55 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Caravans in England and Wales: standard community charges and non-domestic rates]:
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Caravans in Scotland: Standard Community Charges and non-domestic rates]:
  Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved an amendment:
  Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 45 and insert ("not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: The Bill is welcome as a whole. It excludes certain categories of caravan from liability to the standard community charge and makes them subject to rates.
  The Committee will recall that the standard charge was originally designed to be a levy on second homes. When passing through this Chamber the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the similar Act for England and Wales a year later we introduced the standard as well as the personal community charge.
  Most of us understood and supported the proposition that someone who was well enough off to have a second home should not be relieved altogether of any payment when domestic rates on houses disappeared. In the event, that standard community charge has become an immediate levy on empty residential premises. That is how most local authorities have interpreted the legislation.
  That led to extraordinary anomalies during the first year in Scotland before the system had started in England and Wales. Members of the Committee will remember that in this Chamber I drew attention to some of those anomalies at Question Time and in debates. The Government responded by issuing guidance to local authorities for the future which greatly improved the situation to the benefit of England and Wales because the guidance was issued before 1st April last year. However, it was too late for Scotland where the system had been introduced the previous year.
  The Bill is part of the same process. Clause 1 applies to England and Wales and Clause 2 entirely to Scotland. The Bill is of special importance to Scotland where the standard charge has been in operation for more than twice as long as it has in England and Wales. In Scotland we are nearing the end of our second year.
  Clause 2(3) gives the Secretary of State for Scotland wide discretion in making regulations to rationalise the valuation and rating of caravans, which are now once again to be rated. To underline the importance of the issue to the Scottish tourist industry and to dwellers in caravans in Scotland, my amendment would require the regulations to come before both Houses under the affirmative procedure rather than the negative. I do not suggest that we need make the change in the Bill. My purpose is to probe and to discover the Government's intentions regarding the regulations.
  In recent years the Committee will have heard me draw attention to the wide discrepancies in the rating of caravans north and south of the Scottish Border. Identical caravans on either side of that border, only a few metres apart, pay very different rate bills. The one in Scotland could be about twice as much as the other. There is now a great opportunity to remove those anomalies.
  Last week, I informed my noble friend Lady Blatch and her office that the purpose of my amendment was to obtain a statement on the Government's intentions. The Department of the Environment deals only with England. My noble friend Lady Blatch is in that department and also in charge of this Bill in this House. I hope that with the notice I have given she has been able to obtain any necessary information from the Scottish Office. As a result, can she assure us that in these regulations it is the intention of the Secretary

  195
  of State for Scotland to aim for harmonisation and parity with England and Wales? Will the Scottish Secretary when formulating his proposals have consultations with representatives of the leading organisations concerned? Any assurance she can give today will be valuable in maintaining confidence during the period of waiting before the regulations are formulated and published. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously, we on this side support the Bill. However, I should like to ask the Minister to give guidance to the Committee as to whether, were she to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, she would expect it to apply also to England.
  The first reason why we on this side would like an affirmative resolution for England is that we continue to have some unease about aspects of the Bill. As was suggested on Second Reading in this House and in the stages n another House, we suspect that there will continue to be problems on a site where there are caravans which are main residences generating poll tax, other touring caravans generating the non-business rate, and chalets which are second homes and which carry the standard community charge, all being of equal value on the same site. We have concerns in that respect, which is why with an affirmative resolution we might have an opportunity to review any subsequent anomalies which may emerge.
  The second reason why we would welcome an affirmative resolution for England, were the Minister to grant it for Scotland, is that we are concerned—this was an issue raised on Second Reading here and in another place—about the effect on local authority income, particularly in those district councils which have responsibility for seaside resorts or national parks.
  Of course, the Minister was quite right to say on Second Reading that that income was not taken into account when calculating spending assessments and the interaction with poll tax levies; in other words, it was a plus. However, what the Minister did not mention but which the DoE said on her behalf, was that the plus is to be considered by local authorities as offsetting some of the shortfall in collecting the poll tax. This is a problem not only in Scotland but also in England where, according to the Audit Commission, the collection rates are running perhaps one-third behind what we as local authorities would by now have collected in rates.
  Therefore especially for the seaside towns, that loss in income, which can no longer be set against falls in collection, will be a modest but real loss to some local authority budgets. The confusion between chattels and homes on the one hand and collection rates on the other is associated with a poll tax which is anomalous and deeply unfair.
  Therefore if the Minister is minded to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, perhaps she would indicate whether, for other reasons, but the same good cause, she will consider applying it also to England and Wales.
  Baroness Blatch: The powers sought under Clause 2(3) mirror those in Clause 1(7) and will be used to make any necessary minor technical adjustments to the rating regime applying to caravans. Given the use of the power, it would not seem appropriate to seek the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
  The power; which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will exercise to prescribe a revised level of derating for all caravans in Scotland is not the one contained in Clause 2(3) of the Bill. He will use his powers under Section 6 of the Local Government, (Scotland) Act 1975. Orders under Section 6 of the 1975 Act are subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and your Lordships will therefore have every opportunity to discuss any proposals to deal with the derating of caravans. Therefore, all the particular points made by my noble friend apply.
  The noble Baroness ranged much more widely than those two points. The matters she raised do not refer to this amendment. They are separate subjects in themselves. However, the affirmative resolution which is contained within the other Act will apply to all the areas of concern that have been mentioned.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly be consulting widely on a draft order giving effect to his proposal to increase the level of derating of caravans from its present level of 40 per cent. and to extend it to all caravans with retrospective effect from 1st April 1990. The intention behind increasing the level of derating applying to caravans is to compensate broadly for the difference between the average rateable values of caravans in England and in Scotland.
  I have written to the noble Lord to tell him that I have arranged for copies of the draft regulations that we propose to make under Clause 1(7) of the Bill to be placed in the Library where they will be available for the scrutiny of other noble Lords. I shall welcome any comments on the draft regulations. Officials of the Department of the Environment have also sent copies of the draft to representatives of the National Caravan Council and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association. We shall welcome any comments from them also.
  With those assurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify a point that she made in passing and on which I remain unclear. Did she say that the affirmative resolution principle will apply in this Bill to England and Wales despite Clause 1 of the Bill?
  Baroness Blatch: The affirmative resolution applies to derating matters for all caravans in England and Wales.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank my noble friend for her reply. I hope I made clear in my opening remarks that I did not intend to press this amendment and have it put into the Bill. It seems that my object has been achieved since I understand that the derating which is visualised about this operation will be carried out by

  197
  the Secretary of State for Scotland under another Act. Under that Act the regulations will have to come to both Houses under the affirmative procedure. My noble friend made it clear that there will be opportunities to talk about that very important subject when it comes to this Chamber.
  I listened for the assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland intended to make changes in derating and to extend the derating (as my noble friend described it) with a view to equalising with the situation in England and Wales. That is what mainly worried those concerned in Scotland; whether the regulations come under this Bill or under the Act to which my noble friend referred, they will be just as content that the assurance has been given, as I heard just now, that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend derating with a view to trying to harmonise and reach parity with the situation in England and Wales. With that I am glad to withdraw my amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: Before the amendment is withdrawn I ought to clarify something I said that might have confused the noble Baroness, for which I apologise. I am advised that the amendment applies to Clause 2, which relates to Scotland only. The regulations under Clause 1 which apply to England will be subject to negative resolution. We have already placed in the Library the technical regulations to be made under Clause 1 of the Bill. I hope the Committee will accept that it would not be appropriate to make those technical regulations subject to affirmative resolution.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Baroness for being in a position to amend her statement so quickly. In that case she will understand that we should like to reserve our position and perhaps return to it.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: This is a Committee stage and it seems that I have not quite completed the business. My noble friend sent me the draft of the regulations for England and Wales but naturally they did not in any way touch on the subjects which concern us in Scotland. I was interested to see them and I am sure that those interested in the subject in England and Wales will be glad that they are in the Library should they wish to look at them.
  The Scottish regulations, whether under this Bill or another Act, will deal with the subject that I have raised. Therefore those are the regulations which are of importance. They cannot yet be available in draft because my noble friend—again I am glad to say—has given an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to embark on discussions with the organisations with which he is already in touch. Unless any other noble Lord has a matter to raise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  The remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
  198
  On Question, That the Report be now received?
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was consulted earlier today as to whether the Committee and Report stages of the Bill could be taken today. I raise no objection although the matter did not appear on the Order Paper. However, I wish to reinforce the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Hollis. The Third Reading has yet to be heard and at that later stage we may decide to return to certain matters. Tonight we are dealing only with the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The Third Reading will be heard at a future date.
  Report received.

  Horses: Export for Slaughter
  10.12 p.m.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to maintain the present restrictions on the export of horses for slaughter and to reduce the long distance and cross-channel export of farm animals.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first apologise to noble Lords who put down their names to speak in the debate for the confusion that arose about whether it was to go ahead or be postponed. Apology is due especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, who has chosen this occasion on which to make her maiden speech. I apologise to her most sincerely for the unnecessary strain to which she was put, first in getting geared up to make her maiden speech, then being told that the debate was postponed, and then learning that it would take place after all. Such confusions arise from time to time but I assure the noble Baroness that I bear no responsibility for the situation. More than one noble Lord who put his name to the list of speakers will say that he has been cheated of the opportunity of taking part in the debate. Therefore, my apologies must also extend to them.
  I am in an abject mood because of the misunderstandings. I do not like the situation, especially when the Chief Whip feels distressed about what has happened and shows that so obviously. It has made me distressed too, but we must let it pass. Because of the hour and the matters to which I have referred I shall be brief in order to give other noble Lords and the Minister the maximum amount of time in which to deal with the subject.
  We know what the Question is about. Noble Lords taking part in the debate fully understand the issues concerned. They stem from the biggest decision of all; that is, the decision of this country to join the European Economic Community. I am reminded of what is the root of the matter when I see the stickers on my envelopes from day to day, which say, "Do not let Europe rule Britannia".
  That is not my starting point. I shall not turn my back on the Common Market because of such difficulties. We must overcome them. It is in an attempt to obtain a basis for overcoming the problems that I raise the matter this evening.
  We are dealing with horses in a special category. We are dealing too with other farm animals; but although important, they are not quite as distinctive in the complications of the situation. Over 30 years ago we erected a barrier to prevent people coming from the Continent to buy our horses, donkeys and ponies for shipment back to Europe for slaughter for meat. That transportation was stopped a long time ago. If the ideas of the Common Market for uniformity throughout the EC prevail it is possible that such special protection may be regarded as a restraint of trade that must be removed.
  However, trade must take second place to the welfare of animals. Frequently in debates Ministers have said, regarding, for example, poultry conditions prior to slaughter that the welfare of the birds must come first. I say that the welfare of the animals must come first. There cannot be trade in animals if that trade brings about conditions of hardship or cruelty that we find intolerable. In that respect we must have regard to what we are doing if we lift the barrier against the export of horses.
  Sheep and other animals are in a different category. Sheep are being shipped all over the world. The sheep, I believe, is now the most ill-treated animal in the world. Thousands travel from Australia and New Zealand to the Middle East. I have seen them being loaded on to ships by the tens of thousands; we also export a great many. There is a special need to protect animals in transit.
  One may ask why, given the high state of technology in refrigeration, there should be this movement of animals. We want to know from the Minister—I hope that she is fully informed—where we now stand in discussions with the EC on the future arrangements affecting our horses and the export of our other farm animals. After all, they cross the Channel, which is a more difficult journey than most other animals in Europe travelling overland undertake.
  I ask whether regulations are in existence. If so, who has seen them? Have they been approved? Where does Parliament come in to the review of the situation? Will protection come out as a directive or in the form of regulations? I have done my best to find out where the matter now stands. I am told that it is awaiting the Council of Ministers. Others say that it has not yet reached even that stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to say where we are; what attitude the Government are taking on matters arising from the subject; and what hope we have of an amicable settlement or compromise on the Question.
  I leave the matter there to enable noble Lords to make their own contributions to the debate. We await with great interest and understanding the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton.
  10.20 p.m.
  Baroness Wharton: My Lords, before I begin I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation to all noble Lords who have made me feel so welcome in this House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for once again raising the issue of live
  200
  horses being exported for slaughter after 1992, thereby giving me this opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House.
  Most of us in this country have a love of horses and would consider it abhorrent to think of them as part of our diet. But since I accept that that is not a universally-held view, I believe that we must retain the right to maintain our standards of animal welfare rather than have different standards imposed on us. Our own agriculture Minister has publicly stated the Government's commitment to arguing for the UK to retain the minimum values order, which has for the past 40 years successfully prevented the export of live horses.
  Horses—in fact, all food animals—should be spared the horrors of live export; the prolonged transport to distant abattoirs; the inadequacy of being fed and watered en route; and in some cases the less than humane dispatch meted out to them at journey's end in certain countries because of insufficient resources and manpower to supervise proper methods of slaughter.
  For such reasons I heartily endorse the plea of the RSPCA and the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation that the maximum journey time for live animals, including loading, should be no longer than eight hours. Were we able to secure that we could in practice stop most of the current export of live food from this country and thus end the misery the animals have to suffer at present. It is often argued that French and Italian housewives demand fresh, locally-killed meat. However, the facts do not support that assertion. The European Community imported approximately 750,000 live horses for slaughter in 1981, mostly from Eastern Europe. By 1989 that figure had dropped to approximately 140,000.
  Admittedly there has been a slight decline in the consumption of horse meat in Europe, but not that much. What has happened is that more and more carcasses have been imported, mostly from the USA. This trend towards a carcass trade in all forms of meat should be encouraged rather than discouraged. It is worth noting here that our own abattoir industry could benefit from the increased employment were we ever to find ourselves in a position where we cease exporting all live animals. I believe that farmers receive the same payment irrespective of the animals' final destination.
  It is heartening to know that under the Animal Health Act 1981 orders have been made which will come into force on 1st March this year laying down conditions for the welfare, comfort and safety of animals in transit, with special controls for horses. Even so, we in this country take a slightly different view of what is cruel and what is not cruel. I sometimes feel that greater care is taken in the transportation of fruit and vegetables since we, the consumers, would not consider buying the produce if it were bruised and battered. I wonder why animals destined for European dinner tables are treated so casually.
  For my own part, I should like to see some sort of veterinary inspection agency, with enough power to

  201
  enforce the regulations which ensure the welfare of our animals. After all, there was one petition recently appealing for the special protection which our horses already have under the minimum values order to continue after 1992. Some 250,000 people, including myself, signed it. That surely indicates the strength of feeling in the country.
  Over the weeks that I have been privileged to be part of this House I have spoken with many of your Lordships on this subject. Thankfully, we all agree that the horse deserves to retain the protection it now enjoys, at least for sufficient time to enable us to judge whether the new regulations for animal welfare in transit are being effectively enforced. Enforcement is the problem in Europe. Finally, may I thank your Lordships for listening to my views on what is for many of us an extremely emotive subject.
  10.25 p.m.
  Lord Kimball: My Lords, how fortunate the House is that the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, succeeded in taking her barony out of abeyance in her favour. It is a pleasure for the House to hear her. It is an even greater pleasure for us to have her in our midst. She spoke of the number of signatures on the petition. It was her charm and ability that succeeded in getting so many of your Lordships' signatures on that petition.
  It is always very difficult for someone coming into the House to choose the subject for a maiden speech. I am certain that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that the noble Baroness has chosen a moment to make her maiden speech which shows that she really believes in the subject. She has the subject at heart. I can imagine no better reason than that for making a maiden speech. We are all grateful to her for the way in which she has spoken to us.
  The noble Baroness has spoken with knowledge of and feeling for this subject. We all hope that this is the first of many such speeches she will make in this vein, which I know all noble Lords find so attractive. I hope that the demands of bringing up four children, of looking after her composer husband and of pursuing her career as a famous and much in demand portrait photographer will not reduce her attendance in the House. We all appreciate it.
  The whole House is rightly concerned about the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his Unstarred Question. In 1992 we lose the minimum value protection for the export of horses. We lose it because within the European Community there will be no exports. There is no problem over bloodstock. There will be no problem over the performance horse being exported because by 1992 one hopes and trusts that all performance horses will be registered. We shall know whether they are going abroad for show jumping, for showing or for some other purpose. There is not a problem about the knackers' trade. A horse which has broken his leg and has to be put down is sent to the knackers. The problem we are considering at the moment concerns the large number of horses in the middle.
  I am thinking in particular of the 16-hand horse which is worth about £500 if it is slaughtered for
  202
  human consumption. There is no reason why horses should not be humanely slaughtered and go for human consumption. The best protection any animal has is a good price at the end of its life. If it fetches a good price at the end of its life it means that it has been well handled and looked after. This is the category of horses with which the House is concerned tonight.
  Within the United Kingdom at the moment only three or perhaps four slaughterhouses meet the requirements of EC regulations for the slaughtering of horses for human consumption. Someone thinking of building a slaughterhouse to slaughter horses for human consumption must consider demand, throught-put and how many horses will come forward. We have no knowledge of what the extent of the trade may be. Farmers are asked how many horses they have on their farm. However, there are many breeders of horses. I refer in particular to the verderers of the New Forest and to people in the Welsh Hills, to whom I suspect my noble friend Lord Swansea will refer. They breed an enormous number of what I call scrub ponies which do not go for riding, for pleasure or for the bloodstock industry. It is commercially sensible to breed them for slaughter. The important point is that they should be slaughtered in this country.
  The horse world as a whole must dissociate itself from the campaign being run by the RSPCA. The RSPCA, as many noble Lords will know, has discredited itself by the pictures it has used in this campaign and by the way it is trying to involve the muscle of the horse lobby, which within the English constituency is fairly substantial, in the problems of sheep, pigs and cattle for export. The horse world would be very ill-advised to get involved in a general overall campaign.
  In my view, the horse world ought to concentrate upon one problem. Quite simply, the only safeguard you have for your horse when it goes to slaughter for human consumption—because you want to get the best price for it—is that it should only go abroad on the hook. I do not believe that there is any safeguard in transport regulations. For example, can you imagine a Frenchman abiding by such regulations? Can you imagine what a lorry driver would do with a horse suffering from a broken leg in the back of his truck? How would he know what to do with it? Further, can you imagine lorry drivers letting horses out of the vehicles in order to water them? It is not feasible. It must be stipulated quite firmly that any horse leaving this country must do so only on the hook. In those circumstances, everyone who breeds horses will have a clear conscience on the matter.
  There are one or two breeders of horses to whom it may be difficult to say, "You must send your horses for slaughter in this country." There are 40 different breed societies in this country today. The bulk of them —I dare say my noble friend Lord Soulsby will deal with this point—receive a grant from the Betting Levy Board in some form or another. We should say quite clearly that if your horse has a service from a stallion that is subsidised by the board, then, in exchange for that service—whether it is from the Hunters' Improvement Society or from any of the other breed

  203
  societies —you should undertake, in the event of your horse not becoming a performance horse, to send it for slaughter in this country. That will enable the slaughterers to have some idea of what the throughput will be and what the number of horses coming forward is likely to be.
  I conclude not only by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, for her contribution to the debate but also by adding that I believe all of us who love our horses only wish them to leave this country on the hook. Anything else is just not on.
  10.32 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for instigating this debate tonight. I have the greatest admiration for his energy and zest. He has a splendid fighting spirit which adds strength to any campaign that he undertakes. The noble Lord and I live in Marsham Street. When our local shops were knocked down, we protested. It is to be hoped that there will be some shops among the new buildings which are to be built under the new scheme. I do not always support all the noble Lord's campaigns. But on this one, which deals with the export of horses for slaughter and the cross-channel export of farm animals, I am an equal supporter.
  At this point I feel that I must declare an interest in that I have a stud of Highland ponies. I believe that it is the biggest Highland pony stud in the UK and Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has stayed with my family. She has visited the ponies. I even named one of them after her; he was a colt called "Trumps". He might have been a stallion but was wanted for riding for the disabled. He is now a very popular pony doing a very worthwhile job, giving pleasure and benefit to many disabled people.
  I believe that many people worked hard to achieve the present regulations for the protection of horses. It would be horrifying if we were to let them disappear in 1992. After last summer, when the French demonstrated by setting light to carriers containing living sheep, there is no doubt in my mind that all travel arrangements for animals need strengthening and policing. I also breed sheep. Of course, sheep may not be as intelligent as horses; but they still need to be treated humanely.
  I was brought up during the war. After the war, I visited a concentration camp in Germany. I feel a shudder every time I see a film about people being transported in cattle trucks to the camps. I get the same sick feeling when I think of the animals being transported across the Channel. They are hurded together, pushed, beaten and poked with sticks.
  I have exported ponies to France and Germany to be used as family ponies and for breeding. They have travelled under careful regulations. The last pony went to Germany in a splendid, padded, modernised box. At Christmas I received a card and photograph of the pony in her new, happy home. I shall be sending a copy of Hansard of this debate to Germany asking for their help through the European Parliament to protect horses.
  204
  I am uneasy about what goes on at some horse sales. Not long ago I visited one, and several groups of horses and ponies never appeared in the ring. They just disappeared. I had a feeling that they were going for meat without having a chance of being bought in the ring. It seems almost as though there is an underground movement.
  Donkeys can be very abused. I bought a donkey and foal at a sale after bidding against the roughest dealers I have ever seen. When I got the animals home, I found that the donkey had a stake through her hoof, a huge infected sore on her buttocks and was covered in lice. She had arrived in a lot from Ireland. Britain and Ireland are said to be horse-loving nations. Among their populations there are many cruel and callous people who are interested only in what can be made out of the poor, unfortunate animals. We need throughout Europe to have more than minimum standards. We need a foolproof system to ensure that those standards are observed. We must also remember that barriers between countries are to come down. That will make inspections much more difficult.
  As a breeder, when I sell ponies I have to be careful about where they go in case they fall into bad hands. However careful one is, one cannot be sure what will happen when animals change hands.
  It is splendid that we have had a maiden speaker today. That adds importance to the debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and I look forward to tackling this problem with her. This may be only the beginning of a long, hard slog. All of us here tonight are aware of how strongly people feel about what might happen in 1992 unless something is done.
  I had my back broken while riding in a point-to-point. Some people might think that I had had enough of horses. No, that was an accident. Accidents happen in all sorts of ways. I still love most animals. The horse is an intelligent and sensitive animal. It seems to sense what is going on. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will remember when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sold and dispersed the Highland ponies from its stud in Inverness; he spoke about that matter in your Lordships' House. I bought one of the stallions, an intelligent pony with a great spirit. There is no doubt that he had been mistreated in Scotland by the men who may have been frightened of him. He never forgot. Whenever a strange man appeared, he would show fear. Horses form an historic part of our heritage.
  Recently I had a meeting with the right honourable Sir Leon Brittan, one of the European Commissioners. I urged him to help in this matter. The problem seems to be that the man responsible for dealing with the transportation of animals to Europe is an Irish Commissioner. He just might be a Pontius Pilate, and find it easier to wash his hands of any responsibility which might complicate European free trade.
  Last year, I asked a supplementary question to a Starred Question in your Lordships' House. It was answered by the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and

  205
  Kinghorne. I asked whether it would not be better and more humane if horses which went for meat to Europe went as carcasses. The noble Earl gave what I call a rather Pontius Pilate answer. He said that the Europeans preferred fresh meat. But his conscience, or somebody told him otherwise and afterwards he wrote a letter to me. He was not happy; I think several Ministers are not happy.
  We cannot simply give way over this, we must stand up for what is just and humane. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has had a great amount of pleasure out of horses. Could she meet the Irish Commissioner and tell him what every animal-loving person wants? We do not want horses and other animals to suffer; the noble Baroness is not one to be overridden.
  The British Government represent the British people. I hope that they will clearly make known to Europe the wish of the majority of our population. I hope that the noble Baroness will have a satisfactory and clear answer for us tonight.
  10.40 p.m.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, on her maiden speech. Her perceptive analysis of the situation of horses and the welfare of animals during transport has assisted us considerably. As she said, this is an emotive issue and all have seen, read or heard of the horrific situations both in this country and overseas in the transport of animals. I wish to refer tonight not only to horses but also to other animals.
  As a horse doctor—which is what people would have called me many years ago—I believe that two issues come up when one is concerned about the transport of animals. The first is the gross offence to human sensibility that animals should be treated in this way. I believe that the way a nation treats its animals is a mark of the civilisation of that nation.
  The second issue is to make an objective assessment of animal welfare in transport. Important scientific data are now beginning to emerge and all indications are that the transport of animals considerably affects their physiology and welfare. Welfare might be defined as the attempts by which an animal copes with its environment. There are a number of measures of that: the ability to survive; the health; the growth; the reproductive physiology, and the behaviour of the animal.
  Stress is where the animal makes an abnormal effort physiologically to cope with its environment. It may do this in a variety of ways, some of which can be measured chemically by taking blood or saliva samples and others by observing the behaviour of the animal. We now know that all animals are affected in one way or another during transport; so much so that in regard to the animals to which my noble friend Lord Kimball referred—thoroughbreds and performance horses—guidelines are produced by the veterinary committee of the International Equestrian Federation for the transport of these first-class passengers. They are treated to food and water every
  206
  six to eight hours and arrive at their destination ready to work in the sense that they are performance animals.
  However, this evening we are concerned not with the first-class Concorde passenger animals but with the more lowly horses that are sent for slaughter. At present they are adequately attended to and transport is controlled under the Animal Health Act 1981 where the minimum value system operates. The danger is that the European Commission will abolish that.
  I must say that I am attracted to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that those breed societies that have a subsidy provided to them through, for example, the Horse Race Betting Levy Board, might provide some sort of covenant that their animals will not be subject to export for meat purposes. That might well be explored further.
  Unfortunately, all the evidence that we have from the Commissioner for Agriculture in Brussels is that he is not too helpful in his consideration of the minimal value system at present operating in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, some amendments are being proposed to the directives. But the whole issue must be based on the scientific evidence of the effect of transport across a wide range of species which are transported both in this country and elsewhere, the ages of the animals concerned, and the rearing that these animals have had prior to their transport.
  There are a number of examples which give an idea of the issues that we must note. For example, acclimatisation prior to transport greatly reduces the stress of transport itself. Probably that is why performance horses of all kinds can stand up to transport more effectively than animals that are transported for the first time.
  There is also the social grouping of animals. Animals develop a hierarchical structure and if transported in that single hierarchical structure they are better enabled to withstand transport than if hierarchical groups are mixed, because when the mixing takes place aggression naturally develops as the hierarchical groups sort themselves out to discover a new top animal. It is the animals in the lower scale of the social structure that suffer most. Similarly, animals reared in isolation are under great stress in sorting out their hierarchical structure when put together in groups.
  A very critical time for animals under transport is that of loading and unloading. The physical exertion of loading, the noise, the physical contact with humans, and often at times the physical damage, are great stress factors. There is an opportunity there for the physical improvement of transport, trucks, lorries, and other means of transport in order to minimise this very stressful period of loading and unloading.
  Then, of course, there is the stress that we have heard about caused by lack of food and water, lack of ventilation, and so on. Animals undergo great physiological stresses which can be measured. Nevertheless, it is important to assess it in relationship to what we believe on a subjective basis. For example, contrary to what one might think, young calves aged one to three weeks suffer less from transport than

  207
  those aged from three to four months. The calves that suffer most during transport are those of six months of age or more. Much of this is related to animal behaviour and the social structure.
  There is also an economic effect of poor welfare. It has been shown with poultry, calves and sheep that poor transport associated with poor welfare ends up in a poorer value of carcass or animal at the other end of the line. Livestock owners and rearers of livestock should be made aware of the fact that the more they look after the welfare of their animals while they are in transit, the better it will be for their own pockets.
  Much of the evidence on the effects of transport on animal welfare has been summarised by the British Veterinary Association and the British Equine Veterinary Association. They have made firm recommendations on these issues in Brussels and elsewhere. Those recommendations are based on the scientific evidence which accords with the general theme —this is certainly true of horses—that it is far better to export meat on the hook than in living form. Those bodies have also produced well thought-out guidelines which make strong recommendations.
  Let us hope that new legislation, if that be needed in this country—and we cannot convince the Commission to stay with the concept of minimum value—is based on the sound evidence of scientific facts as they are uncovered. I hope the Minister will ensure that legislation so enacted will take account of the increasing amount of excellent scientific information that is being uncovered, especially in the United Kingdom. I suggest that some of the work currently being carried out in this country on animal welfare in transport is the best in Europe. That work must surely be a strong guide to the way that we should transport animals in the future.
  10.52 p.m.
  Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, we are indeed most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for introducing this subject yet again in your Lordships' House. That move reflects the growing concern that is felt throughout the country over the export of live horses for slaughter. That concern has been amply demonstrated both in your Lordships' House and in another place by no fewer than 25 Questions and two Early Day Motions that have been tabled during the past year alone.
  Generally the Government's response has been sympathetic and it is clear that pressure is being brought on our EC partners to introduce more practical regulations to safeguard the welfare of horses. Sadly, it has to be said that not all our partners share the same concern about the treatment of our animals.
  In general, I shall confine my remarks to equines. I shall not cloud the issue by referring to other animals. Already a great deal has been said about minimum values. But surely the bottom line is that people in this country do not want to allow our horses and ponies to be exported for slaughter. The minimum value regulations were never intended as anything more than a means to that end.
  208
  I wish to comment on one word only in the Question before us and that is "export". It is worth reminding noble Lords that after 1992 there will be no export trade because we shall all be in the same market. We have always thought of ourselves as great exporters of horses and ponies for breeding and racing, but the word "export" will no longer exist.
  So, where do we stand? We are a country with some 50,000 horses and more than 100,000 people connected with horses, many of whom are dependent on horses for their livelihoods. Those people will see horses transported by greedy and uncaring entrepreneurs and continental butchers. They know there is financial gain in the export of live horses to the Continent where they can be slaughtered for human consumption on demand. Profit can be made from using hides, offal and horn to manufacture other items such as glue and fertilisers. We would consider such practices unacceptable in this country. They are carried out purely for profit and greed.
  The draft EC regulations tell us that frontier checks will take place only at external frontiers of the Community, with a new system of control added to replace the internal frontier checks. The draft regulations provide for staging posts and veterinary inspections. It is all very fine for the legislators at Brussels to say this and that will happen, but it is very easy to see real loopholes. I shall try briefly to draw attention to some of them.
  The EC regulations say that an animal, irrespective of type and breed, shall not be left for more than 24 hours without being watered or fed. Our present United Kingdom regulations provide for food and water every 12 hours, and it is well known that different types of animal suffer from stress to different degrees, as so aptly described by the noble Baroness in her excellent speech.
  Some of us may have seen the recent QED television documentary on flying horses, which showed the airlift of horses from this country to Australia by the long route through Canada. One could not but be impressed by the expert handling of the horses and the precautions taken by the veterinary surgeon on board, but one had little difficulty in realising the stress on those horses, in particular the young horse that tried to escape in flight somewhere over the North Pole. It had all become too much for him, and he tried to get out. There was also the bureaucratic delay in not allowing the relief crew on board, and the delay in landing at Sydney—all the sort of things that happen on the ground.
  One has only to reflect on the additional suffering of the horses in question if those animals had been couped up in large trucks without partitions, trundled across Europe at high speed destined for a slaughterhouse in France or Italy, some journeys lasting nearly two days, or probably much longer with delays caused by strikes, the weather and transport breakdowns.
  I question the effectiveness of staging posts. One wonders how hey are to be co-ordinated to stop the spread of disease. I believe that there is a very real

  209
  threat of disease resulting from the transportation and staging of horses, and most farm animals. One wonders whether competition, demonstration and breeding animals will have to use those staging posts, and under what conditions.
  Animal transport is an extremely expensive form of transport. The EC regulations will provide that such vehicles are marked with a symbol indicating the presence of live animals, but will they provide the appropriate type of transport for the particular type of animal being carried, and ensure that the accepted stocking densities as laid down in the EC regulations are not exceeded?
  Theft of horses and ponies is a regular occurrence, and often one sees in agricultural markets throughout the country old and tired horses being sold when their owners either have no further use for them or are unable to afford to keep them. I recently bought a horse out of a knacker's yard in Liverpool, and he is a fine animal. Increasingly the market is beginning to appreciate that there are more horses available for slaughter. These animals go for slaughter together with those specifically bred for the slaughter trade.
  Freeze-branding has done a great deal to reduce the theft of animals, but unfortunately we have too many horses in this country that are neither freeze-branded nor have papers. Many of the breed societies, in particular the Thoroughbred Breed Society, have excellent registration systems, but the time has arrived when all horses need to be registered nationally on a central system so that every horse and pony will have an internationally recognised set of papers. It is to be hoped that this will prevent the illegal movement and sale of horses. I am led to believe that the Government would welcome such a scheme provided that it is self-financing. I also understand that a great deal of work and money has already been put into computer hardware and software for such a scheme, but there is a reluctance to proceed further on the grounds of cost. That is understandable, but I would urge the Government to show leadership in helping the various societies come together to get a centralised registration certificate under way. I believe that that is an essential link in the welfare of our horse population for the future and I hope that the Government will respond to that point.
  Frankly, I do not have much confidence in the new Community regulations. We know from such organisations as the RSPCA and the International League for the Protection of Horses and their inspectors in Europe that the existing regulations are frequently flouted. With the removal of frontier and border checks after 1993 abuses will be easier and detection much more difficult. What value are the regulations without proper policing and enforcement to ensure their effectiveness?
  I believe that we should continue to press our EC partners for horses for slaughter to be slaughtered in the country of origin and only sent to other countries either frozen or chilled. It is essential that there are proper safeguards. That will also save a great deal of trouble, money and policing of the regulations. We
  210
  also need realistically to safeguard the welfare of our animals while they are being transported, as the EC draft regulation sets out to do. We need to influence our EC partners regarding maximum journey times, the effectiveness of staging posts, stocking densities and an approval system for vehicles for the transport of livestock.
  The loss of protection for our horses, which has been so effective in recent years, would be a retrograde step. In particular, as drafted in the EC regulations the rules governing travel times and the period between watering and feeding are clearly unsatisfactory. There remain doubts about whether there will be effective prevention of the free movement of stolen horses and effective policing of the welfare of horses in transport for slaughter under the proposed EC regulations.
  The threat of importation of disease to Community-based horses resulting from the transport of horses for slaughter between EC countries and from countries outside the EC is very real. It could affect not only the well-being of horses at risk but also the very livelihood of all those associated with the valuable and important horse-based industry.
  I very much hope that some of our partners within the EC, especially the Germans and the Irish, will show willing in trying to help us find a humane solution to this emotive issue against a background of growing concern.
  11.2 p.m.
  Lord Swansea: My Lords, it is late and I shall try to be brief.
  First, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, on her excellent maiden speech. As earlier this evening she was nearly frustrated and denied the opportunity to give it, she must be feeling very relieved that it is now over. We all look forward to hearing her speak again.
  I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said. For generations we have regarded ourselves as a caring nation and have led the way in promoting animal welfare. Some of your Lordships may have seen a print dating from the beginning of the last century which shows someone who is obviously a gentleman leading with a straight left and knocking down a carter who has been ill-treating and over-loading his horse. It reflects the tradition that we like to think that we have in this country. For hundreds of years the horse has had a very special place in our affections. It is a noble animal which was described by Kipling as one of man's first friends.
  Some years ago I bred Welsh mountain ponies on a small scale. I remember how much I was impressed by them as a breed. They are very affectionate and intelligent and have a temperament which is ideally suited to a child's first pony. When the mares foaled one hoped that the foal would be a filly. If it was a colt and, as generally happened, not worth breeding from, it was gelded and frequently it was sold. I have often been saddened by the sight of unwanted foals at sales being taken off to an unknown destination. As my

  211
  noble friend Lord Kimball said, there may be some Welsh farmers who make a business out of breeding ponies for sale for meat.
  There was evidence that many of those foals were going overseas for slaughter so the breed society imposed a minimum value rule to reduce the trade. That rule, or something very like it, was later incorporated in the Animal Health Act 1981.
  Much of the public objections to the slaughter of horses arises from sentiment. Many people just cannot bear the thought of dear old Pickles being turned into dog meat, still less the thought that some people would have such depraved tastes that they actually liked horse meat. Yet the fact remains that there are such people. The objectors can console themselves with the reflection that there is no accounting for the tastes of foreigners. We must acknowledge the tastes of other people much as we may feel they are repugnant to us. The main point at issue is to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals being exported.
  There is a body called Compassion in World Farming which has been diligently pursuing the question of cruelty to farm animals, and in this context farm animals include horses. It has compiled horrifying accounts of the conditions under which horses have to travel on their way to abattoirs abroad. It has been collecting signatures to a petition which has now reached the splendid total of 960,000, and it hopes before long to make it a million. Some of your Lordships may have seen these accounts. For those of us who still have any hair, those accounts may well make it stand on end. They paint a picture of animals having to endure hours of crowded travelling without room to move, often falling, being trampled under foot and having legs broken. In hot weather they have to spend hours without food and water, and many arrive at their journey's end barely able to stand. Some die on the way: they are the lucky ones.
  What can be done to eliminate suffering? Assuming it is necessary in the first place for this trade to continue, the most desirable course would be to slaughter the animals in this country under controlled conditions in our abattoirs and transport the carcases oversees. Surely, the sheer economics of this method should be enough, instead of transporting frightened and crowded animals on the hoof. Although transport by refrigerated ship would at first sight probably look more expensive, such a ship would be able to carry more carcases and the final cost would be much the same.
  When my noble friend comes to reply to the debate, I hope she will be able to assure your Lordships that the Government are alive to the deeply-felt opinions which have been expressed. We must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for his persistence in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. If, as some of us fear, the Government do not intend to take any action, we no longer have the right to call ourselves a nation of animal lovers.
  11.8 p.m.
  Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I join in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having raised this important and urgent topic. Of one thing
  212
  there is no doubt. Every noble Lady and noble Lord who has spoken is very much better informed about the subject than I am. It was a great pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, make so valuable a contribution. We look forward to hearing her further contributions in this place so as appropriately to raise the standard of debate upon whatever topic we may be discussing.
  The noble Lord's motion covers not only horses but other farm livestock. It is true to say, I believe, that lengthy journeys by livestock of any sort are not only arduous but in many cases downright cruel. It is repugnant to any right thinking person.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, horses are intelligent and sensitive creatures. I am no expert but I am told that they develop a tremendous sense of trust in their owners. Therefore, distressing though the circumstances of a long journey may be to any form of livestock, it is more particularly distressing to horses which are so sensitive.
  Quite apart from the mental stress, there is the physical damage that they can sustain. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, was referring to an exceptionally horrific video which showed the condition of horses after they had endured a long journey. It showed them being unloaded and the way in which they were treated and slaughtered. I am very glad that I did not see the video. Apparently it was shown to a group of journalists. Although journalists, by the nature of the profession that they pursue, are hardened to unpleasant things and have to assimilate distasteful sights, quite a number of them had to leave the room during the showing. It was not just that they did not care to look at it. The scenes were so horrible that they had to go out and vomit. They were physically sick. That was the extent of it. Most of us are fortunate enough not to have had to endure anything so physically sickening.
  Therefore, contrary to some of the advice that I have received, I continue to believe that it is essential to exert every pressure to ensure that British minimum values are maintained when we enter the single European market next year. I am told that this is unacceptable to the European Parliament. But the European Parliament should be persuaded to change its mind. So far as I can see that is the only way that a proper safeguard can be provided.
  The fallback position is that each member state in the European Community should be entitled and authorised to designate the place of slaughter for its own equines. That would certainly be of help. But how are we to guard against people who export horses or ponies under the guise of sending them away to be ridden or for breeding purposes when in fact they go for slaughter? I cannot see any better means than the minimum values measure that in past years has prevented so much abuse.
  All livestock, whether horses or other animals, should only have to travel the minimum distance from the place where they have been reared or kept to the point of slaughter. I agree that eight hours is probably the maximum period that ought to be enforced. I tend

  213
  to agree that both the drivers and the vehicles which convey the animals should be certified as being fit for the purpose. Personnel and drivers should be competent and certified as being trained to look after the animals.
  I am not sure of the position in Great Britain. If I correctly understood the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, he said that there was no particular problem so far as concerned knackers. I hope that is right. Unfortunately, it is not the case where I come from in Northern Ireland. The certified renderers will not accept an injured animal as a result of the scare of BSE. Farmers and breeders are up against a real problem.
  While the means of disposal of fallen animals is a major problem, advertisements continue to appear in the press offering roughly £50 per animal. That compares with about £150 which one must pay to have a fallen animal disposed of in an authorised dump. From the point of view of the farmer, it is obviously more attractive to receive £50 and to have the animal taken away than to have to pay £150 to get rid of it. I am sure that for the most part horse owners would be more sensitive. But the problem exists.
  What happens to the fallen animals which are sold to those who advertise for them in the press? I am sorry to say that I suspect they find their way through illicit means to the Continent or elsewhere and are transported live. On the Continent there is a premium on horse meat which is labelled as being home killed. It is terrifying to think of an injured animal, perhaps with a broken leg, being transported live to the Continent. I understand that even in this country there are shady means of introducing unfit meat into the butcher's trade. "Super glue" is an expression that has been used to describe portions of meat which have been stuck together with blood plasma. It is not at all pleasant.
  Not only do we in Northern Ireland have the problem that the renderers will not take fallen animals. There is also the additional distance that must be travelled by live animals being exported. They must make either two sea journeys or a longer sea and road journey. All the arguments put forward by noble Lords about exporting animals from Great Britain apply even more strongly to those exported from the other side of the Irish channel.
  The Government should rigorously investigate whether there exist the illicit means of exporting animals I have suggested. They should bring maximum pressure to bear on the European Council of Agricultural Ministers to agree safeguards—the minimum values being the most watertight —so that past and present cruelties can never be repeated.
  11.19 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, on her maiden speech, and particularly for her good sense in sitting down inside five minutes. That will endear her to the House and enable her to speak for longer at her next offering which we eagerly await.
  214
  The Minister must assure the House that with regard to the export of horses, live or dead, the susceptibilities and the long-held traditions of this country will be respected by derogation, or simply by insistence on the part of our Government, to ensure that we do not experience the scenes described by other noble Lords in the debate. I am not familiar with the export of horses; but I know a little about the transport of sheep over long distances.
  I was the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and I fought and re-fought that seat for a long time. I bought sheep and lambs at the sales in Lairg and in Caithness. Indeed on one occasion I bought some sheep from the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. I am happy to inform him that they did very well. However, it was well over 200 miles from Caithness to my farm in Angus. Initially I had some unfortunate experiences.
  The sheep were collected from all over Sutherland —distances of 50 to 100 miles—in the morning or the day before and penned-up in Lairg. They were sold the next day and distributed all over Scotland and even down to England. They were under considerable stress in a double journey to the mart, being driven through the sale ring and back to their pens; the buyer—in my case myself—then had to find a contractor to transport them a further 200 miles.
  My experience was that it was not the length of the journey that was the problem; it was the capacity of the contractor. If he was a good man and understood how to load the sheep; how to pack them in not too loosely and not too tightly; and ensured that there was adequate ventilation—and some carriers had roofs which allowed ventilation in hot weather and cover in bad weather—he could deliver my sheep to my farm in good order sometimes within and sometimes a little beyond 12 hours. It depended on the capacity of the float, the skill of the driver and his desire to please the customer.
  The period suggested in the proposed regulations for Europe is 24 hours. There is no question but that that is too long. However, if the regulations insist on proper machinery, proper floats and inspectors to keep people up to the mark, then we can accept the NFU recommendations—a period of 12 hours with a derogation from that in special or emergency circumstances. That will be a great improvement on the present proposal and on many of the present appalling circumstances in which sheep are transported.
  We should examine a number of other regulations. Some are a little silly; for example, the putting of ramps onto pick-ups with which a farmer might collect a sick sheep from the field and transport it to the farm. A little commonsense is needed in that situation. But in the main, in regard to the animals with which I am familiar, we should insist that the rules are good as regards the equipment; that the timing, loading and arrival of the animals is subject to the regulations; and that the regulations are adhered to.
  11.25 p.m.
  Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we on this side of the House strongly support my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby in asking Her Majesty's Government this evening about steps being taken to maintain the present restrictions on the export from the United Kingdom of horses for slaughter. We should also like to express our appreciation for the maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton.
  We are especially anxious about the European Community proposals which will abolish British welfare regulations, including the minimum welfare clause in the Animal Health Act. We appreciate that Her Majesty's Government have been seeking to retain present legislation. We see no necessity for the live export of horses intended for slaughter. Can the Minister say whether the Commission's proposals are based on those articles of the Treaty of Rome which were amended by the Single European Act? If so, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with this legal basis? Does it provide for derogation by a member state on humanitarian grounds? Public opinion in Britain will be outraged if horses are sent live for slaughter in EC member states. The Community's image here will be badly affected especially if the justification for such a policy is the completion of the internal market.
  My noble friend Lord Houghton also asked for a reduction in the long distance and cross-channel export of live farm animals other than horses. I think it is necessary to set the British export trade into perspective. The Meat and Livestock Commission's 23rd annual report records that the value of United Kingdom meat exports in 1989 were £597 million, representing an increase over 1988 of 19 per cent. by value. One in every four tonnes of lamb and one in every six tonnes of beef went for export while 7 per cent. of our pork production also went overseas. In the case of beef and lamb, much of this trade consists of live animals. That is regrettable and we should seek to change it. But buyers at the present time require it because in some cases animals are bought for fattening and in other cases because they prefer their own methods of slaughtering and presentation. These markets are vital for British producers. The Meat and Livestock Commission is active in promoting exhibitions, trade missions and seminars not only in the European Community but in other markets. For the record it can be said that the Meat and Livestock Commission now has marketing offices in Paris, Frankfurt and Milan.
  The conditions under which live exports from Britain go abroad are of much concern as also are the conditions of slaughter in certain countries. Quite rightly, that has been touched on by several speakers this evening. We appreciate that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to ensure that the treatment of sheep and cattle in transit and at point of slaughter is no less favourable than it would be in Britain. Pressure is being applied by Britain for Community legislation in these areas as well as proper enforcement. Can the Minister say what progress has been made concerning the welfare of live sheep and
  216
  cattle for export? Can the noble Baroness also say whether such live exports after leaving Britain, (where regulations exist and are in force) are handled in transit by those engaged in this trade to the same standard as they are handled in transit at home?
  We quite rightly require that humane conditions are observed throughout the journey regardless of the length of time which that journey may take. For example, are firms in the trade vetted for their suitability to be in it? Are the drivers engaged in the trade trained not merely in driving but in handling animals? Can a disparate group of traders continuously maintain the standards that are required in transit? These aspects of the problem are not much discussed; yet, in our view, they are basic to solving the problems. I finish by asking the Minister to say whether she will consider as a practical step inviting the Meat and Livestock Commission to review the position concerning transport both now and in the post-1992 period.
  11.29 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has worked long and tirelessly on behalf of animals, whose cause has certainly been enhanced by having him as their champion. Indeed all speakers in today's interesting debate deserve credit for their concern for animal welfare. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, emphasised this concern by choosing this debate for her compassionate maiden speech. I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords. The proceedings have also reflected the strength of public feeling for animals to be properly protected, in law and also in practice. I shall deal first with the important question of horse exports for slaughter. This subject has touched the hearts of literally thousands, including my own.
  It may be helpful if I place the issue into context. The minimum value controls relating to export of horses from this country are laid down in the Animal Health Act 1981, yet they date back much further; from the last century for horses, while controls on ponies originated in 1969. The arrangements are actually rather complicated since they include export licensing, pre-export rest and veterinary inspection in various circumstances. But essentially the export of ponies and certain types of horse, including donkeys, is prohibited if their value is less than that laid down in the 1981 Act. The agriculture departments require a valuation from an approved valuer before such animals can be exported. The aim has been to make it uneconomic to buy horses and ponies in Britain and export them for slaughter. The system has stood the test of time in fulfilling the desired objective. I honestly think that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has no reason to suppose that an illicit trade is going on. If he has any information and proper evidence on this matter I hope he will send it to me.
  In the summer of 1989 the Commission tabled proposals for a Community regulation on the protection of animals during transport. Since the minimum values system is purely a national

  217
  arrangement it was inevitable that it would be called into question in the context of the completion of the single market by the end of 1992. I find it extraordinary that there are still many people outside this House who seem unaware of the Government's position. I am not sure why that should be so because we have consistently made our position clear. I must therefore reassure my noble friend Lord Swansea that we do not intend to allow an export trade in horses and ponies for slaughter to resume. I hope that I have made myself clear.
  The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, felt that the Government cared more for exports than welfare. That is not true. All animal transporters should know that we shall take whatever measures are necessary to deal with offenders. Matters are, however, complicat-ed when events occur outside the United Kingdom. That in a way answers a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. Pressure from the public—and from groups such as the International League for the Protection of Horses—on Ministers, Members of Parliament and of the European Parliament and the European Commission has been massive. The Government continue to receive hundreds of letters as well as petitions of varying sizes. The depth of feeling has therefore been abundantly demonstrated. We do not intend to disappoint all those people.
  At this point I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and to my noble friend Lord Kimball, who are playing a strong part in the co-ordination of the campaign. And celebrities in the horse world, such as Peter O'Sullevan, the incomparable race commentator, are keeping the issue in the public eye. We are on their side. I mention in passing that I was thrilled when the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, named her beautiful pony after me. I have to tell her that I cannot claim to be a stallion, but I was once a mayor.
  I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that, despite all the activity I have described, there has been little progress to report. Our case must be made during negotiations on the EC proposals on animal welfare during transport. There has, however, been only one Brussels meeting so far to discuss these proposals, and that was almost a year ago. So no one should expect an early solution. I am therefore unable to answer the noble Lord's point on the legality.
  The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether EC controls will be as regulation or as a directive. The proposals are in the form of regulation but final decisions rest with the Council of Ministers. Majority opinion appears to favour a directive and the United Kingdom could go along with this. That would need detailed implementing of legislation in this country but would not provide the latitude to adjust the controls as some people may imagine.
  When discussions resume we shall need allies. I therefore welcome efforts which are being directed towards opinion in other countries. I am playing my own part in ministerial contacts with member states, for the ultimate decisions lie with the Council of Ministers rather than the Commission. Nevertheless,
  218
  Commissioner MacSharry has said that when it comes to welfare all animals, whatever their value, must be given the necessary protection. We agree with those sentiments, but experience has shown that relatively low value equines, such as old working horses and moorland ponies, may not always be treated as carefully as more valuable animals.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, referred to the recent QED programme on BBC Television. I also saw the broadcast. Both he and I are aware of the lengths to which people will go to ensure that valuable horses reach a distant destination in good condition. Yet in that case, as the noble Viscount said—where racehorses were being flown to Australia—there were problems, despite the best laid plans. Not nearly so much care and attention will be lavished on the horse bound for the meat man.
  I agree with the noble Baroness on the question of enforcement, or lack of it, in other countries. Observance of the rules will be absolutely vital to their success. That is why we support the proposal for a Community inspectorate which can mount on-the-spot inspections and keep national authorities up to the mark. We also support the principle of journey limits for slaughter animals but this must be linked to their feeding and watering needs, rather than a catch-all eight-hour limit. Both the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the noble Baroness mentioned that point in their speeches.
  My noble friend Lord Kimball asked whether there should be more abattoirs for the slaughter of horses. Any licensed abattoir wishing to slaughter horses is able to do so on application to the appropriate enforcement authority. Provided that the specific requirements in legislation regarding horse slaughter are met, it is for individual abattoir operators to make a commercial decision about whether to slaughter horses. The small number of premises approved for the slaughter of horses would seem to indicate that many abattoir operators do not consider such slaughter to be commercially viable.
  My noble friend also mentioned the fact that there would not be a problem with the performance horse in the future because he hoped that, by the end of 1992, they would be registered. I very much agree with him about the importance of registration of these horses. I actually have an important meeting with concerned parties tomorrow afternoon on that matter.
  I have carefully avoided mention of our negotiating tactics and the precise methods of controlling trade which may be discussed in the Community. It is certainly difficult to envisage all other member states agreeing to a Community-wide system of minimum values—and it is of course the basic objective of the new regulation to bring in common standards which are uniformly enforced throughout the Community. Where special considerations apply to one or two member states however—such as the sea journey for our exports, and those of Ireland, to the Continent —it is only right that these should be recognised. At the same time we must not overlook the need for sensible, practical safeguards for all horse transport. For example, the Community measures must

  219
  acknowledge the special needs of horses for frequent access to water in particular. We also believe that the proposals are incorrect in saying that horses in all cases should be allowed to lie down in their horse boxes or other means of transport. In their case short tethers should be preferred.
  The debate has covered the long distance transport of all farm animals and especially the export trade. Our starting point here is rather different from that for horses. We permit the export of farm livestock for further fattening or slaughter but only after each animal has been rested, fed, watered and inspected for fitness to travel at one of the approved export lairages near the ports. Their loading is also officially supervised. To have introduced a general unilateral ban of food animal exports would undoubtedly have led to the United Kingdom Government appearing before the European Court. That is not our way.
  I was most interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Soulsby arising from his long experience and expertise. Farm livestock can be, and is, transported satisfactorily over long distances provided that proper welfare safeguards are followed. I am thinking here primarily, but not solely, about meeting the animals' feeding and watering needs. Those vary of course depending upon the type and category of animal and can be affected by factors such as temperature and ventilation. The Commission's proposals envisage that there should be different maximum intervals for resting, feeding and watering for different species and that those periods should become journey limits for slaughter animals. The Government agree with that approach rather than the introduction of a blanket limit for all animals destined for slaughter; but whatever the mandatory limitation, the arrangements must make practical sense; for example, in relation to animals destined for fattening or breeding. They must also be enforceable.
  In that connection we are encouraged by the proposal for a Community inspectorate to help ensure uniform application of all the rules and we shall encourage the Commission in that area. We do not want the authorities in other Community countries merely to pay lip service to the controls. Those must be observed by all.
  My noble friend Lord Soulsby mentioned the BVA recommendations. It has submitted its proposals to
  220
  the FAWC. Its contribution will be valuable in the veterinary context. I understand that on this occasion it may be re-evaluating some aspects of its advice.
  The Commission's transport proposals envisage establishing special rules, not just for resting, feeding and watering animals during journeys, but also for staging points, stocking densities and vehicle design and approval. The Government look forward to being guided in those areas by advice from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. The rules themselves will be drafted after the Commission has consulted its appointed experts. We shall therefore decide our detailed positions nearer the time; but we intend to make it clear that a maximum feeding and watering interval is just that. It must not be regarded as the norm, especially during hot, humid weather.
  I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, especially as we are not entirely satisfied that a simple set of stocking density figures should apply in all circumstances. We want to avoid the problems of overcrowding on livestock lorries. At the same time, account must be taken of variables such as the age and condition of the animals, expected temperatures and humidity, the length of the journey and the characteristics of the vehicle, including ventilation.
  I should like to finish by emphasising the Government's commitment to establishing high welfare standards throughout the Community. This remains a major priority for my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He announced an initiative last February to bring about tighter controls in the Community on many issues of welfare concern.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that I was not one to be overridden and suggested that I should go to see Commissioner MacSharry. I can assure her that when these matters come to be discussed in the Council of Ministers, the British Government's view will be put by my right honourable friend the Minister. He is not one to be overridden either.

  Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
  Read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at fifteen minutes before midnight.

  PRIME MINISTER'S PHOTOGRAPH: USE IN ADVERTISEMENT
  PRIME MINISTER'S PHOTOGRAPH: USE IN ADVERTISEMENT