Sitting of 24 January 1991

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

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 31 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Regional Food
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to encourage the production of regional food specialities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Grant aid has been available since March 1987 to encourage the formation of groups marketing speciality and regional foods.
    Mr. Thurnham: When my hon. Friend next meets the bureaucrats in Brussels will he tell them how pleased we were when our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened the national black pudding competition in Bolton? Will he tell them also that we wish to encourage such regional delicacies rather than have all our food homogenised?
    Mr. Curry: I shall certainly pass on that message. I happen to know that one can get extremely good black pudding in Brussels, with apple sauce, its preferred accompaniment. We certainly wish to promote our regional foods—they are just as good as anybody else's. We will be on the watch to ensure that recipe law in Brussels does not produce precisely the protectionism to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Hunter: Despite the desirability of regional food specialities, surely the problem lies not so much in production but in the absence of profitability—something which applies not only to regional foods? Surely that is the matter which should be addressed.
    Mr. Curry: I am not sure whether it is up to the Government to address the profitability of certain items. The Curry household purchases a considerable number of speciality foods and the Minister with responsibility for
    440
    the housekeeping money makes adequate provision for the speciality foods that his wife persists in buying—that is, a Frenchwoman buying English speciality foods.

    Industrial Fishing
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on industrial fishing; and what representations he has received on it.
    Mr. Curry: Industrial fishing is not acceptable if it endangers stocks. Human consumption fisheries must always take priority.
    Mr. Porter: I welcome my hon. Friend's condemnation of industrial fishing for the damage that it causes. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it is the Government's policy to support the whole United Kingdom fishing industry in whatever part it occurs, whether it involves inshore fishermen, deep-sea fishermen, merchantmen and so on? Will my hon. Friend make every effort that he can to continue to support that industry?
    Mr. Curry: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that we fought very hard to get a good deal in Brussels against proposals that were extremely dismal for the British industry. We got a particularly good swap for sole, which will benefit Lowestoft in which my hon. Friend takes a great interest. We are pushing for conservation measures at home if we do not get Communitywide agreement. Those two points are essential for the future of our industry.
    Dr. Godman: Speaking as one who would like a complete ban on industrial fishing, may I offer my compliments to Her Majesty's Government for the decision to close the Shetland sandeel fishery? What compensation is being offered to Shetland fishermen who are being denied access to that fishery and who have to find alternative forms of fishing?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that conservation measures are in the interests of fishermen above all. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has direct responsibility for that fishery. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish Office has acted promptly. We regard conservation very seriously indeed, which is why we are consulting our own industry on conservation measures at this moment.
    Mr. Salmond: Would not a clamp-down on industrial fishing on a European level be an infinitely preferable conservation measure to the eight-day tie-up which will risk the lives of fishermen at sea? Has the Minister seen the latest announcement on substantial aid to French fishermen in the current crisis? How can he justify the fact that every other European country is giving substantial aid to the fleet while he washes his hands of the fate of Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. Curry: First, it is false to suggest that if industrial fishing ceased we could abandon all other conservation measures. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said and it is ridiculous. Secondly, my responsibilities cover British fishermen and I work in the interests of all fishermen in the United Kingdom. I do not have the

    441
    narrow parochialism which the hon. Gentleman persistently demonstrates. Thirdly, the Government put a great deal of support behind the fishing industry. The volume of Government support is considerable in relation to the size of that industry.
    Mr. Morley: I add my congratulations to the Government on the action that they have taken in closing the Shetland industrial fisheries. It is an important conservation measure. But does the Minister accept that the eight-day tie-up is a restriction on fishermen who have used a wider mesh net, which is effective as a conservation measure? Why should those fishermen suffer from that blunt, ineffective and possibly downright dangerous measure? I understand—the Minister will perhaps confirm it—that the measure was suggested by our Government in Brussels.
    Mr. Curry: I refute what the hon. Gentleman just said. The measure was in the Commission proposals. It derives from the recommendation that fishing effort should be reduced by 30 per cent. The reason for the proposal is that an absolute tie-up delivers a reduction in fishing. We have to recognise that that is the objective. However, the Government recognise, and have always preferred, measures to restrict gear, as they are more effective and a better means of tackling conservation. We have submitted to Brussels an alternative which is under consideration now. If Brussels accepted our proposal to use larger mesh sizes as an alternative it would enable us not to apply the eight-day rule. It is important that we deliver the conservation. We cannot do so unless fishermen recognise that the object is a lower effort against the fishery.

    Equine Export
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect equines from live export after 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): There have been no recent EC meetings to discuss the Commission's proposals on the welfare of animals during transport. When discussions resume we shall continue to press for the retention of controls to prevent horse exports for slaughter.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that I am the chairman of a committee of representatives from organisations throughout Britain which work for the welfare of horses and representatives of controlling interests? The committee is determined to bring to the attention of other European countries the need to take account of the welfare of horses. Horses are not merely pieces of flesh. They are important to this country. What are the Government doing to persuade the other 11 EC countries to support his admirable approach? Without effective effort in that direction we shall get nowhere.
    Mr. Maclean: I am aware of the strong contribution that my hon. Friend makes to the cause of protecting horses. Of course, the Government are pressing, through every EC channel open to us, to retain the minimum value controls. I urge my hon. Friend, his committee and various other welfare organisations, who can perhaps move more
    442
    freely in Europe and do not use the diplomatic channels that we use, to redouble their already excellent efforts to bring home to people in other European countries that the minimum value system should be retained.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the matter causes concern in many areas—urban as much as rural areas? The anxiety is about not only horses but all animals. There is a feeling that if animals are to be killed, it is better that it happens before transport and that, if they are transported live, there should be stringent standards in force to ensure that there is no suffering.
    Mr. Maclean: The majority of animals are slaughtered and exported to other countries in carcass form. We want the toughest possible controls on the movement of any animals to any country in the EC. However, we regard horses as a special category because of their particular physiological characteristics. Horses must be protected. The minimum value rules do it. They disadvantage no one commercially except Britain. We are happy to be disadvantaged commercially because of the welfare benefits.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that, the attitude of the British towards the health of horses is unique within the EC, which presumably explains the many letters that I have received from constituents calling for the retention of the minimum value system? I sympathise to the hilt with my constituents' concerns. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while those who write such letters to us fully accept that the problem is not of the Government's making, they look to the Government to ensure that, one way or another, the preservation and safety that we want, will remain?
    Mr. Maclean: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are making strenuous efforts to maintain the minimum value system. I understand that Ireland also has some special and unique controls. Horses and, I suspect dogs have a particular place of affection in the British character, probably going back many years in our history. We want to maintain that and there is no reason why we cannot. We shall use every means at our disposal to argue the case.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I assure the Minister that he will receive wholehearted support from the Labour party in any efforts that he intends to make to prevent the introduction of the live trade in equines for export and slaughter? Will he acknowledge that there are unique problems involved in the transport of equines from Ireland and Britain that are invariably linked to difficulties associated with transporting goods across the sea? If the Minister fails in his endeavours to maintain the minimum value legislation, will he use the specific geographical problems to which I referred in an effort to seek a derogation, if that is the necessary way to protect horses in this country?
    Mr. Maclean: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words and the consensus that exists among all parties in the House and all organisations in the country. There are many animal welfare issues on which we are not all in complete agreement, but on this one we are, which is helpful and strengthens our arm in Europe. We are fighting, as our first priority, to maintain our minimum value system. There are fall-back positions if we are not

    443
    successful in achieving that, and we can be fairly devious in coming up with other systems. However, our first priority is to win—let us not talk about alternatives, but let us persuade our European partners and everyone else to maintain the present system.
    Mr. Moate: We know and appreciate how hard Ministers are working to prevent the export of live animals for slaughter, but will the Minister be frank with the House and answer the following question—if he fails, what power does Parliament have to prevent that vile trade?
    Mr. Maclean: We do not intend to fail—we just do not intend to do so. I do not think it appropriate now to discuss any of those secondary issues.

    Salmonella
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his policy for reducing the level of food poisoning caused by salmonella.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government have a whole range of measures for tackling the problem of salmonella food poisoning, whatever its source or wherever in the food chain it may appear.
    Mr. Ashton: If that is so, why did the number of salmonella cases rise from 8,000 last year to 12,000? Surely, the policy is not working. Is it not a fact that many of the cases are due to imported eggs from the continent, which the Minister could—but did not—have tested under article 36 of the EC laws? Why should an egg producer like Mr. Chapman of Hayton near Retford in my constituency have his flock destroyed and part of his business closed down without any right of appeal, when imported eggs from the continent are allowed to come in without any such checks? Will the Minister take notice of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the campaign that he has been waging to stop the spread of salmonella from increasing every year?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman and the House could do with a few facts. The latest update on the salmonella food poisoning in this country will show slight increase in salmonella food poisoning in humans—a large decrease in the salmonella typhimurium and an increase in salmonella enteritidis. The latest figures for 1990 will also show that in egg-laying flocks there has been a huge and dramatic decrease in salmonella enteritidis. Those figures point to the success of the control measures that we have taken.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we have a common agricultural policy that is intended to ensure a level playing field in the market place, we should stress that the excellent measures that the Government have introduced to preserve people's health should extend throughout the European Community? Does he further agree that we should not tolerate the ridiculous situation that those producing eggs in Poland, Holland or wherever, do not have to reach the same high standards as British egg producers?
    Mr. Maclean: We agree that the measures that we have taken here on salmonella should extend to other countries in the EC, and we are pressing most strongly that they do so, as we do with animal welfare. Other countries should
    444
    see the wisdom of our ways. My hon. Friend has made a good marketing statement on behalf of British-produced eggs, as he has pointed out our superior system for detecting salmonella. Consumers can be reassured about home-produced eggs.

    Pigs
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the alternatives to sow stalls and tethers in the housing of dry sows.
    Mr. Maclean: On 10 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's intention to ban the installation of new close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs and to phase out existing systems of this type.
    Mr. Murphy: As the Minister said, only a moment ago, that he was concerned about animal welfare, he must agree that there is widespread concern about some aspects of intensive farming, particularly pig farming. Therefore, will he give a guarantee that the Government, and he in particular, will support the private Members Bill dealing with pig husbandry going through the House?
    Mr. Maclean: There is no difference between the main principles of the Bill and the regulations that my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to make. The trouble is that the Bill does not go as far as our regulations would go, nor does it encompass all the categories of animals—boars, fattening animals and animals in the field. Our regulations are a bit better.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the coming into effect of the regulations of which he speaks is the same throughout the EC and throughout the whole of the United Kingdom so that our producers are not put at a disadvantage compared with imports either from other EEC countries or other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Gummer: I take my hon. Friend's point. That is why we must ensure that we phase out our systems within a sensible time scale, so that the rest of Europe will be able to come in to our time scale. If we move precipitately on that, we may not be able to get complete agreement in the EEC, but we are pressing most strongly that other countries should follow our lead on this.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with interest to what the Minister had to say about the Bill to be introduced tomorrow. At this late stage, will the Government assure the House that they will support the Bill?
    Mr. Maclean: I have made it clear that I believe that our regulations go further and are superior to the proposals In the Bill. If the House waits, it will hear, when I speak in the debate on the Bill tomorrow, my response to it and what I have to say about the regulations, on which we started I o consult yesterday.

    Less-favoured Areas
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of Government assistance to sheep and cattle farmers in the less-favoured areas.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): In addition to the support measures from which all sheep and cattle farmers benefit, producers in the less-favoured areas are eligible for a number of payments which are specific to those LFAs.
    Mr. Amos: As the incomes of hill farmers in my constituency are now under considerable pressure, will my right hon. Friend take urgent measures to deal with the unacceptably long delays in the processing of payments for grants and subsidies? For example, one of my constituents, Mr. David Ridley, told me that it has taken four months to deal with his suckler cow premium and with an agricultural improvement scheme. Another farmer told me that the hill livestock compensatory allowance payment distribution forms are already four weeks later than they were last year. As a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend deal with this administrative inefficiency?
    Mr. Gummer: We are concerned to help my hon. Friend and farmers generally in respect of these matters. However, when the European Community changes the arrangements we have to change the whole system of payment and that holds matters up. I am trying to proceed as fast as possible. The fact that the HLCA payment forms have not yet been initiated arises from a legal problem between ourselves and the rest of the Community over the arrangements for the 1·4 headage limit decision. I did not want that decision. Indeed, I fought and voted against it. These delays are one of its costs. That is why I supported the bringing forward of some of the payments and this has at least helped to ameliorate farmers' problems.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister, despite his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) a moment ago, recognise that the farmers in less-favoured areas·where, owing to difficulties in the industry, people are going out of business at an increasing rate—fear that land will return to the state that prevailed in the 1930s if the Government do not take action? Is it not a fact that serious difficulties arise from delays in making payments such as HLCA? Does the Minister agree that the Government really will have to do something to put this money into the hands of farmers as soon as possible? The situation is absolutely critical.
    Mr. Gummer: Our concern is to get to farmers the payments that are due to them as quickly as possible. However, we cannot do that unless the legal arrangements are satisfactory. We are pressing, but we are still waiting for the Commission to come back to us on these matters. I shall take action the moment I can and I am considering ways of ameliorating the situation thereafter.
    Mr. Hague: While accepting that most of the problem arising from the delay in making HLCA payments lies with the European Community, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that, when that problem is sorted out, every effort will be made to get the payments through to the farmers by approximately the same time as last year, which was early or mid-March?
    Mr. Gummer: I can assure my hon. Friend that if it is humanly possible to make up for the delay that has been forced upon us, we shall do so.

    EC Intervention Stores
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of foodstuffs held in European Economic Community intervention stores in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Curry: A table showing intervention stocks held in the EC and in the United Kingdom is deposited monthly in the House of Commons Library. The latest figures were tabled on 15 January.
    Mr. Banks: I thank the Minister for that fulsome reply. He knows that those intervention dumps of foodstuffs are now at a higher level. That is indeed very regrettable. Do the Government accept that the CAP is an absurdity which is ruining the European ideal? Is not it obscene that at a time when millions of people in Africa are suffering starvation they and we see large quantities of food that cannot be sold on the European market being stuffed into ever-increasing intervention stores?
    Mr. Curry: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on seeking so quickly to forge a new career in agriculture politics. I am sure that his Front Bench will welcome his conversion as much as I do. The most important point that he made concerned the effect on the third world. European surpluses are not an answer to the third world's problem. That is why a successful outcome to the GATT talks is of particular importance to the third world. With improved access to their products, the people there could earn their own livelihood. It is a very firm part of the Government's policy, first, that the GATT talks should succeed and, secondly, that some of the causes of these surpluses should be removed by bringing production under control and getting it closer to the marketplace. That has been and will remain our policy.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it appropriate to consider the level of intervention stocks in the context of EC proposals for agricultural reform? Do not those reform proposals discriminate against all but the very smallest European farms and appear to lack economic rationale?
    Mr. Curry: There are four fundamental objections to the proposals that have been made. The first is that, quite simply, they are anti-economic. Any system that is designed to take an economic unit that can compete in the market place and render it incapable of competition must make nonsense economically. Secondly, of course, they are massively discriminatory against the United Kingdom and that is something we shall not tolerate. Thirdly, they cost a great deal. Fourthly, they are wide open to fraud. For those reasons the United Kingdom Government will be obliged to oppose the proposals. We have a much better scheme for reforming the CAP. What we want is to get genuinely into the marketplace and make sure that we create units that can survive in more market-oriented conditions.
    Mr. David Clark: Will the Minister be a little less coy in future when answering questions such as this? Will he confirm that there are 700,000 tonnes of beef, 260,000 tonnes of butter and 335,000 tonnes of skimmed milk in intervention stores? Will he further confirm that the CAP budget is likely to be increased by 25 per cent. in the next two years and that, as he told the Oxford farming conference, unless we take action quickly the CAP will be out of control?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman wants recital of stock levels, I am perfectly willing to give one, but it would take at least 20 minutes. Yes, as I said at the Oxford conference, the CAP is in serious difficulty because, irrespective of the GATT negotiations, there is a major budgetary problem. Many circumstances have contributed to that. There has been the BSE crisis, during which the Opposition did not go out of their way to help us to reassure the public that the measures that we took were adequate—indeed, quite the opposite. Problems have also been caused by the Gulf crisis, the impoverishment of eastern Europe, the drought, German unification, increased imports and changing consumption patterns. On top of that, we have declining consumption and increasing output. They are structural problems which cannot be avoided. Yes, we are back in a serious situation, we will have to tackle it, and it would have to be tackled whether or not GATT existed.
    Mr. Bellingham: What percentage of United Kingdom taxpayers' support for agriculture is getting through to the British farmer and thence to the rural economy rather than being eaten up in the corruption and bureaucracy of the CAP?
    Mr. Curry: Most Community support goes towards market regimes, which means that it does not go directly to the farmer's pocket. For example, the substantial amount of money that we put into supporting beef last year has not appeared in the form of a cheque to the farmer. But that support is essential to prevent an immense drain on the taxpayer and major problems for farmers. One reason why the new proposals in Brussels are unacceptable to us is that opportunities for fraud are almost inherent in them. We have always fought that and we shall continue to do so.

    Agriculture Subsidies
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the remit given to European Community negotiators on agricultural subsidies at the December GATT talks; and what changes have been agreed to their remit for the resumed GATT talks.
    Mr. Gummer: The Commission negotiated at the December meeting in close consultation with member states on the basis of the offer that the Council of Ministers had approved in November.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House the Government's position in the resumed GATT negotiations? Does he agree with the Financial Times yesterday that the situation of industry and manufactured and agricultural products could be as serious for the world as the Gulf situation is? Will he use the GATT negotiations as a lever to secure a more sensible CAP, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see?
    Mr. Gummer: The Government's position on reform of the CAP has been and is clear. On the GATT round, it was Britain which managed to get the Community to put forward its offer, it is we who have sought to increase the elbow room in negotiations by the Commission and it is we who supported the Commission and pressed it to negotiate effectively. However, there must be a two-way negotiation and we hope that when negotiations are properly resumed the United States will begin to negotiate round the table
    448
    and stay there until a solution has been found, rather than addressing the rest of the world as though everyone else had to change their system to fit in with the needs of American farmers.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Has my right hon. Friend read the excellent letter from Sir Simon Gourlay in The Times today and, if so, does he agree with its principal point that the MacSharry proposals would be devastating for British agriculture? May we have an assurance that he will reject those proposals outright?
    Mr. Gummer: Sir Simon Gourlay's letter in The Times today was extremely effective and pointed out clearly that it is not a sensible policy for European agriculture to make it impossible for efficient farms to compete and to prop up farms that have no chance of competing anywhere. It would not be good for Europe to go back to the canal age in agriculture.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister stop running away from the problem? Does he not appreciate that while the GATT talks are perceived in this country as an agricultural problem, they are indeed an industrial problem? Unless we resolve the problem we shall get into a world trade war. As the key is in agriculture, will the Minister put forward, for the House to debate, a set of proposals for the reform of the CAP so that farmers and consumers may get a fairer deal and we as taxpayers will pay less towards it?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that this country is a member of the European Community. He should come to terms with the fact that negotiations about GATT are done by the Community and that the common agricultural policy is a Community policy and not something that comes out of the back pockets of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. It has to be negotiated in the Community if it is to succeed. My job is to do the negotiation. So far, we have got the Community to move sharply towards us in the negotiations on GATT and at long last we have convinced the Community that a radical reform of the CAP is necessary. We have now got to get a sensible reform which does not prejudice the United Kingdom. That is my battle and that battle is in the Community, rather than merely trying to make a few cheap points on the Floor of the House.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Cheshire dairy farmers wish to see the GATT round brought to a successful conclusion in the best interests of world trade, but that they reject totally the MacSharry proposals, in their present form, to cut milk quotas? That. would result in this country having to cut back dairy and milk production by four times more than Germany and would have an adverse effect upon the competitiveness on our processing sector.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend might put it even more clearly. It would mean that there would hardly be a dairy farmer in Cheshire who would not have his quota cut by 10 per cent. and that there would hardly be a dairy farmer in Ireland who would not keep exactly the quota which he has now.

    Council for the Protection of Rural England
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Council for the Protection of Rural England to discuss the impact of agriculture on the environment.
    Mr. Gummer: My noble Friend the Minister of State met the Council for the Protection of Rural England on two occasions in 1990, the last on 1 August.
    Mr. Jones: Has the Minister noticed the uncanny resemblance between the recently leaked proposals from the Commission for the reform of the CAP and CPRE's excellent document, "Future harvests"? Is he aware also of the policies of the National Consumer Council and of the Labour party, which are also virtually indistinguishable from those proposals? Will he now change his approach to the problem?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not doing his party the disservice of suggesting that Labour policy is to ensure that the United Kingdom, alone of the countries of Europe, will carry the vast proportion of the cost of reform of the CAP. If that is what he says, I hope that my hon. Friends will make sure that every farmer, every consumer and every patriot knows.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key factor in upholding the countryside environment and supporting the rural economy is a prosperous agriculture, since farmers are the managers of the countryside? Is he aware of the real difficulties currently facing livestock producers, particularly in the south-west? Will he confirm that, if the proposals put forward by Mr. MacSharry were to be implemented, the position would deteriorate still further?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in saying that unless there is a prosperous farming, there can be no resources for farmers to look after the land. Therefore, if proposals would reduce the ability of competitive farmers, particularly in Britain, Denmark and Holland, those countries would find that the resources that we need for the environment were not available. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we oppose the MacSharry proposals because they would not deliver a reduction in the cost of the common agricultural policy, they would not preserve the environment and they would not protect the Community against fraud. They would enshrine for ever an entirely out-of-date, small farm system which cannot provide livings for farmers who remain on the land.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister accept that, with the common agricultural policy in growing difficulties and with the problems arising from the GATT negotiations, it is time for us to rethink what the common agricultural policy is all about and that agricultural support should move to support for environmental protection? Will he also accept that in rural areas the survival of small farmers is paramount?
    Mr. Gummer: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "small farmers". If he means family farmers as we know them in the United Kingdom, that is reasonable, but if by small farmers he means what Mr. MacSharry means by small farmers, none of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be very pleased.
    450
    I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his first point is the better one—that we need progressively to move support that now goes almost exclusively to production-oriented systems towards help in looking after the environment. That is not the proposal of Mr. MacSharry, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) dissociates himself from the interpretation of his party's policy that we had from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) earlier.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek to persuade other EC Agriculture Ministers to reduce the costs and eliminate the surpluses of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: I take every opportunity to promote a more rational and market-oriented common agricultural policy, with greater emphasis on the protection and improvement of the environment, as my answer to the previous question shows.
    Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the latest proposals put forward would penalise British farmers with average-sized farms? Does he agree that the real purpose of reform of the common agricultural policy should be to reward efficiency and to help farmers compete on the world stage rather than to featherbed pocket-handkerchief homesteads and thus isolate them from market forces in the world outside the Common Market?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in no other sphere would the European Community decide to opt out of international competition. It is therefore important to have competitive agriculture. But I suggest that the second aspect is that we need agriculture that can look after the land, so we need a greater emphasis on the environment at the same time.
    Mr. Martlew: When discussions take place about reducing food surpluses, European Governments always discuss compensation for farmers. When will discussions take place on compensating employees in the food processing industry who lose their jobs? For example, if export restitutions are done away with, 30,000 employees will lose their jobs and I fear that some of them will be my constituents. Will the Minister introduce a scheme to compensate them?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that the Minister ought first to be concerned to ensure that the kind of export restitutions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not abolished in the haphazard way that some have suggested. That is why we cannot dissociate export restitutions from the rest of the Community system—one of the propositions that the United States has put forward. That is why we and our Common Market colleagues have said that they must be part of the whole system and that the whole system must be reduced in a sensible, measured way. In those circumstances, we can protect jobs in a competitive environment.

    USA (Agricultural Support)
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on direct and indirect support to agriculture by the United States of America.
    Mr. Curry: 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, of which $46 billion was directly funded by taxpayers and the remainder by consumers.
    Mr. Lord: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer which indicates clearly that United States farmers are subsidised every bit as much as European farmers are. Will he assure the House that, although a satisfactory result on the GATT round is very important to everyone, it will not be achieved at the expense of our very efficient and hard-pressed farmers?
    Mr. Curry: The level of subsidy is rather higher in the Community than it is in the United States and there is no point in trying to avoid that, but, although both sets of farmers are heavily subsidised, the subsidies are as nothing compared with those in Japan. It is extremely important to do a deal that is fair to both sides so that farmers can compete in the world market when they are efficient and looking to the marketplace.

    Irradiated Food
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure the adequate protection of the public in respect of irradiated food in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1991.
    Mr. Gummer: The interests of consumers are fully protected by separate licensing and labelling regulations which came into effect on 1 January.
    Mr. Michael: Can the Minister explain to us how that choice and protection can be offered, when there is no simple scientific test to show whether food is irradiated, especially when it comes from abroad?
    Mr. Gummer: First, whether we have irradiation in this country or not, there has always been a problem with irradiated food from other countries. By making it legal, licensing it and being careful about the places where it can be done, we are able to protect the public very much more, and we shall insist upon the labelling of all foods in such a way that the public can choose. I am not one of those who believe that it is the Government's duty to force the prejudices of some upon others. People ought to choose and I shall choose irradiated food as being considerably safer.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Common European Currency
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions have taken place recently with other EC member states regarding the use of a common European currency.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union
    452
    opened in Rome on 15 December 1990. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor represented the United Kingdom. The next ministerial meeting will take place on 28 January and my right hon. Friend will continue to argue for the United Kingdom's proposals for the introduction of a common European currency, the hard ecu.
    Mr. Hunter: Despite the failure of the common agricultural policy and of attempts to form a common defence and foreign policy, does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that the common currency has the supreme merit of being market-led and that its use will be determined by demand and not imposed by centralised bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That is the essence of our proposal on a common currency. No one would have the hard ecu forced upon them. It will be for firms, individuals and Governments to use, as and when they wish. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that our proposals now seem to be attracting more support.
    Mr. Bell: While I share his views on the common European currency, can the Prime Minister tell the House how useful a common foreign policy would have been leading up to the events of 15 January?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the question of a common foreign policy is one of the matters that will be discussed at the political intergovernmental conference. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say about that on Tuesday.
    Sir William Clark: As bonds are being issued in greater numbers in ecu and as from March this year futures will be able to be dealt with in ecu, does my right hon. Friend agree that that adds weight to the argument that the hard ecu as an alternative currency to sterling could come about without anything being foisted upon us?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is certainly the case. The real virtue of the hard ecu is that it would be determined by the market, driven by the market, and not imposed upon anyone.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Michie: In view of the Foreign Secretary's discussions in Paris today, does the Prime Minister agree that long-term peace in the middle east should be based on nations enjoying security within existing recognised national boundaries?
    The Prime Minister: That is one of the matters that have been under discussion for some time and which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is continuing to discuss with his colleagues. In so far as the particular problems of the middle east are concerned, as the hon. Lady knows, we strongly support the idea of a peace conference once the present conflict in the Gulf has been resolved.
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    Mr. Major: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once Saddam Hussein has been expelled from Kuwait and reinvestment and reconstruction have commenced, those countries that have contributed most to the allied effort in terms of money, material and men should be at the front of the queue for jobs, work and contracts, and that those among our near neighbours who have contributed least should be firmly at the rear of the queue?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that and I had the opportunity of raising the matter with the Emir of Kuwait during my recent visit to the Gulf.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is good for the morale of our forces and for the peace of mind of their families if there is easy, low-cost communication with home? What progress is being made in improving the current inadequate arrangements? Does the Prime Minister share my view that, just as our forces have long had access to free post, it is now appropriate in 1991 for them to have at least one free phone call from the Gulf?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the general proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is working to improve communications home. However, we have not yet produced a free telephone system.
    Mr. Grylls: Has my right hon. Friend had any further news from the Red Cross about the future treatment of British prisoners of war?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying hard at the moment to get access. The International Red Cross is trying as well and I believe that it has had a preliminary meeting with the Iraqi authorities, but we have not yet heard what the detailed outcome may be.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the supplementary question that he intended to ask. No one wants a ground war in the Gulf—no one at all—and it can be avoided. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I will let the hon. Gentleman ask his supplementary question.
    Mr. Barnes: In the Prime Minister's answer to the question that I asked on Tuesday, he said that civilian casualties were to be avoided as far as possible and the instructions to the Air Force were to seek to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq. Will the Prime Minister therefore contact President Bush and tell him to desist from B52 carpet bombing, which is destroying vast areas around Basra where I loyally did my national service, to desist from napalm bombing in future and to desist from a ground battle which will lead to massive destruction and perhaps mutual destruction of both sets of troops?
    The Prime Minister: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for beginning to answer his question before he had asked it. As he knows, this was brought about entirely by his
    454
    courtesy in giving me advance notice of the question, for which I am most grateful. It is a conspiracy which may not last for ever, but it is enjoyable while it does.
    No one wants a ground war and it can be avoided if Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait, as we have asked him to do for some time. We have made it perfectly clear before—and I reiterate—that we shall not use certain weapons, but I would not think it right to spare the Iraqi military at the possible risk to British soldiers at some future stage in the conflict. My prime and overriding concern must be, and will continue to be, for the safety of British soldiers and for the avoidance of unnecessary risk.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing presence in London of the Iraqi ambassador is not only offensive but unnecessary? After a suitable period for him to settle his personal affairs, will my right hon. Friend arrange for him to be removed forthwith?
    The Prime Minister: We have already reduced the Iraqi embassy to a minimum number of four members. The Iraqi ambassador will be leaving the United Kingdom very shortly and we are considering further reductions below the tiny number still there. Final decisions on the last point have not yet been made.
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Trimble: I wish to express our concern about recent events in the Baltic states, where Mr. Gorbachev appears to be reverting to type—if he did not authorise the recent outrages, he is clearly compromising himself to the elements behind them. Will the Government now commit themselves unequivocally to giving every support to democracy in the Baltic states and does the Prime Minister agree that it would be entirely wrong for Moscow to impose direct rule?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point—it would be wholly wrong and I was able to say so to Mr. Jurkans, the Latvian Foreign Minister, when I had the opportunity of meeting him yesterday. I deeply deplore the actions that have taken place in both Vilnius and Riga, and the tragic consequences for those who have been killed. This is not what we have come to expect from the Soviet Union in recent years and we hope that it will stop without delay.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: At a time when I know that my hon. Friend has many things on his mind—including the plight of our prisoners of war who are in Iraqi hands—will he spare a thought for ex-prisoners of war from another campaign? Is he aware that in 1951 ex-Japanese prisoners of war received only £76 10s from Japan, which is equivalent to about £1,000 in today's money? Will he support their campaign to try to achieve a more appropriate settlement from their now wealthy ex-captors?
    The Prime Minister: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. The problem is that the question

    455
    of compensation was settled under the peace treaty with Japan which was signed in 1951. Under that treaty, Japan subsequently met her obligations. I fear that I must tell my hon. Friend that, much to my regret, the Government can take no further action.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware of today's reports that Secretary of State Baker has a list of 500 firms from 50 countries which have apparently broken the embargo on Iraq and that the list includes a large number of German firms which appear to be still supplying Iraq with biological and chemical materials? Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that no British firm is on that American list? Does he agree that the families of the young men and women who have been sent to the Gulf—as a result of a policy with which I still disagree—would be horrified to think that the sacrifice that they may be called upon to make in the days and weeks ahead will have been made so that mere shareholders can grow richer out of profiteering?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I am not aware of any involvement by British firms in the Iraqi chemical weapon programme. Although we stand ready to follow up energetically any advice to the contrary that we may receive, thus far I have no evidence whatever, from any source of any kind, of any British involvement.
    Mr. Warren: Bearing in mind the very successful meeting that I understand my right hon. Friend to have had this week with the visiting Foreign Minister from Latvia, may I ask whether he will use the occasion to condemn before the House the Stalinist repression that has returned to the inventory of Gorbachev and the Government of the Soviet Union and get the whole of the west to condemn the abuse of human rights to which the people of the Baltic states are being subjected?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly content to do that. The present situation in the Baltics is clearly precarious. I must say that it is not entirely clear who is responsible for the latest actions there. It is not absolutely clear who gave the directions that led to the difficulties in Vilnius and Riga. In any event, we shall need to judge the Soviet Union by deeds and not words, and that is what we will do.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: If nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out in the fundamental review of the poll tax, may we take it that there will be statutory provisions rather than merely guidance to local authorities, which is not always observed, to exempt from payment of the poll
    456
    tax service men and service women who are serving abroad, which includes the 270 of my constituents from RAF Leuchars now serving in the Gulf?
    The Prime Minister: The power the hon. and learned Member seeks is already available to local authorities and has been for some time.

    York (Visit)
    Mr. Conal Gregory: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to make an official visit to York.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gregory: In the hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question actually deals with a visit to York. However, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) may continue with his supplementary question.
    Mr. Gregory: In the hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly be able to visit the city of York, may I ask him to use this opportunity to praise employee share schemes, particularly those in denationalised companies such as British Telecom and British Rail Engineering? Will he give a warning to the people of York that in the unlikely event of there ever being a Labour Government, they would take away the right—[Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, I will be happy to carry a suitable message to York or elsewhere on the value and importance of employee share ownership. I think that that is rightly recognised. One of the clearest indications of the success of the privatisation programme and employee ownership is the disinclination among those once in favour of nationalisation to renationalise that which has been privatised.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what prospects he sees for an early reduction in interest rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "In York?"] Such a reduction will, of course, affect enterprises in York. Will he also tell the House whether it is true that he said that interest rates in York and elsewhere would come down when Chelsea won the league championship? Notwithstanding the excellent result at Tottenham Hotspur last night, is the Prime Minister aware that large numbers of points would have to be taken away from Liverpool and Arsenal if Chelsea were to win and that he would have to make it illegal for any team to beat Chelsea during the remainder of this season? If he takes that very original approach towards the reduction of interest rates in this country—and in York—he will have my wholehearted support.
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the hon. Member's appointment as spokesman for sport in the not-too-distant future. I can only say that much as I look forward to Chelsea winning the championship at some stage, I hope that I shall not have to wait quite that long for a reduction in interest rates.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Ports Bill.
Motion on the Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) Order.
TUESDAY 29 JANUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports followed by motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY—Opposition day (4th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Recession in Industry". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Famine in Sub-Saharan Africa". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order and the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) (Consequential Amendments) Order.
THURSDAY 31 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill.
Motion on Members' pensions.
The Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY I FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Tuesday 29 January to consider EC Document No. 6459/90 relating to obstacles to takeovers and other general bids; and European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 30 January at 10.30 am to consider EC Document No. 6701/90 relating to emissions of gaseous pollutants from diesel engines.
[Tuesday 29 January 1991

1. (i) Revenue Support Grant Report ( England) 1991–92 (HC 93)

(ii) The Population Report ( England) (No. 2) ( HC 94)

(iii) Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) (HC 95)

(iv) Special Grant Report (No. 2) (HC 96)

(v) Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90 (HC 12)

2. (i) Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1991–92 (HC 78)

(ii) Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 2) (HC 79)

(iii) Distribution of non-domestic rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 2) ( HC 80).

European Standing Committee B
Tuesday 29 January 1991
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 6459/90 Barriers to Takeovers

(b) Unnumbered Company Law

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-xxvii (1989–90)

(b) HC 11-xiv (1989–90) and HC 11-xxvii (1989–90)

European Standing Committee A
Wednesday 30 January 1991
Relevant European Community Document
6701/90 Emissions by diesel engined vehicles
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxxii (1989–90).]
Mr. Grocott: Can the Leader of the House give us an absolute assurance that any developments in the Gulf will be reported immediately, swiftly and in full to the House, and that, however inconvenient the time, he will ensure that the relevant Minister comes to the House to tell us as much as possible about what is happening?
We are still waiting for a debate on the autumn statement. We need to debate the economy urgently. All our constituents are being affected by the recession, by the record bankruptcies and by rising unemployment, and we need to debate that.
When shall we get the long-promised debate on the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster? It is long overdue.
We shall have only one and a half hours to debate the Welsh revenue support grant. That is inadequate. When will the Leader of the House allocate more time for vital debates on poll tax-related issues?
On Thursday, we shall have debates on pensions and related matters, and on resettlement grants. When will the orders be put before the House? Can the Leader of the House assure us that he has taken careful note of the massively supported early-day motion 299?
[That, in the opinion of this House, paragraph ( 2) of the third Resolution of this House of 19th July 1983, which provides that resettlement grants for former Members should not be payable to a person who has attained the age of 65 years before the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament should no longer have effect, and that the following new provision should be made: (a) That the resettlement grant should not be payable, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, to any person who had attained the age of 65 years at the dissolution of the preceding Parliament; but That (b) regardless of age, a person who has completed a total of 20 years' service as a Member of this House becomes eligible for the grant when it becomes payable under the first paragraph of the third Resolution of 19th July 1983, irrespective of whether that service was continuous, subject to paragraph (3) of the said Resolution.]
Mr. MacGregor: On developments in the Gulf, I made our position clear the other evening in response to some points of order; for the convenience of the House, I shall say it again. Clearly we have every desire to report any major incidents to the House. To apply that to "any developments in the Gulf" would be overstating the case, because it is important that we confine such reports to major changes in the Gulf. We have made it clear from all that we have done so far that we are extremely keen to keep the House fully informed. The hon. Gentleman used the word "immediately". I am sure that he recognises that

459
it is important that we have knowledge of the facts before statements are made and that we do not rely only on unconfirmed media reports.
I hope that we shall be able to have the debate on the autumn statement in the very near future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are other opportunities to debate economic issues, and we are happy to have such debates. We shall have such a debate this afternoon, and there is to be another next week in Opposition time.
I hope to find time for the Cullen report before too long. The House will recognise that there is quite a lot of pressure on business in the House at the moment and that has, of course, been intensified by the need for debates and statements on the Gulf. There are also a number of Second Readings to come forward. However, I am well aware of the House's anxiety for a debate on the report before long, and I recognise the importance of the issue.
The arrangements that I have announced for the Welsh revenue support grant are as normal and, I hope, for the general convenience of the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that I am anxious that the House should have before it all the information on which to have the debates on pensions and related matters. I have arranged for the draft regulations, which are part of the motion, to be placed in the Vote Office this afternoon, and I will also answer a question this afternoon in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), as chairman of the trustees of the pension fund, in relation to a possible reference of some matters to the Top Salaries Review Body. That will be recorded in Hansard so that all colleagues will have the opportunity to look at it before the debate.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) referred to early-day motion 299. I am aware of the great interest in the matter because there are many signatories to the motion. Representations on this point have already been made through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will have an opportunity to raise the issue in the debates next Thursday. It will be appropriate for me to comment on the early-day motion at that time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the object of business questions is to ask about business next week. I shall be grateful if hon. Members will confine themselves to that and ask one question, because we have a very long list of hon. Members who wish to take part in the subsequent debate in which, I am afraid, I shall have to put a limit on speeches anyway. So I ask hon. Members for brief questions, please, to the point and about business next week.
Sir Anthony Grant: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend said about the possibility of raising the question of the early-day motion on resettlement grants of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), but in view of all the other matters to be debated at that time, which are rather different, and in view of the quite unprecedented support for the early-day motion on both sides of the House, would it not be a good idea to have a separate debate on this issue so that the House might concentrate on it and give its views very strongly, which I believe the Top Salaries Review Body wants to hear?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can do that in advance of next Thursday's debate because I have already announced the business. We ought to see how that debate goes before we consider whether any further time should be given to that subject. But I certainly hope that we make sure that we give enough time for all the issues to be debated next Thursday and certainly for this one to be aired as well.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that, but for the very serious events in the Gulf, the developments in the Baltic states would be attracting world attention, including the attention of the House. Does he hold out any prospect of an early debate on that subject?
The question of the European Community decision to limit fisheries and for people engaged in fishing to tie up for eight consecutive days a month must be dealt with by secondary legislation. The Government are seeking power to stop people prosecuting their means of livelihood. Will that matter be debated on the Floor of the House?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point about the Baltic states, of course I understand the concern in the House, and we have already had some statements and opportunities for discussion. I am fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think that he put it in the right context. We must keep a watchful eye on the situation and see whether more time for discussing it in the House is required. Obviously I can do that, and I give him that assurance.
On the second point, I cannot give an assurance that the matter will be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It is something that we shall have to look at in due course.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: With reference to the debate on Tuesday on the revenue support grant, can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a time limit? Many of us are unhappy about the settlement for our areas and would desperately like to speak in the debate. Therefore, may we also have an extension of the debate so that those of us who feel strongly about the settlement can have our say?
Mr. MacGregor: I will consider my hon. Friend's point. Exactly the same point arose on the old rate support grant orders, and there was similar anxiety among hon. Members to speak. On this occasion, we are following the practice that we have followed in the past.
Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House read the reports about innocent people having been killed in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia? There have been reports of 40 people in Iraq having been killed. The ambassador told me this week that more than 200 people had been killed and that churches, mosques and schools had been blitzed. Does the Leader of the House agree that the killing of people on both sides will only escalate the war?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that question arises on the business of the House. There are plenty of opportunities for the issue to be discussed, and the hen. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: As the Gulf war is probably one of the best covered by the media in our experience, will my right hon. Friend restrain his

461
ministerial colleagues from coming to the House to make statements on every small incident? Will he restrict statements in the House to major events that affect the British forces, in particular, during the course of the Gulf war?
Mr. MacGregor: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the whole House recognises that at present my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have very heavy responsibilities and work loads. It would be a mistake to ask them to make statements in the House on each and every incident reported in the media, particularly since some are corrected immediately afterwards. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important, therefore, to concentrate statements on major events that affect the Gulf as a whole. However, these are matters that can be discussed through the usual channels on any occasion.
Mr. Jack Ashley: On the question of telephone communications from forces in the Gulf to their families at home, may we take the matter much further next week than the Prime Minister was able to take it today? It now costs more than £1 a minute to telephone home, and many squaddies simply cannot afford that. British Telecom is helping financially, but the Ministry of Defence should make a significant contribution and help still further. May we please have a statement from the Ministry of Defence next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure whether an oral statement would be an appropriate method of dealing with that point, but I shall ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's comment is conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the grave concern in the House and elsewhere about the treatment of British prisoners in Iraq. Notwithstanding what he said a moment ago about the usefulness of statements by Ministers, is he aware of calls for a war crimes investigation unit at the Ministry of Defence? Has he read articles in today's papers stating that such a unit has now been set up at the Ministry? Would this not be an appropriate issue on which to have a ministerial statement as soon as possible at the beginning of next week?
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly the whole House shares the concern about our prisoners of war. I shall ensure that his request is put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Again, I am not sure whether that is an appropriate issue for an oral statement, but I shall put the point to him.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: I refer to the question of Thursday's business regarding pensions and redundant Ministers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be properly seized of the point that was made about early-day motion 299, which carries a substantial number of signatures—more than 340. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more positive than he was previously about what he proposes to do. There is strong feeling in the House.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be monstrous if we were to make a decision on ministerial
462
pensions for Ministers who become redundant and left the matter in abeyance when there is such strong feeling in the House about the motion.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to go into the substance of that point today because I do not think that it is appropriate to do so at business questions. I hoped that it was clear from the indication that I gave at the outset, in response to the question of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), that I have already been discussing the matter and that it will be possible for it to be discussed and raised next Thursday. There is an early opportunity for that early-day motion to be aired on the Floor of the House. Of course, I have noted the number of signatories to it.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of concern in the House about what could only be described as the lukewarm or half-hearted support that our European partners have given us and the United States in our efforts in the Gulf. May we look forward to the Government considering some mechanism within Europe that will make those who use Gulf oil pay for it so that they can contribute towards the cost of our forces in the Gulf?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall take that point a little more generally and talk about it in terms of contributions to efforts in the Gulf by member states of the European Community and beyond. My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and in particular the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor, are actively pursuing that point at the moment.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I appreciate the seriousness with which the Leader of the House views events in the Baltic states. However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep desire in the House for an early debate or statement on the matter, not only because of the loss of 19 lives in Latvia and Lithuania, the political and international implications of events there and the threat to the sovereignty of free states, but because decisions will have to be reached about how the European Community views the extending of aid to the Soviet Union against that background?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the gravity of the matter and the anxiety of the House about it. I have already made that clear. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and discuss with him, the points made not only by the hon. Lady but by several other hon. Members. The hon. Lady will be aware that my right hon. Friend has argued that, if repression in the Baltic states continues, the programme of aid to the Soviet Union proposed by the European Council should not be implemented. That was endorsed by the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Brussels this Tuesday. It was agreed that only humanitarian aid should be continued. Therefore, there is no prospect of early agreement within the Council on the Community's proposals before the House. A new proposal on food aid for Bulgaria and Romania is expected shortly. In view of that, a debate next week or in the near future on the precise question of aid would be premature.
Sir Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend has already given an answer about our

463
prisoners of war, about whom we are all worried. Will he make sure that, at the end of the Gulf war, atrocities and ill treatment of other prisoners of war and civilians are brought to trial and brought to the notice of the public?
Mr. MacGregor: That matter does not relate to the business of the House, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that next week a Standing Committee will sit on Tuesday and Thursday to consider the Atomic Weapons Establishments Bill? The Committee began its proceedings this morning. Is he aware that the Government are denying members of that Committee access to certain reports which they need to do their job? We hear about human rights; I am talking about hon. Members' rights. I want the right hon. Gentleman to do something about it. Let us hear from that Dispatch Box that he will do something about it.
Mr. MacGregor: The first thing that I shall have to do about it is look into it. I am not aware of it at present.
Mr. David Wilshire: Notwithstanding the urgent business announced for next week, will my right hon. Friend find time next week—I stress, next week—to allow the House to discuss the Civil Aviation Authority advice on the traffic distribution rules for the south-east of England? I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that there is enormous pressure on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to take a decision on that advice before the end of the month. It is far from merely a constituency interest. If there were a free-for-all at Heathrow airport among airlines, it would affect a huge number of people in the Heathrow area and have a knock-on effect for every hon. Member who has any aviation interest whatever. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the House gives its views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport before he makes that urgent decision?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. and learned Friend has received and is studying carefully the CAA advice on London air traffic distribution. I understand that he intends to reach a decision as soon as possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend and others who have an interest in the matter will convey their views to him.
Mr. James Lamond: What about having a debate on the multi-fibre agreement? Does the Leader of the House remember that we were due to have a debate on it in November and lost it? There was a debate on the GATT negotiations, but most of that was taken up with agricultural matters. It is high time that hon. Members from textiles areas had an opportunity to air their views on the MFA.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman said, the matter could have been raised in the debate on the Uruguay round and GATT just before Christmas. There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise it in the debate next week, if he so wishes. In view of the pressures on the timetable, I doubt that it will be possible to have a debate on that specific issue in the near future.
Mr. David Nicholson: May we have an early debate on the co-ordination of agricultural and environmental policies in the light of widespread support
464
in both the farming and environmentalist communities for a single national comprehensive scheme to encourage green farming? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a proposal to give the region of the Blackdown hills, in my constituency, area of outstanding natural beauty status? In the light of the Government's disappointment when they asked the European Commission to give that district less favoured area status, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), myself and other hon. Members will support the extension of environmentally sensitive area status in that region.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to be careful not to engage in a long reply to my hon. Friend—he will be aware that I was much involved in those matters. He will also know that the Government have taken the lead, both in the United Kingdom and in the European Community, in bringing together many agricultural and environmental policies that are in the interests of the countryside as a whole. There are many opportunities to raise general matters, but I cannot promise an early debate in Government time on the specific issues concerning my hon. Friend's county. He will have to seek other ways of pressing the point.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House announced that on Wednesday we shall debate two Orders in Council for Northern Ireland. One of them might be minor and consequential, but the other one is major, dealing with the reorganisation of the health service in Northern Ireland. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have ample time to discuss that order and that the debate will not be curtailed to an hour and a half? This seems to be a further example of Northern Ireland, a s part of the nation, being governed worse than a colony.
Mr. MacGregor: I note the hon. Member's request. 1 t would be for the general convenience of the House to debate the orders together. I shall consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. John Marshall:: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill? Does he agree that, if we are not going to prosecute Iraqi war criminals, we should be willing to prosecute those war criminals who are resident in the United Kingdom?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot say at this stage, but it will not be next week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House have a look at the early-day motions dealing with democracy in Kuwait, bearing in mind the fact that the Crown Prince and the royal family of Kuwait are gallivanting round the casino dens and racecourses in Europe—one of them has a private plane that sends him food from Harrods several times a week—while British soldiers look like being slaughtered in the desert? Is that not—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Did not the hon. Gentleman hear me say that business questions should be confined to what is happening next week and should not relate to general matters?
Mr. Skinner: We ask business questions about what is happening next week and what we want to happen next week.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must ask for a debate.
Mr. Skinner: Absolutely. There are three early-day motions on the Order Paper dealing with the need for a debate about the lack of democracy in Kuwait and the fact that the Crown Princes are running the country without any democracy. One of those princes has a private plane sending food from Harrods several times a week while British troops are being slaughtered. Many other members of the royal family are at gambling dens, casinos and racecourses, and will not even put on a uniform to fight for their own country.
Mr. MacGregor: The aims for which the British forces are currently engaged, as part of the allied forces in the Gulf and in enforcing a United Nations resolution, have been debated in the House on numerous occasions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have made clear what those aims are.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on London? In previous Parliaments, we had an annual debate on London. We have the only capital city without an elected government, with an unsatisfactory cat's cradle of unaccountable quangos and Government Departments to run the city, and there is no proper democratic oversight of our affairs. This should be debated in the House. Could the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot now promise an opportunity for debating the subject in Government time, but the hon. Member will know that there is a considerable number of other opportunities available to him and his hon. Friends to raise the matter in the House if they wish to do so.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Leader of the House heard the reply that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who asked whether service men serving in the Gulf, especially from RAF Leuchars, would be relieved of the poll tax. The Prime Minister said that there was already provision for this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not deliberately mislead the House, but, regrettably, I must tell the Leader of the House that that reply was not accurate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It might not be, but could the hon. Member ask for a debate next week?
Mr. Ewing: Against that background, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House next week and explain where in the legislation implementing the poll tax for Scotland there is provision to relieve service men of paying poll tax? As that is so important, I would even settle for a reply to a planted question.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the debate that the Leader of the House has announced for next Tuesday night, on the revenue support grant formulas for England and for Wales, will he confirm that they will be relatively narrow debates and will not take in the broad purview of what the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to do with the community charge? That is of considerable importance, because the tax is enormously unpopular. If that is the case, can the Leader
466
of the House arrange for an early debate on the broad direction of Government thinking about the future of this charge, so that other ideas can be taken on board at an early stage before conclusions are reached?
Mr. MacGregor: My righ hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already made it clear that he is prepared to take on other ideas, and he is engaged in discussion on this with minority parties and others. It is not necessary to have a debate to achieve that purpose. I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the debate next week will be confined to the revenue support grant orders. Nevertheless, it is a major issue and one on which many hon. Members would wish to speak. Therefore, it is right to give a whole day to the debate.
Mr. David Winnick: What arrangements have been made for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week so that we can make to him the point that, while every effort must be made to protect the country from terrorism, certainly by those acting at the behest of the criminals in Baghdad, every effort should also be made to protect the innocent? Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us are worried, recognising as we do the matters involving national security, that long-standing opponents of Saddam Hussein, some of whom have fled from his terror, could be in danger of being deported? This matter requires a statement from the Home Secretary.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He will know that there is a procedure for allowing three visitors to examine individual cases if there is an appeal to them, and that allows all aspects to be examined. I know that hon. Members are taking up some cases directly with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not know whether this is necessarily a matter for a general statement next week, but I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week about the question of compensation for nuclear test veterans? He will know that I have raised the case of my constituent John Hall who is dying of leukaemia and who, on Thursday of this week, had a blood transfusion. If the Government take a long time to sort out the question, some of the veterans who are claiming compensation may not be alive to hear the news.
Mr. MacGregor: I know that this matter has been raised in the House on a number of occasions. I see no possibility of a debate next week.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement next week on the proposed closure of the SERC nuclear structure facility at the Daresbury laboratories in Warrington? Does he realise that it is the leader in this field and closure of it will affect research not only at Daresbury but at many universities? It will also affect the Eurogam programme, in which we are engaged in conjunction with the French. Does he realise that this facility is closing despite—or because of—a visit earlier this year by the former Prime Minister, the right

467
hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? The right hon. Lady had assured many other plants that they were leaders in their field and had a future.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I do not think, however, that it merits a full statement next week.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week on the breaches of the embargo on the supply of arms to Iraq? I am thinking particularly of German firms and of weapons for use in chemical and biological warfare. This is a very serious matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that arms manufacturers are licking their lips in anticipation of pumping into various countries yet more billions of weapons that carry the tag "Gulf tested"? Would not that be an odious affront to the troops who are risking their lives in the field? Is it not time for the Government to provide some procedures to stop the odious arms trade after this conflict so that such a thing is unlikely to happen again?
Mr. MacGregor: There are many opportunities to raise issues of that sort. Indeed, one such issue was raised this afternoon. I do not think that there is a case for a specific statement next week.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have next week a debate on the conduct of the press? I hope that the Leader of the House has had an opportunity to read the Official Report of last night's Adjournment debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) raised the question of the obscene campaign against her by the News of the World and, in the past, by The Sun. Those of us who, whilst dedicating ourselves to the welfare of British troops in the Gulf, have called for peace initiatives have been branded by one of the gutter newspapers as "treacherous swine". May we have an early debate so that it may be made quite clear to newspaper editors, especially at this time, that in a democracy those who take a contrary stand do not deserve to have their private lives crawled over by nasty journalists or to be branded as traitors when they stand as squarely as anybody else in support of our troops in the Gulf?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman has said, there was a debate last night on certain aspects of this matter. As for his second point, although I totally disagree with his general views on the Gulf, I happily reaffirm that it is essential to our parliamentary democracy that hon. Members are able to express their views freely.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have next week a statement about procurement policy in relation to British forces serving in the Gulf? I put this question on behalf of a constituent of mine who has two sons serving there with the British Army. He was greatly distressed when he received from one of his sons a letter saying:
"The boots we have been issued with are useless. They are too short, and the sand gets in the top of them, giving us foot problems. Could you buy me a pair and send them over?"
At the weekend that father spent £60 on boots to send to his two sons.
I have been in contact with the Ministry of Defence and have spoken to a senior Minister twice this week. The Minister confirmed that there is a problem. Proper desert boots are now being sent to the Gulf. This House and those who are related to people serving in the Gulf have a right to ask why is it that desert boots were not available
468
from day one. Why is it necessary for our boys in the Gulf to buy proper boots privately? Are all those who need proper desert boots now in possession of them?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously I cannot comment on the individual issue to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, as I do not know the details or the background. Members of Parliament have other means of pursuing these matters, as, indeed, the hon. Gentleman did. This is just the sort of subject on which it would not be appropriate to make a statement every day. Indeed, it is the kind of case that I had in mind when I said that it would not be right to debate daily particular aspects of the Gulf. If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly, I hope he will reconsider the decision he took when he voted earlier this week.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Why are the Government so severely curtailing opportunities to debate the Gulf war? Is it not disgraceful that since the war broke out we have had only a single day's debate on it? Is the Leader of the House seriously proposing to the House this afternoon that not one day of Government business next week will be allocated to a debate on the Gulf war?
Mr. MacGregor: I utterly reject the view that we have been depriving the House of the opportunity to discuss these matters. We have had two debates within a short period, we have had a number of statements and private notice questions, and we have had Question Time. I have made it clear that we are happy to keep the House fully informed and will make statements as appropriate, and that may well be the case next week. But I do not think that it is the mood of the House at the moment that we should have a debate on the issue every week. We must judge as and when the need arises, but I stress again that, as I think most hon. Members recognise, we are making every effort to keep the House fully informed and to debate the issues.
Mr. Greville Janner: I welcome the prospect of food aid to Romania and Bulgaria, but surely we should have a full-scale debate on the effect that the Gulf war has had on countries such as those? I refer in particular to the wretched winter which is being suffered now by Bulgaria's people, who are without adequate fuel, heating and other essentials of life. It is about time that the United Kingdom provided help to those countries, particularly as Bulgaria's miseries have been brought about entirely because of its robust support of the embargo that we asked it to join us in imposing.
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly we cannot have debates every week on a number of major issues that concern all of us. That just is not possible. But I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's anxiety about the matter and, as I said earlier, a new proposal on food aid for Bulgaria and Romania is expected shortly.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: May we have a debate next week, or at the very least a statement, so that the Home Secretary can explain to the House on what grounds he has authorised the deportation of my constituent, Mr. Abbas Cheblak, a respected campaigner for human rights in Iraq and throughout the middle east, a known pacifist, who has lived here for 16 years and who has two children of British nationality? The Home Secretary has refused to speak to me by telephone and has refused a meeting with me on the subject.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware that farm incomes in the livestock sector have now reached the lowest level since the second world war which, allied to rising costs, will lead to a brutal restructuring of the industry through bankruptcy? Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at least make a statement to the House; or at best, given the troubles which affect every sector of agriculture, may we have a full-scale and urgent debate on the future of British agriculture?
Mr. MacGregor: We had agriculture questions this afternoon, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend made the point then that he is about to embark on discussions on possible Community proposals in relation to agriculture. I understand that no specific proposals have been put forward yet, only some tentative ideas about what they might be, and the Council of Ministers will be meeting again shortly—I think the week after next—to discuss those matters. We need to keep in mind when would be an appropriate time for a statement or a debate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House speak urgently to the Home Secretary on the matters raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? The situation is extremely serious. A large number of people of Palestinian or Iraqi background have been taken into custody, held for up to 19 hours a day in cells, denied proper recreational or visiting facilities and now, we hear yesterday, have been denied the right of legal appeal other than through an internal tribunal.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the number of people who have been taken into custody and why, and also why he is refusing to meet hon. Members who wish to represent their constituents in this serious matter at a serious time? Civil liberties are at stake.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that there are clear procedures for dealing with such matters, and the majority of people would feel that it was right for the Home Secretary to be taking the action that he is taking. I have already said that I will draw the points raised to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Economic and Monetary Union
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 25th July 1990 on Enonomic and Monetary Union ( House of Commons Paper No. 620 of Session 1989–90).
European Community Document SEC (90) 1659 on economic and monetary union and the unnumbered explanatory memoranda, submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 23rd April and 5th November 1990, describing Commission reports on the economic rationale and design of economic and monetary union and the potential benefits and costs of economic and monetary union.
Government's proposed treaty provisions for economic and monetary union—beyond stage 1, published on 8th January 1991].
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I say that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in this important debate? I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are called before then to bear that limit in mind.
4.14 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Questions of monetary union, parallel currrencies, the hard ecu, economic convergence and the European monetary fund may sound deeply impenetrable and technical but they are none the less matters of profound economic, political and constitutional importance to the House.
This Parliament has a deep and legitimate interest in the issues raised by economic and monetary union. That is one reason why the Government have made it plain to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to move to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. That will be a question that only future Parliaments can decide. That was the position expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) the former Prime Minister, and it remains the policy of the Government today.
I should like, if I may, to set out to the House first, what our proposals are; and secondly, the arrangements for the organisation of the intergovernmental conference for European monetary union, EMU. Thirdly, I should like to go over again some of our reservations about the plans put forward by Mr. Delors.
Mr. Peter Shore: We have before us a clutch of documents, as detailed on the Order Paper. Indeed, a large number of issues are covered. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, given the obvious relevance, we do not have before us the Commission's draft treaty on economic and montary union, dated 15 December 1990? It is by far the most authoritative and up-to-date version of what the Commission proposes and what most or our European partners are likely to accept. In addition, why do we not have the draft statute for the European system of central banks and of the European central bank, sent to the intergovernmental conference by the committee of central bank governors on 27 November?

471
Those are the most definitive documents, yet they are excluded from the clutch of documents to which the attention of the House has been drawn. Can the Chancellor explain?
Mr. Lamont: Those documents are important to the debate, and I shall certainly be talking about them.
To go back to the point which I was making, the impetus for European monetary union dates back to the 1960s. The Werner report of 1970 set out a three-stage process for greater economic and monetary integration. That was never implemented because, to be frank, the economies of member states were not remotely ready for it.
However, the Delors committee's report two years ago revived the issue and brought it to the forefront of the European debate. The report defined EMU as a once-and-for-all locking of exchange rates, leading to the adoption of a single currency, with a single monetary policy and a single European bank; and it set out a three-stage process to get there, laying down strict conditions which would first need to be met.
Much of what was defined as stage 1 by the report was very welcome to the Government. Indeed, in some areas we have led the way. They include the completion of the single market and a single financial area, free movement of capital throughout the Community and a strengthened competition policy. All these steps continue the process of economic integration by which both the Community and the United Kingdom economy have benefited greatly over the past two decades. Monetary integration at this stage is merely the logical development of the single market.
But we part company with the Delors report over its centralising, prescriptive approach to developments beyond stage 1, especially the proposal that 12 member states, in their current state of economic development, should commit themselves today to move to a single European currency. The Government believe that it would be wrong to make such a commitment. Profound issues of sovereignty are involved, and apart from that the Community is a very long way from being ready for a single currency, as I shall explain to the House in due course. It would be foolish to bind ourselves now to a rigid, inflexible structure for monetary union when there are huge uncertainties about what lies ahead.
We believe that the right way forward is to build on our experience of economic and monetary integration to date, and to take the practical steps that we can all agree on towards closer integration. In our view, monetary union should not be equated with a single currency; it is a process. As we go further down this road, our experience will increase and we shall be better able to take decisions about the future. But we should not try to prejudge questions to which we cannot possible know the answers today.
The British Government have therefore concentrated on the immediate steps beyond stage I . They were the first Government to put forward proposals for stage 2, and these remain the only substantive proposals for stage 2. The proposals involve the creation not of a single but of a common currency; that is to say, a currency that would exist alongside or parallel with national currencies rather than replace them. This common currency, the so-called hard ecu, would be a genuine, new, international currency. The ecu would no longer be, as it is now, a basket of other currencies—that is to say, a weighted average—but would exist in its own right and be a currency within the ERM.
472
It is called the "hard" ecu because it would never be allowed to devalue against other Community currencies and would therefore be an attractive store of value for use by businesses and individuals across the Community. Banks would be able to take deposits and issue loans in this currency.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am listening with care to what he says. He has just said that the intention was that the common currency would not be allowed to devalue against individual state currencies. If it is intended at some stage in the future that each of our national currencies will be relatively fixed to a new common currency, surely the two will become interchangeable, and the difference between "common currency" and "single currency" will be essentially semantic.
Mr. Lamont: With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), that does not follow. What would follow is that the hard ecu would be the hardest currency within the mechanism, and if one currency was revaluing upwards all the time it would become more like that currency, because it is, as I said, not a weighted average as is the existing basket. So I do not think that it carries one forward inevitably in the way described by my hon. Friend.
In the first instance, the hard ecu would be used largely for business purposes and for financial transactions, although it might also have attractions for individuals as a store of value. As a result, the hard ecu could, over time, evolve towards a single currency. But that, as we have always made clear, is a decision not for now but for the future, and one that would be debated fully in the House.
At the same time we would create a new institution, the European monetary fund. It would be responsible for issuing the new currency in exchange for national currencies; and it would be responsible for operating in the money markets, setting hard ecu interest rates. Both the hard ecu and the European monetary fund would come into being at the start of stage 2.
Our proposals have stimulated debate about the alternative of a common as opposed to a single currency. Opposition Members have tried to ridicule our proposals, but they have attracted an increasing amount of interest in Europe. For instance, Mr. Beregovoy, the French Finance Minister, said recently:
"It would be better to increase progressively the credibility of the ecu rather than to bring it in by decree on the first day of stage 3. I approve entirely of the idea of an ecu whose definition will be strengthened and whose use on the markets will be developed."
These wise words echo our own approach, but Mr. Beregovoy has not been alone. Other countries have expressed interest and Spain has incorporated something very similar in its own plans for stage 2. The chief executive of the Federation of German Industry, the equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, Herr von Wartenberg, described them as
"An interesting alternative to the rather more centralist approach in the Delors report",
and said that they
"should therefore be examined free of bias."
This growing interest is not surprising, because our proposals have a number of district advantages. First, they provide a way in which all 12 countries can move together

473
as a Community. Secondly, they provide for the creation of a genuinely European currency and a European monetary institution at the beginning of this process.
Thirdly, they reinforce the pressures in the ERM for all member states to converge on the lowest inflation rate in the Community. If a Government depreciate their own currency, they might find that businesses were turning increasingly to the hard ecu. As the hard ecu would not be permitted to devalue within the ERM and the monetary fund would set interest rates to achieve that, it would therefore provide a secure anchor for the other ERM currencies.
Our proposals would work with the market, allowing individuals and firms to use the common currency, in the form of the hard ecu, whenever they wanted to do so, but it would not be forced upon them. Nonetheless, our experience with the existing ecu suggests that a common European currency could have considerable attractions. The Institute of Directors has said that it believes that the introduction of the hard ecu as a common currency
"would be of immediate benefit to business and individual travellers".
We do not plan to grant the hard ecu legal tender status in the first instance. Nonetheless, as we have made clear, if, over time, people saw advantages in that, the Government could consider it.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Would my right hon. Friend say why he does not envisage that the hard ecu will be given legal tender status?
Mr. Lamont: I do not think that that is necessary. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, legal tender is a highly complex subject. I am sure that it will not surprise my hon. Friend, as he is well informed in this matter, but all the notes in circulation in this country do not come within the definition of legal tender. The currency could evolve and could be used increasingly without that legal change. As I said, there could—as opposed to would—come a point when it might be considered.
I have outlined our proposals and why we believe that they represent the best way forward. Now the business of negotiation with our partners in the Community is under way, and I should like to explain to the House how the intergovernmental conference will be organised, and set out the approach that we intend to take in discussions and our objectives during the months ahead.
The conference has been called to amend the treaty in order to facilitate the later stages of EMU. The agenda is decided by the IGC itself. Ministerial meetings—at which I or the Financial Secretary will represent the United Kingdom—will take place once a month, with officials meeting once a fortnight. I attended the opening session of the IGC last month, and the next ministerial meeting will take place in four days' time.
The conference will be chaired by the presidency—the Luxemburgers in the first half of 1991 and the Dutch in the second half. We shall keep the House in touch with progress as the conference continues. No date has been set for the conclusion of the conference, but at the European Council in Dublin last April it was agreed that member states should ratify treaty amendments by the end of 1992.
The opening session last month was encouraging. Every member state expressed its wish for the IGC to reach an agreement acceptable to all 12 members. We agreed that
474
the main objective should be price stability. On other issues, such as the need to avoid excessive budget deficits, we also found a lot of common ground.
Of course, there are several issues on which the positions of member states differ substantially. That is hardly surprising when one considers the huge complexity of this subject and the uncertainty that there must be about the consequences of EMU. But the gap between us is not unbridgeable. As Finance Ministers get down to the detailed, practical negotiations that are required to make progress, I am confident that problems can be resolved constructively. Far too much of the debate in the Community so far has focused on the abstraction of a single currency, but I am glad to say that discussion is now turning towards the immediate practical issues of what we do next. It is clear that the United Kingdom has been instrumental in influencing that change of direction.
Earlier this month I made available to the House texts for treaty amendments which showed how our proposals could be framed in treaty language, and how the European monetary fund would operate. These have been tabled for discussion at the intergovernmental conference. If we compare our texts with the Commission's, it can be seen that there are clearly some differences and some similarities between the aims and operations of the fund and the proposed European central bank.
We differ on the imposition of a single monetary policy and a single currency, which this Government cannot accept and have not provided for in our proprosals. The European monetary fund is not put forward as a central bank, for the very simple reason that we do not favour a single currency. The function and purpose of a central bank is to issue a single currency. We agree with the Commission on the need for the new monetary institution in the Community to have a two-tier structure of governing and executive boards. Therefore, we have incorporated those provisions in our treaty texts which are along the lines of those proposed for the European central bank. The texts are designed specifically to meet two of the main worries that have been expressed about a common currency.
The first worry has been that a common or parallel currency might prove inflationary. As the argument goes, it might add to the money supply of the Community. As I have explained on several occasions, our proposals are designed to avoid that drawback and indeed to operate specifically as a counter-inflationary discipline. The European monetary fund's operations would not add to the Community's money supply because any hard ecus issued would have to be exchanged for national currencies. Anything that the fund added to the total money supply in the Community would be matched by what it took out.
In addition, the EMF would have powers to discourage national Governments from pursuing loose monetary policies. If a Government printed too much money and businesses and individuals came to believe that national currencies were losing their value, they would be able to exchange them for the new currency. The monetary fund would begin to build up an excessive stock of national currency and beyond a certain limit would require the national Government to repurchase it out of its reserves. That would directly counteract the excessive growth in money supply and would be a heavy penalty on the country in question.
The second worry has been that the creation of a 13th currency would somehow confuse responsibility for

475
monetary policy. Our proposals provide a clear division of responsibilities. The job of the EMF would be to manage the new currency, preventing it from ever devaluing against other Community currencies. National monetary policy would remain in the hands of national Governments with decisions taken at national level.
Now that we are in negotiation, we shall be arguing for our proposals but also seeking the views of other member states on specific questions where we have not yet taken a firm decision—for instance, how the monetary fund might best be made accountable to Finance Ministers, national Parliaments, and perhaps also to the European Parliament. This is a subject on which there is a wide range of views held among the other member states and many of the views held by other states will not be easily reconcilable with each other. The same may be true in regard to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The monetary fund would be a new institution, and it is by no means obvious how we could best ensure its accountability, so we shall listen with care to the ideas and views expressed by our partners, as well as those advanced during today's debate.
Mr. Tony Favell: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the wide divergence of view among hon. Members of all parties and, indeed, throughout the country. Can he tell us whether the Cabinet now has an ultimate goal? We hear a good deal of Euro-speak about commonality, convergence, gradualism and unity. Where is all that unity going to lead us? What is the Government's ultimate goal?
Mr. Lamont: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's feelings about Euro-speak and jargon, although I fear that a certain amount of such language is unavoidable. I have at least tried to explain what each word means when I have used it for the first time, but it is almost impossible to make a speech Matthew Parris-proof.
Our objective is to leave the realisation of monetary union, if it happens, to an evolutionary approach to be determined by markets, individuals and businesses. We are not prepared to sign up to move to a single currency with a single central bank; our objective is to negotiate that outcome successfully.
Mr. Shore: I promise not to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman a third time.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it possible to reconcile our proposals, which he has described, with the approach of the majority of the Community partners who are now meeting, or about to meet, in the IGC. He also told the House very clearly that we could not accept any commitment to a single currency at this stage. Article 2 of the draft treaty of the Commission—the first substantive article in the treaty, which I wish were among the papers before us—states:
"The Community shall have as its task progressively to achieve economic and monetary union, which will be based on a single currency, the ecu".
Is that article to be deleted from the draft treaty, or are we discussing complete unrealities—measures that we consider sensible, but on which the Community has already made its decision, with the aim of going much further?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Commission's proposals. I am talking about an intergovernmental conference at which both we and the Commission will present proposals, and at which we shall
476
negotiate. We are trying to get our objectives embodied in treaty amendments. In due course, there will be other texts from the French, and, I believe, from the Spanish and the Belgians as well. There will be a good deal of cross-party and intergovernmental discussion about the different ways in which different amendments may be reconciled: that is what the conference is all about.
Now that we are in negotiation, we shall be arguing for our proposals, but also—as I have said—seeking the views of other member states about specific questions on which we have not yet taken a firm view, such as the accountability of the European monetary fund. Let me make it plain, however, that a willingness to discuss and adapt our proposals does not mean that we have modified or abandoned our concern about a single currency: we are not about to withdraw the objections that we have expressed all along to the original Delors proposals.
Our overall objective for the IGC is twofold—to reach an agreement with our partners, but one that meets our own concerns by fully respecting the sovereign rights of this Parliament. That means keeping open the options not just for this Parliament, but for future Parliaments. We shall be looking for a treaty that does not impose a single currency on the United Kingdom; for developments beyond stage 1, which incorporate our ideas for a common European currency and for a European monetary fund; and for continued national responsibility for the main elements of budgetary policy.
The Delors report recommends setting binding rules on the size of budget deficits which member states would be allowed to run. This would mean that the House of Commons would no longer be sovereign on matters of taxation or public expenditure or both—a position that we could not accept. That objection aside, binding rules are neither necessary nor practical; excessive budget deficits are certainly something that we should try to avoid, but how that is done and what constitutes an excessive deficit can be judged only on a case by case basis.
National Governments can and should be left to make those decisions within the disciplines created by the financial markets. Those disciplines will be effective provided that the markets know that Governments are on their own; there is no Community guarantee of their debt and that they will not be bailed out by the Community if they get into trouble. All that is required to make that plain is a rule against financing the deficit by printing money and an explicit prohibition of bail-outs by the Community. On this key issue, I am pleased to report, we are among a clear majority in the Community.
One might ask what approach the opposition would take to EMU and to negotiations with our partners? Hon. Members on this side of the House will not be alone if they are somewhat unclear about the Labour party's policy, and not least, as usual, about the approach by the Leader of the Opposition himself. On 2 November last year, the Leader of the Opposition explained to the listeners of the "Today" programme what accepting a single currency meant to him. He said:
"You don't have to have the abolition of the pound; you have a pound with its ecu value and everybody can go on using whatever currency they want so long as it is in stipulated ecu value."
When asked whether it mattered if we had a common or single currency "so long as the Queen's head is on it", the right hon. Member beamed:
"That's the whole point Leon Brittan and Jacques Delors and everybody else has made and they're right".

477
As usual, it was the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who set about the damage limitation exercise, as he so often has to. On 7 November he told The Daily Telegraph:
"What Neil was trying to make clear was that it was rather a foolish view to say the only issue was whether the Queen's head appeared on the currency or not".
That was a heroic, but slightly unconvincing, attempt, to save the day.
In November, Labour's national executive committee published a paper entitled "The Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union". This states that, since our Community partners have made clear that their desire is to move towards full monetary union and the establishment of a single currency, Labour believes that
"it would not be in the national interest if Britain allowed itself to be excluded from such developments".
In December, in another interview on "Today", his favourite programme, the Leader of the Opposition said:
"The 11 other countries are unanimous"—
about their desire for greater economic and monetary integration—
"Now the choices therefore available are to go and turn our backs on that, which would be foolish, or to be involved in it."
I do not wish to be unfair to the Labour party, but it is not being at all clear. I put it no more strongly than this: the implication seems to be that the Labour party would be prepared to sign up to a single currency if sufficient of the other members of the Community think that that is a good idea. I very much hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks on this matter he will make his position crystal clear.
Our position is that we will not commit ourselves to move to a single currency. Our proposals are designed to safeguard Britain's interests. Other countries are interested in our proposals, but the task of persuading our partners is a difficult one. It is not always made easier by the Leader of the Opposition denouncing our proposals when he is abroad. We do not hear of President Giscard d'Estaing coming to this country and criticising his country's proposals; he stands up for French interests.
Sir Russell Johnston: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the single currency and the hard ecu, would he simplify one basic point which I think I understand correctly. The hard ecu is not a transitional arrangement and the Governnment do not ever wish to move to a single currency. Is that the approach?
Mr. Lamont: I have already made it clear this afternoon that the hard ecu could evolve if markets and individuals want that. That would be a decision to be made by a future parliament and a future Government. This Government reserve decisions on moving to a single currency for this House. Opposition Members seem to be prepared to rush headlong into agreements in Europe without having a clear idea of what these will mean for Britain and without the slightest regard for the sovereignty of Parliament.
Unlike the Opposition, the Government have always objected to the Delors prescription for EMU and the imposition of a single currency, and we will continue to oppose it. Let us just consider what the proposal would
478
mean. Overnight, 340 million people would accept a single currency in a Community in which income per head varies from £9,400 in Germany to £4,500 in Greece.
Income is only one way of measuring the diversity of economies in Europe. Let us consider, for example, the following differences between member states: inflation ranges from 2 per cent. to 23 per cent; short-term interest rates are 9 per cent. at the bottom end and 19 per cent. at the top; unemployment, an important indicator of labour market flexibility, ranges from 1 per cent. in Luxembourg to 16 per cent. in Spain; and budget balances range from a surplus of 3 per cent. to a deficit of 19 per cent. of gross domestic product. As long as such wide divergences exist, a commitment now to move to a single currency would be a massive leap in the dark.
By trying to move prematurely to monetary union, we would run very serious risks. The dangers of forcing the pace have been amply demonstrated in Germany. Karl Otto Pohl, the director of the Bundesbank, has described Germany's experience as "a drastic object lesson" of the need for prior convergence before establishing a currency union. Reunification there has meant the rapid merger of two very different economies. The short-term consequences are a huge rise in the German budget deficit and rising unemployment in eastern Germany, but for the rest of the Community their experience is salutary. It shows the strains and tensions set up by moving to currency union before there is proper economic convergence. In the case of Germany one strong currency and one strong economy effectively took over those of a weaker neighbour. How much greater would those strains and tensions be if 12 very different states with different economies were now to adopt a single currency?
The consequences could be very difficult indeed. It is possible that to ease the pain of currency union, there would be calls for large sums to be spent in the poorer regions. A programme of transfers—potentially huge—would be very difficult for the more prosperous countries to take. Even on present policies, by 1993 we will be funding a structural policy costing between £11 billion and £12 billion each year.
A second possible outcome is that the European central bank would prove unable to live up to the high standards of the Bundesbank in reducing inflation. Instead of promoting convergence, monetary union would lead to just the opposite: higher inflation and a poorer economic performance. The truth is that the full economic consequences of the Delors prescription are highly uncertain. They would take a long time to emerge and would be extremely difficult to forecast. The currency union on this scale of individual countries envisaged has no serious precedent that I have been able to find. Fixed exchange rate systems like the gold standard, Bretton Woods and, indeed, the EMS are not the real precursors of EMU. A common feature of all those arrangements was that there was no centralised monetary policy and no single central bank governing all the participants.
It is for those reasons that we have put forward our own proposals, which recognise the uncertainties involved. We want to listen to our partners at the IGC and to try to find ways of meeting their concerns as well as our own. We hope and expect that the IGC will recommend a set of treaty amendments acceptable to all member states which we can bring to this House for approval.
At the same time, we cannot accept a treaty that would bind us to move to a single currency or to a single

479
continental monetary policy without a separate decision at the appropriate time by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. That will be a question for future Parliaments to decide.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the talk of monetary union at so early a stage is a real danger to the completion of the internal market, which is a real thing that people—and certainly business people—want to see happen? In Europe, it takes weeks to transfer money, whereas in our own market it is instantaneous. Such hurdles and obstacles have to be overcome. That is more important and practical than dreaming about monetary union which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, cannot take place here.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend has a good point. Many aspects of the single market still have to be developed. Our financial institutions and insurance companies feel strongly that we do not yet have an internal market in many areas of financial services. I should have thought that that was relevant to the debate on monetary union.
This debate will show that economic and monetary union raises issues of the greatest importance for this country. There are those in the Community who seem ready to bind themselves to make the move to a single monetary policy and a single currency. As we have made clear, while we are ready to respond to the other member states in the Community, we believe it both unnecessary and premature to ask this House to take binding decisions to move to a single currency.
We have said that our approach, or some development of it, could lead to a single currency. Although we do not rule out a single currency for ever—if that were what peoples and Governments so wished—we cannot accept a commitment to move to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision at the appropriate time by this House. It is on that basis that we will carry forward our negotiations in the intergovernmental conference.
In the light of those assurances, I ask the House to commend the Government's approach to these complex issues and, especially, our emphasis on practical steps which will promote economic and monetary convergence. I also ask the House to endorse the Government's handling of the intergovernmental conference that lies ahead.
4.53 pm
Mr. John Smith: Despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his closing sentences, this is a debate on the Adjournment. We are not asked to commend anything; we are asked to make contributions to the debate. It is understandable that the House, like the nation, has other things on its mind this week. However, our natural tendency to concentrate on the Gulf should not lead us to neglect the proper duty of Parliament to scrutinise the actions of Government on other major issues, or to underestimate the importance of this subject.
The debate also offers the opportunity for hon. Members of all parties, and with a wide variety of views on what the future economic and monetary relationships in the European Community should be, to contribute to a discussion that seems now to be firmly under way in the intergovernmental conference. I stress the importance of
480
the issue because there has been a tendency in our country over the years to fail to appreciate the significance of issues as they emerge in the continuing debate in the European Community about its future.
In the 1950s, successive British Governments made the wrong assessment about the potential and eventual reality of the early moves to found the European Community. It was too easily—and perhaps too comfortably—assumed that the enterprise either would not succeed, or would not achieve the ambitions set for it. There was similar scepticism—and not only among politicians—about the potential success of the European monetary system when it was established at the end of the 1970s.
Those experiences should teach us that there are penalties to be paid for failing to assess the serious purport of developments in the Community, and then belatedly trying to influence the shape of institutions and the direction of policy after key decisions have been taken without our participation. It would be wise for us to appreciate that the move towards economic and monetary union is solidly based and widely supported by the majority of the Community.
No one can predict the outcome of the current negotiations. There is no inevitability about the early adoption of a radical move to a single currency throughout the whole Community. As the Chancellor noted, a previous attempt after the publication of the Werner report at the beginning of the 1970s did not lead to monetary union, although the debate helped to promote the establishment of the European monetary system.
On the other hand, the creation of the single mark et after 1992, which is now irreversibly in process, gives an impetus to the consideration of economic and monetary union that was not there before. For those reasons, it would be profoundly wrong for this country not to be engaged fully and constructively in the discussions and debates now under way at the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I have hardly said anything, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Oppenheim: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courtesy.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly made the point that it is important, first, to have a clear negotiating position and, secondly, to ensure that our position is heard in Europe. Bearing that in mind, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make his own position clear by telling the House unequivocally whether he is in favour of a single currency—yes or no?
Mr. Smith: I was slightly reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman as I had hardly embarked on my speech. If he listens with attention to my speech, when I can begin to deliver it, he may benefit from what he hears.
In the discussions, we should seek to ensure that the results are not incompatible with our national interest or with the reality of our economic situation—bad as it is —and we should also seek, as a member of the Community, to bring our own distinctive experience, especially our concepts of political accountability and democracy, to bear on some of the crucial issues that will be encountered in the intergovernmental discussions.

481
Given our experience of joining the European Community and the exchange rate mechanism late in the day, there would be perils in not appreciating the strength of the movement, especially towards monetary union, or in underestimating the potentially adverse consequences in the United Kingdom being outwith the form of monetary union that the majority of the Community would have established.
In the light of those observations, one of the questions to be considered is whether the Government's approach to recent developments in the Community is sufficiently realistic and constructive. Is it realistic about what is likely to happen in the Community and about asserting our national interest? Is it constructive in the sense that negotiations are being conducted straightforwardly and with a sense of contributing purposefully to the debate?
The Government's early response to the Delors report, especially when it was articulated by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer but one, was totally dismissive. Once it became clear that there was a real impetus behind the initiative, if not behind all the details in the report, the former Prime Minister announced at the Madrid summit in 1989 that there would be a British alternative to Delors. The fact that her Chancellor was not present at the summit added, no doubt, to the Treasury's surprise when the bold new move was announced.
In the Lombard column of the Financial Times on 18 September 1989, Mr. Sam Brittan, a usually well-informed source, described matters thus:
"One very senior British official first heard of Mrs. Thatcher's promise after the Madrid Summit to table alternative ways of achieving monetary union to that of the Delors Committee on his car radio."
Mr. Brittan went on to explain that
"The official was so astonished that he nearly drove his car into a tree."
Thus was born the plan for competing currencies.
The Treasury, struggling to fulfil the Prime Minister's command, had to do a quick search through the section of its files marked "Daft ideas which might appeal to our political masters". As in many previous cases, they found in the Institute for Economic Affairs file a paper on competing currencies by Friedrich Hayek, the patron saint of Thatcherism. Unfortunately, the former Chancellor's expressed enthusiasm for this idea of competing currencies was not shared by his Community opposite numbers, who basically killed it stone dead at a meeting of the Economic and Finance Council in Antibes in September of that year.
Following the failure of the Treasury to meet the former Prime Minister's demanding, if imprecise, specification to find something different, influential City interests and a former United Kingdom permanent representative to the Community, Sir Michael Butler, came to the rescue of the Government and the Treasury. In March 1990, the Invisible Exports Council published its proposals for the hard ecu, which, with minor amendments, were accepted by the Government.
It is understood that Sir Michael Butler sold it to the former Prime Minister as a market-driven alternative to a single currency. No doubt he drew on a lifetime's diplomatic experience of dealing with difficult individuals by telling them what they like to hear. The difficulty for the Government, however, is that it is abundantly clear that
482
the proponents of the hard ecu have seen it as an evolutionary route to a single currency and not as an alternative to it.
As I pointed out in one of our earlier debates, Sir Michael Butler, on behalf of the Invisible Exports Council, drafted treaty amendments, which were published in October last year and which explicitly acknowledged the goal of a single currency in stage 3 of the Delors process. So, clearly, the architects of the hard ecu were in no doubt about what they were after.
The same cannot be said about the public declarations of the Government. According to the former Chancellor and present Prime Minister, when he presented the hard ecu plan at the German industry forum on 20 June last year he explained that
"in the very long term if peoples and Governments so choose it could develop into a single currency."
Of course, as we know, the former Prime Minister's view that she did not believe that the hard ecu could develop into a single currency was expressed more than once in the House; and of course, notoriously, in one of her latter-day contributions, she observed that it would not be widely used at all. And right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench sat there and nodded in agreement. That was in the days when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister. We hear a little bit more muttering about it now, but they all nodded dutifully in those days.
Of course, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer might have had other things on his mind as he was anticipating certain events. I gather that he has been to see the former Prime Minister to explain that he was not guilty after all. I can understand that these things were probably bearing heavily on his mind at that time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Et tu, Brute.
Mr. Smith: I hope that Hansard notes that very apt intervention by my hon. Friend.
To confuse matters further, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is, after all, responsible for European issues, gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on economic and monetary union, which I think deserves a wider currency. I hope that the Financial Secretary is not excessively embarrassed at being quoted again. He said, in response to a question about the hard ecu scheme, that the next stage of having a single currency could actually happen more quickly going down this path.
The new Chancellor seeks to explain away this confusion by agreeing with all the three propositions and by stating that it is simply a matter of market choice—no need for Governments or Parliaments to take crucial decisions; it is simply a matter for markets. They alone, according to this theory, take the crucial decision as to whether we embrace a single currency.
Making the perhaps generous assumption that the hard ecu would be adopted by the European Community as a 13th and parallel currency available to the whole Community as an alternative money to their national currencies, there is clearly a risk that a weak national currency could be crowded out by the hard ecu as more and more companies and citizens preferred the security of harder money. According to this theory, a single currency would just happen, regardless of the views of Government or, of course, Parliament, unless Government took action to match the hardness of the ecu and therefore followed the policies proposed by the European monetary fund.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: May I just make the point before I give way?
Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman insists on interrupting me, I will give way to him.
Mr. Nicholls: I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is perfectly clear that he does not intend to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) about where his party stands on EMU. Is not the reason for that that the Labour party's policy on the EMU, in the words of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), is disturbingly inadequate? That is the charge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to face today and he is taking up the time of the House in avoiding it completely.
Mr. Smith: It clearly was a mistake for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was in the middle of an argument and, in an excess of generosity, I gave way to him. I will explain very fully what our position is, but I think that what I am saying is relevant. The hon. Gentleman may not like to hear it but I would have thought that it was the duty of the Opposition to comment on the hard ecu proposals, which the Chancellor boasted of as having been the Government's unique contribution to the debate. I cannot see why it should be a matter of criticism for me to draw attention to what I think are the deficiencies in his scheme. I am astonished that I should be subjected to criticism by the hon. Gentleman for seeking to do just that.
Before I was so inappropriately interrupted by the hon. Gentleman I was pointing out that the deficiency of that scheme was that the decision would be taken by markets and the paradox of such a situation would be that what amounts to a single currency could be—to use the dreadful word—imposed by the twin operation of the market and what in essence would be an all-powerful central bank.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves rose—
Mr. Smith: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I really must get on with my argument.
This may be what the Financial Secretary had in mind when he spoke to the House of Lords Committee.
We have heard a great deal about the Government's total opposition to the imposition of a single currency—a formulation of the issue which is thoroughly, and probably deliberately, misleading. It may suit the Government to use these words to assuage the Bruges group, and perhaps also its new president, but no one in the Community has the power—let alone, as I see it, the intention—to impose new monetary arrangements on the United Kingdom.
If, as a result of the intergovernmental conference, treaty amendments are agreed, they will have to be brought by Government to Parliament. They will come about only if the Government decide to adopt them and Parliament approves—so much for a single currency being imposed on anyone. The irony, of course, of the hard ecu proposal is that this could be a way of avoiding a decision by Government and Parliament in the name of market forces—hardly a prescription which the House should find attractive—if the real decision is taken by market forces.
484
Whether or not the proposal for a hard ecu would ever work, it does not face up to what I believe to be the key issue in the whole debate about monetary union: what form of accountability should exist for Community financial institutions. I think that a majority of the House, with some exceptions, is agreed that a completely independent European central bank would not be acceptable. In the opinion of the majority, there has to be some form of political accountability.
I do not think that the hard ecu proposal, with its proposed European monetary fund, deals adequately with this question. In a previous debate I asked the Chancellor, who was then Chief Secretary, to explain the arrangements for its accountability, and he appeared to have some difficulty in doing so. He told me that the Government were against an independent central bank, which is fine, and that
"The monetary authority would be subject to political control, which would have to be negotiated".—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 284.]
In the published treaty amendments, to which the Chancellor drew the attention of the House, one of the relevant documents, in article V the Government have adopted the unusual tactic, on the question of accountability, of putting forward alternatives—a so-called alternative 1 and alternative 2. Alternative 1 would make the governors of the European monetary fund completely independent—as I read it, more or less Bundesbank-type control. Alternative 2 apparently would preserve national Government control over their appointees to the governing board and, presumably, the executive board of the European monetary fund.
What puzzles me is that, if the Government are clear that they are against an independent bank, they put forward an independent structure for the European monetary fund as one of the alternatives without apparently expressing a difference between them. What is it that the Government prefer? The House is entitled to ask that question and to hear an answer to it. All that the Chancellor told us was that he was interested in ideas. It is a fundamental point for a Government to put forward a proposal to others and be unable to answer, when they will undoubtedly be asked questions by others.
In addition, there is the problem of the way in which the European monetary fund is designed to work and to manage the hard ecu, which makes the question of accountability particularly intractable. In all circumstances, the hard ecu will reflect the value of the strongest currency in the system, which, as we know, is most likely to be the deutschmark. The European monetary fund will have to match the Bundesbank. Because of that built-in obligation, its policies and practice could hardly differ from those of the German monetary authorities. The hard ecu might become a figleaf covering the real monetary standard for Europe, which, in all probability, will remain the deutschmark. The absence of real discretion in practice for the European monetary fund makes the question of accountability almost academic.
For those reasons we do not think that the hard ecu adequately tackles what we consider to be a crucial matter. Nor, for that matter, do we think that the present Commission proposals, which envisage a basically independent central banking system, are satisfactory. We believe that there needs to be established a relationship of accountability between any central bank and the elected Governments of member states. That is why we have

485
proposed that the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers—ECOFIN—should be strengthened and given the task of providing strategic guidance to the process of monetary co-ordination. In effect, it should become the political supervising body, with its own secretariat and permanent representatives, capable of adding an effective political dimension to the conduct of monetary policy and the external exchange rate policy of the Community. That proposal would also ensure that a line of accountability to national Parliaments would be preserved.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is there not a certain illogicality in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? If he attaches such great importance to the principle of public accountability in monetary policy for Europe, and so on, why not opt for the logical approach which is to have direct and periodic accountability from the monetary institution at the centre of Europe to the European Parliament on the one hand and from component banks such as the Bank of England to national parliaments on the other hand?
Mr. Smith: Ours would be a better solution because it would mean that there is, right at the heart of the Community, a politically accountable body with far more effective influence and supervision than the rather gentle forms of accountability that the hon. Gentleman proposes. There probably will be a link with the European Parliament, but I do not think that hon. Members would feel that that was enough on its own. For the bank to give the odd report to a Select Committee here in the way in which the Governor gives evidence now—
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: There is no pressure.
Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend says, there is not much pressure. There does not seem to be a strong line of accountability as a matter of judgment. I therefore respectfully disagree with the assessment made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
Sir Russell Johnston: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman slightly overstating the independence of the Bundesbank? After all, it is required to follow the general economic policy of the federal Government. For example it was against EMS in 1978, but it was overruled. Of course, more recently it was very much against Kohl's economic proposals for unification.
Mr. Smith: It is possible to overestimate the independence of the Bundesbank. It must operate within the general framework of economic policy which the German Government prescribes. It is fair to say that it has far more room for manoeuvre as an institution than the Bank of England or the Bank of France has traditionally had. I was slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman made that point. I understood his party's policy to be that it was not specifically in favour of having an independent Bank of England and, even more so, an independent European central bank. However, he was quite right to draw attention to the fact that the Bundesbank is not totally independent. On German monetary union, one could argue that some of the issues that arose were not narrow monetary issues but important, broad political issues. It was not surprising that the German Chancellor
486
felt that he had to express a view. It would be very odd if such decisions were taken by a bank and not by the Government of the day.
Mr. Fayell: I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, apart from the cheap political jibes that are part of the cut and thrust of debate. However, he should tell the country the Labour party's solution to this enormous problem. We want to know.
Mr. Smith: I do not intend to make expensive political jibes either out of office or in office. The hon. Gentleman might have noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not wholly free from bias in his description of the Labour party, nor wholly free from rather cheap personal references. If the hon. Gentleman were as even-handed as he would like to be considered, he might have noted that as well. However, I am anxious to get on. I am making an important, positive suggestion—a clear alternative on political accountability. I hope that Conservative Members are paying attention.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to do?
Mr. Smith: A Treasury Minister asks what I am going to do. My suggestion will fulfil an important task, which is to bring the central bank to political accountability. That may not strike that Treasury Minister as of any importance, but it will strike many hon. Members as being right at the heart of the matter.
ECOFIN's role has already been growing. It reports regularly on economic conditions within the Community and already conducts so-called multilateral surveillance. There is growing interest in such ideas, particularly by the Government of France, whose views were quoted with approval by the Chancellor, and who have made similar proposals for the role of ECOFIN and will no doubt be pressing them during the intergovernmental conference so that they will come to the attention of other member states.
Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I must be allowed to make progress.
There are some rather weak proposals for accountability to ECOFIN in the European monetary fund proposals in the treaty amendments, amounting to little more than a monthly report. We do not know what the Government's reactions to proposals for a strengthened ECOFIN would be. No doubt the Minister will give the Government's view.
Although it is important to secure accountability, it is far from the only consideration in assessing the desirability and feasibility of monetary union. Of overwhelming importance is the appreciation that any movement towards monetary union will be in the interests of the Community as a whole only if there is substantial convergence in the economic and social performance of individual states. Monetary union, in the absence of adequate levels of convergence, would create unbearable strains within the Community, threatening fragmentation rather than integration.
We therefore think that it would be a serious error to establish a rigid timetable for monetary union which ignores the realities of divergence in real performance. Progress should be by achievement of convergence, rather

487
than by the arbitrary use of the calendar. In that connection, we strongly believe in the importance of a greatly expanded system of regional and structural funds at the Community level.
I am afraid that the Government take as negative a view of regional policy at the European level as they do at the British domestic level. We believe that regional policy must be used as an effective means of assisting convergence and avoiding the risk that the establishment of a single currency would disadvantage weaker nations and regions.
At the end of this year, the Commission will review its regional and structural funds. It will be an important opportunity to review the instruments and resources available to the Community to promote the social cohesion and economic balance that we believe to be crucial objectives for the developing Community. The present Government's record in regional policy in our country and at the Community level leaves us with little confidence that they appreciate the importance of the issue. It will not be long, however, before a Labour Government can tackle it properly.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about regional policy. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he believes that monetary union should be accompanied by a massive regional policy. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to me and my hon. Friends whether that means anything other than British taxpayers paying for a great deal of development in countries such as Greece and other less developed countries of the EC?
Mr. Smith: That is obvious, if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it. It is already reflected in the Community's provisions. The resources of the whole Community are made available for regional and structural funds. Every member state contributes to the funds and receives money from it. That is one of the principles on which the Community is established. If the Conservative party is at such a primitive stage that it cannot contemplate a regional policy at either British or European level, that is its problem, not ours. Its view is not widely shared in Europe.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, even with the much improved budgetary arrangements negotiated by the Government, the effect of a massively increased structural fund programme would be a net outflow of funds from Britain to other countries?
Mr. Smith: I do not accept that that follows. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] It does not follow. There is no reason why it should. It is merely the Minister's assertion. It all depends how the fund is constructed and how the Government deal with it. It depends on the criteria applied and how they are administered.
It is depressing that Conservative Members simply do not understand how important regional policy is. It is regarded as important in all other European countries. It is one of the reasons why Thatcherism never crossed the English channel.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way. I have given way frequently.
488
The other countries of the European Community have a far more balanced idea of economic progress and see social progress as an integral part of it. The Conservative party remains unique as the most backward political party and the most backward Government in the whole Community.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Smith: I have given way frequently to Conservative Members, on many occasions extremely unwisely. I should get on with answering the question which they always ask me and say what our policy is. There are some other issues to be dealt with. I wish to proceed in detail on each item of policy.
We believe that there are other issues of considerable importance. It is important to distinguish between monetary union and the far from precise notion of economic union, implying as it might the loss of fiscal and budgetary sovereignty. The principle of subsidiarity should ensure that progress towards monetary union does not require a common fiscal or budgetary policy for the Community as a whole. As the Economist argued in an interesting article on 20 October 1900:
"The view that a single currency must infringe fiscal sovereignty is simply wrong … A one currency EMU could and should leave governments free to tax and spend as they see fit and run whatever budget deficits the domestic and international capital markets are willing to finance. With the end of exchange rate uncertainty in Europe, that willingness might actually increase. EMU need not endanger fiscal sovereignty."
I agree with that conclusion. It should inform our approach. It is an antidote to the wilder assertions of both people who are opposed to the whole concept of the European Community and equally unrealistic advocates of a European superstate.
We also believe that progress towards monetary union should not prevent the widening of the European Community—which is highly desirable. The rapid accession of the former European Free Trade Association countries should be an objective to be enthusiastically pursued by the British Government. Of course, we should provide for the later association and accession of the new democracies in central and eastern Europe.
Those are the considerations which in our view are most germane to economic and monetary union at this formative stage. They are the criteria by which we shall judge the acceptability of the proposals which emerge from the intergovernmental conference and subsequent Community summits.
It would be easier for us all if our country were in a position of economic strength. Regrettably, despite the claims heard not so long ago from apologists on the Government Front Bench that in the course of experiencing an economic miracle we had surpassed the Germans and left them far behind, we know the reality of the result of a decade of Conservative economic mismanagement. In this important year, in which we should be preparing for the competitive world of the single market after 1992, investment is falling sharply. The Government predicted that manufacturing investment would fall by 7 per cent. this year. Training is being cut, output is falling and unemployment is rising.
Whether or not monetary union is achieved, our country will prosper only with consistent investment in supply side strength—in capacity, infrastructure and, most importantly, the skills of our people. Such investment is a

489
necessary condition for economic success both within the United Kingdom and throughout the Community. After the wasted opportunities of the 1980s, that is the fundamental challenge that we must face in the 1990s.
5.25 pm
Mr. Ian Stewart: A large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have sat here and listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), hoping that at some time during his speech he would answer the question put to him by several of my hon. Friends—whether it is the policy of the Labour party that we should move towards monetary union. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made several interesting comments about the European monetary fund and the European central bank without saying whether he referred to a monetary fund or central bank responsible for administering monetary union, to the hard ecu or to some intermediate stage. If the Labour party wishes to be taken seriously on the subject, it will have to answer the central question of whether it favours a move to monetary union.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the need for a long drawn out timetable. I agree that any early move to monetary union would be dangerous when there are such wide differences between the economies of various member states of the Community. There is no difference between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer or among right hon. and hon. Members on that. However, we waited in vain to hear whether it would be the objective of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he were Chancellor to take the country and our currency into monetary union, with all its consequences.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be unwise to adopt monetary union in the near future. However, although I listened carefully without intervening—I was tempted to interrupt—at no point did he say whether his ultimate objective was monetary union. Perhaps he will intervene to tell me the answer.
Mr. John Smith: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman if he will tell me the Government's ultimate objective, as he understands it.
Mr. Stewart: We know the Government's objective perfectly well. They do not advocate monetary union. They have said that the hard ecu could be an intermediate step. They do not exclude the possibility of monetary union but they do not advocate it. That is my understanding of the position that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained on many occasions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given no such explanation of the Labour party's policy on a major constitutional and economic question.
Whatever our personal views of the desirability of monetary union, and whether it should come sooner or later, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not stated the view of the Opposition on an issue which he has described as profoundly important to us all. He undermines his credibility as a judge of these matters when he says that he is in favour of dealing with the problems of convergence by hugely increasing the structural funds, but
490
does not admit that that would have an adverse impact on the United Kingdom's budget payments to the European Community.
I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been doing all these years while he has been shadow Chancellor, but he has not mastered any of the intricacies of the European budget. If he had, he would know that the more prosperous countries and those that receive less under the common agricultural policy arrangements, are bound to be net contributors, and any substantial reallocation of resources such as he advocates in order to encourage economic convergence would be bound to impose, not only on this country but on Germany, France and others, a large increase in their budgetary contributions. For him to brush it off and say that, because arrangements have not been decided, nobody can tell the answer, is to fly in the face of how the European budget is constructed. It is not good enough for him blithely to dismiss that as a matter of no interest and one which, if he were Chancellor, the United Kingdom could disregard.
The people of this country would not disregard the implications of paying out large sums of money in taxes to subsidise those in other countries who would be benefiting from the huge increase in the structural funds. The only way in which the proposal would not result in substantial transfers from the United Kingdom to the Economic Community's budget would be if Britain were to get a disproportionate share of the new structural funds. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that a massive transfer of resources from other Community countries to the United Kingdom is a part of his convergence exercise, his remark that there would be no adverse budgetary impact on this country is nonsense, and he should recognise it as such.
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recognition that, in current circumstances, to have monetary union such as that advocated by the European Commission, and to have it in the foreseeable future, would have adverse consequences for all Community members because of the differences in levels of prosperity, job arrangements and mobility.
Mr. John Smith: I did not say that at all.
Mr. Ian Stewart: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implied that. Will he explain what he was implying when he said that monetary union would have adverse consequences in the short term?
Mr. Smith: That is a total misquote.
Mr. Stewart: I shall not misquote the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but state what he said. He said that he was concerned about economic convergence and different standards in the economies of various countries, which means exactly what I said.
Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to my comments. The principal matter with which I am concerned is the relative economic weakness of this country in relation to the other countries of the European Community. Should not that be a proper concern—particularly of a representative of the Conservative party that caused the problem?
Mr. Stewart: I did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the unjustified credit of believing that he had

491
some regard for other member states of the Community which were less prosperous. I thought that when he talked about convergence he meant the difference between the more highly industrialised and developed countries of the Community and those, such as the Mediterranean countries—particularly those which more recently joined. There is a considerable gulf between the economies of those Mediterranean countries and those of the Community's northern member states. I am pleased to withdraw the generous accusations that I made against the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The single experiment involving economic union that the European Community has so far undertaken has not been a success. The common agricultural policy is an attempt to impose economic union on a small percentage —about 4 per cent.—of the European Community's economy. Although it has dramatically encouraged output in that section of the European economy in recent years, it has caused major financial imbalances between different member states and raised the national self-interests of Germany, France and other nations to the point that they cut across the supposed ideas of European unity of purpose.
It is a damning comment on the wilder European aspirations of some other member states that, when forced to deal with matters in practical terms, their performance differs so much from the rhetoric that they use. The performance in relation to the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade is the most recent example of that, but it happens in other spheres. In recent weeks, France has shown diplomatic independence in relation to the Gulf affair. Anyone who suggests that we are on the verge of being able to unify the foreign, security or economic policies of the European Community as a whole, is living in a dream world.
Many Conservative Members are in favour of many of the positive aspects of the European Community but very much regret it when it wanders into sectors not substantiated by the facts. The gulf between Euro-rhetoric and Euro-reality does not do the European Community any good and I should like the European Community to make progress towards overcoming it. Economic and financial convergence between members states would be good for the Community and for this country, but it is not encouraged by trying to pretend that we are much closer to being able to achieve such aims than we are in practice.
Therefore, I particularly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said about the practical proposals that he has made in relation to the hard ecu. There were some who criticised his proposal as some sort of negotiating ploy by the British Government. I never regarded it in that light: it seems a sensible development that takes forward the fact that the ecu has already become an established money of account. It already has a certain usefulness and credibility within the Economic Community and, in the hard ecu form proposed by my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, it could develop a valuable function, both commercially and for individuals within the European Community. If, in the long run, that were to lead to a desire for a single currency, I have no objection. That decision could be taken only in the light of events that may be many years ahead of us.
In this, as in most spheres of European policy, we need evolutionary development so that we can see how matters progress and adjust the process along the line. We do not
492
want to decide, in advance, what the ultimate objective should be, and then find that, by adhering to it, we cause immense practical problems in the near future.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a sense, deciding in advance what the objectives are, filling in all the details, having a deadline and deciding on the voluntary collective imposition of a policy applies exactly to the internal market—so why not to monetary union?
Mr. Stewart: The internal market is a series of practical decisions taken in the light of converging trade over a long period. Member states, including the United Kingom, have found obstructions and tried to remove them. That seems entirely different from imposing an ultimate target that is not self-evidently desirable at this stage.
It is all very well to say, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did, that monetary union does not necessarily mean political union. I take issue with him on that. I do not believe that it would be possible, for any length of time, to have unification of interest rates, every country assuming the external deficits or surpluses on balance of payments, with freedom of movement of goods and money around the Community, without imposing some form of supranational control to sustain the system.
It is often said that if there is only one currency, there should be only one Chancellor of the Exchequer or Finance Minister. I do not see any escape from that. One can find odd articles in The Economist and elsewhere suggesting that that is not the case, but there is no evidence that it is possible, for any length of time, to manage monetary union without political union. We should be clear that the one implies the other and we should not move towards a policy of monetary union unless we are prepared to accept that political union goes along with it.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that monetary union would impose a discipline on budget deficits throughout the Community and that that might be somewhat embarrassing for the Labour party, which has thrived on budget deficits?
Mr. Stewart: It would cause the Labour party problems but, from what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said, his policies would cause many other problems, of which a deficit might not be the greatest.
Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Stewart: I am afraid not, as I wish to respect the wishes of the Chair. We have all been asked not to speak for too long.
I have a few practical comments about the hard ecu. As I understood my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, inherent in his system would be recourse by individual member states to indemnify the European monetary fund for any losses that might be sustained by the issuance of hard ecus against the basket of currencies which incorporated a currency that devalued within the EMS. Such an arrangement would be essential and I hope that, in his negotiations, he will draw attention to this.
Any proposal that led to the conversion of softer currencies into hard ecu where the exchange risk was carried by the Community as a whole would not be fair on the countries that were managing their currencies more responsibly. It is an essential technical part of the

493
proposals that what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon should have the practical effect of throwing that risk on to the countries whose currencies were weaker.
There is a prospect that a hard ecu could become commercially useful within the European Community as many more companies trade more thoroughly throughout the different countries within it. One of the arguments advanced by the Commission and others in favour of monetary union is that it would reduce exchange costs and conversion prices of currency in covering contracts. If one had an acceptable common currency such as the hard ecu, that benefit could be achieved without monetary union but by the step advocated by my right hon. Friend.
The other point—I speak only personally in this—is that I should find it useful to have a currency that I could use in any of the member states of the Community, perhaps initially only in hotels, for transport or such purposes, and perhaps only in the capitals or the main commercial or political centres. I suspect that many others, in this country and on the continent, would find that a valuable development.
To pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend, I can tell him that, in the Napoleonic wars, the Bank of England issued tokens that were acceptable as currency but were never legal tender. The same is true of Scottish bank notes now, which are acceptable in Cumbria, Northumberland and other northern counties and even in the Post Office of the House of Commons, but are not technically legal tender. There is no obstacle to the use of a common currency internally for retail and personal expenditure even without the full sanction of legal tender, a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) in his intervention.
I should welcome such use of the hard ecu as a helpful development. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his predecessor, who is now the Prime Minister, on putting forward an idea that is valuable not only intrinsically but in terms of our negotiations with the European Community, and an idea that I should like to see put into effect. I hope that he will be as successful in persuading other member states that that should be done.
5.43 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) spoke about the wide differences in the Community—a point with which I shall deal later.
The only justification for the hard ecu was that it allowed the Government to avoid making a hard choice. It was a way to avoid saying no. I welcomed that development, as I thought that it was wrong for the country to be in a minority of one with 11 others against it. That is not diplomacy or good sense. That creates enemies where one does not need to create enemies. The Treasury's brilliant idea was to present this as an alternative. It is not an alternative, it is nonsense, but I hope that it will serve its purpose and bring about what I hope will come eventually—a greater realisation of the problems of the EMU.
Removing the right to change the value of one's currency is an act of extreme importance. In the post-war years, we saw two important changes of our currency. The Labour party may be a little paranoid about such a move,
494
because it came in in 1949 and 1967. The first was a result of the war and the second was the result of the Barber boom. It was the Labour Government who had to deal with the consequences of those. Faced with such impossible situations, a devaluation became necessary.
The trouble with devaluation is the delay. It takes a long time before people realise the inevitability of it. Devaluation is not the only solution, but it is a valuable weapon. The first devaluation in 1949 was most successful. The devaluation from $4 to the pound to $2·40 to the pound led to the benefits that we enjoyed throughout the 1950s. So good were the benefits that we were able to ignore the Messina conference, because we were sure of the enormous advantages that we had. It ended with the "never had it so good" years of Harold Macmillan. Much the same happened in 1967. After the boom years, we were once more in a balance of payments crisis and once again, the decision was deferred.
Devaluation is of particular importance to manufacturing industry, something that I hold dear because my constituency has one of the largest manufacturing sectors of all constituencies. It consists almost entirely of small firms, but these are of enormous importance to the country, as they are in Germany, Japan and other countries.
Devaluation helps exports and reduces imports but, most importantly, it helps manufacturing exports and discourages manufacturing imports. Nobody can deny that it has inflationary consequences, but there is a time lag before those come through. That is a little shorter now but, during that period, something can be done if there is good sense in Government. The City and the Bank of England do not like devaluation; nor do those who like a strong pound, because of the foreign investment opportunities that it provides. Such opportunities are not necessarily to the advantage of our country.
In deciding the issue between industry and the City in favour of the City, the Government have lost a useful ally —the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI once promised a bare-knuckle fight to defend manufacturing industry, but many of the members of the CBI are now in service industries and industries that benefit from the strong pound. The Government should look again at the needs of manufacturing industry. Some Governments have favoured industry and, although they have been few and far between, I am happy to say that they have always been Labour Governments.
The price has to be paid. Once one decides to go for a high exchange rate, which is what we have now, and to have EMU or ERM, which presupposes a fairly high value for the pound, one is left with the problem of industry, with the result that industry is told not to increase pay to compensate for price changes. In the days of the previous Prime Minister, the Government used to say that pay demands did not matter. They thought that money supply would provide the answer. They were soon disabused and learned reality. It is not long before we heard the exhortation that is the main principle of reducing inflation now—keep pay demands down. Of course I have nothing against exhortation. It does no particular harm, but neither does it do much good. It is not a policy in itself. Eventually it is seen to be inadequate, and other policies are looked for.
There are two ways of looking at EMU. One is to obtain some stability in currency markets. I am in favour of stability. There would be a lot to be said for the level of

495
the pound against other currencies remaining pretty stable over a long period, until it became unsupportable, resulting in considerable devaluation or, possibly, revaluation. During that period one could have some very competitive pricing because people would not have to take into account the risks of devaluation or revaluation. There would be great advantage in that. One could compare it with what happens when there are more frequent changes in the value of currency, resulting in greater cost to both exporters and importers. I argue that the Bretton Woods period was very useful. But it could not last. Eventually adjustments of that kind are going to have to be made, but they will not be possible under EMU.
Mr. Taylor: I am concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, which seems to regard devaluation as a beneficial act. Devaluation is required only if a country has not been pursuing domestic policies that improve the competitiveness of its industry. It is clear that currency depreciation does not improve the competitive position of a country in relation to those countries with which it trades extensively. The old Phillips curve analysis is out of the window.
Mr. Sheldon: Of course, one can keep one's eyes closed if one wishes, but when one sees manufacturing industry suffering, what does one do? Does one allow unemployment to rise indefinitely? Of course one cannot do that. One has to face the reality. Any Government with any sense at all must face the reality when pushed to do so. I realise that Governments are reluctant to take this step, but occasionally it is necessary. I hope that that will be understood whenever these matters arise.
The other solution is to say that we must discipline our industry within EMU, that we have to punish workers with the threat of factory closures and unemployment. In this respect, EMU will be even less forgiving than ERM. The trouble is that some very highly respected economists and commentators do not understand the wage bargaining process as it is carried out in this country. It has resulted in much recrimination as those with high incomes—incomes obtained in comfortable and interesting occupations—have failed to understand, or even to feel, the frustration of so many who see their lives mapped out years ahead, with few, if any, chances for the future, other than the hope of higher pay for much the same job.
One may condemn this limited outlook. One may even, with much more justification, blame the managers, who cannot convey the feeling of participation in a worthwhile industrial venture. But condemnation will not change very much. Least of all can the Government, with their failure to understand industry, change perceptions and expectations.
There are many who have awaited with relish the discipline of the ERM and, now, of EMU. But discipline is too often the remedy of the inadequate. I remember, as a machine shop manager, reading adverts in the late 1940s. Some of them said something like "Manager required—good disciplinarian". That was the negation of management, and it owed too much to our class attitudes. To assume that ERM and EMU will do our job for us is to ensure that management will be less than professional.
There were the beginnings of enthusiasm for EMU, which we find a little more muted now. I fear that whatever happens will not benefit the City of London. I believe that Frankfurt and Tokyo will become even more dominant,
496
because they have the manufacturing industry. As I have said before, I believe that markets follow money. Markets follow the creation of wealth. The fact is that wealth is not created in New York city or in London the way it used to be, because the manufacturing strength of the United States and the United Kingdom is not what it was. Of course we must help the City of London, which is very valuable indeed. There are those who look to EMU as the solution to a number of these problems.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) thinks that, if there is to be a central bank of Europe, control must be exercised by some body. I feel that it would be extremely difficult to control such a central bank. Indeed, controlling a central bank in one country is hard enough. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows what problems he has with the governor of the Bank of England, even though they speak the same language and the Bank of England is only just down the road. Indeed, they meet at least once a week—at least, that was the case in my time. But if there were a central bank in Frankfurt, or wherever, the people going there would not even speak the same language with perfection. Thus the problems would be magnified greatly. It was because of such problems that we—with much Tory support, I must confess—nationalised the Bank of England many years ago.
Everybody wants to see convergence. It is asserted that that is the solution—that if we can get convergence, EMU, ERM and all these things will become possible. But when there is talk of convergence, everybody looks to Germany. When anybody in an organisation wants to spend money, he looks to the treasurer. I have been a treasurer, and I know the feeling. Someone has to provide money, not just for the north-east and Scotland, which are central to our hearts, but, as has been mentioned, to Greece, southern Italy, Spain, Portugal, and so on. Prosperous individuals and prosperous countries like Germany do not become prosperous by parting easily with their money.
It will be very difficult to find someone to finance all this convergence. When we talk of convergence, most of us mean convergence of living standards. Surely that is what it is all about. It is not about financial intermediaries, but about the living standards of our people. That type of convergence will be hard to achieve. Convergence of interest rates is much easier—it could be achieved now —but one cannot rely on monetary matters. One has to start looking at the fiscal consequences. That will come under ERM, let alone EMU. One will be limited in so many ways that one will have to start thinking in terms of increasing taxes.
I suspect that, even now, people in the Treasury are dusting down the idea of the regulator, whereby changes could be brought about very suddenly—changes in taxation that would have a great effect because of the need to control the economy. Fine tuning of the economy will not be possible under EMU to anything like the same extent if the financial possibilities of those changes are ignored.
Finally, there is the convergence of inflation as well as of interest rates. If one really insists on the convergence of inflation—by jacking up taxes or by some other means —one will force the country into a depression. If one is, really serious about it, that will be a result. One will find oneself saying, "Thank you very much. We like these fine theories. We are very impressed by the ability of some of these people to spin out all these arguments, but it is the

497
people of our own country to whom we have the greatest responsibility." Those who, during the inter-war years, undertook the role of bringing about that kind of depression should not look for their successors here and now.
Let us continue to discuss this matter. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East that saying no is no solution. What we have to do is say, "Yes, we are not just one out of 11. It may be that you are right, but, on the other hand, it may be that you will come to think that the solutions that you thought were right are not really the most sensible." Are Greece and Portugal really going to go for EMU at the end of the day? Certainly let us spin it out by the best possible means. The point about convergence is that, although our view is not likely to be wholly successful, we know the direction in which we should go. There are no mile posts but there is a direction, and that is about as much as we can hope for today.
5.59 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this important debate.
The subject for debate is economic and monetary union and I shall resist the temptation to talk about ERM, on which my comments might be construed as slightly less than helpful to the Government. Nor shall I talk about political union, which even Jacques Delors realises is dead in the water as a result of the feeble EC response to the Gulf crisis.
I want to invite my right hon. Friend to consider that an economic and monetary union of sorts already exists within the EC and has existed for many years. I refer, of course, to the common agricultural policy. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to consider for just a moment that within the CAP there already exists a central prescriptive controlling body, the Commission, with a monetary fund of its own, with its own currency, the green pound, which in turn has spawned its own version of ERM, monetary compensatory amounts.
Let us contemplate, then, the history and experience of the CAP and judge whether that has worked. Farmers are not happy with it, but then one might say that farmers are not happy with anything. Then invite taxpayers, politicians, Governments and other nations in the world to consider whether they are happy with the CAP, and each time the resounding answer will be no.
Politicians have pulled agriculture up by the roots and transplanted it into an alien environment. They know not what they do. There is talk in the House today of convergence. For agriculture and the CAP there never was a prospect of convergence, because climate, geography, topography and a host of other things will never converge.
Economic and monetary union will be not dissimilar to the CAP. It would just be bigger and more disastrous. Its effects on the regions would be the same as those of the CAP, the effects of which have been most disastrous in those areas that they were specifically designed to help. Hon. Members who represent less favoured areas will know exactly what I am talking about.
Implicit in economic and monetary union is a single currency. Without doubt, a single currency would give rise
498
to uncompetitive regions. Hon. Members may care to think along the lines of Wales and Scotland and the economic and monetary union that the United Kingdom has had for many years, in which they are still the uncompetitive parts of our economy.
Uncompetitive regions give rise to ever greater demands for regional aid. I am sure that the British taxpayer today will have noted the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who envisages a situation in which taxpayers will be called on to stump up ever more of their hard-earned money to provide ever greater regional funds, not necessarily for Britain but for the disadvantaged regions of the whole of western Europe. The result would be that nationalist tensions would increase, and ultimately one can expect to see the break-up of the Community, as we now see the break-up of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
A question sometimes asked is what harm a single currency has done to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, but the real question is what good has been done to the regions of the United Kingdom. Has having a single currency stimulated enterprise, initiative, innovation and entrepreneurial activity in the regions of this nation? On the contrary, it has reinforced and underwritten the dependency culture. It has increased dissatisfaction with the Government and it has heightened nationalist feeling. Conservative Members miss having more colleagues from Scotland and Wales on these Benches.
There is no case for another common institution—certainly not the economic and monetary union that we are discussing today. The best prospect for Britain's prosperity and the prosperity of my constituents and those who live in Wales and Scotland, and indeed all those who live in the nations of western Europe, is a Community of individual co-operating sovereign states.
Our priority at this time must be to make the existing institutions work, not to spend time and energy tilting at windmills. We must put our best foot forward to complete the single market based firmly upon four freedoms—freedom for goods and for services to be bought and sold without fiscal, technical and practical barriers, freedom for capital, and freedom for people to move within and throughout a wider community without let or hindrance. More than that is unnecessary, and more than that is unwanted.
6.6 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will excuse me if I do not immediately follow him, but I find it difficult to understand how a member of the Conservative and Unionist party could put forward such a robust argument against having Scotland and Wales as part of the United Kingdom, suggesting that they would have done much better had they stayed on their own. However, I do not want to follow him down that road, about which we could have a long argument all night. There is not much time, and I too shall seek to be brief.
It is a moot point whether economics determines politics or politics determines economics. Certainly politicians try and certain politicians have a considerable notion of their capacity to succeed.
The Liberal Democrat approach to the EC is, in the first instance—I make no bones about it—political. We believe

499
in a political union, partly for emotional reasons but also because there are practical advantages to be derived from collective influence in Europe and from thinking through common positions in Europe. As has been said, it is true that co-operation in Europe has not really worked so well on the Gulf as it might have done, but that is no reason for doubting the possibility of achieving such an approach, as I am afraid the Prime Minister did last Tuesday. On the contrary, it underlines the need to proceed further. If members are knitted into a political union in the way that we think they should be, there would be a much better chance of producing a coherent and acceptable approach.
Political union also involves the acceptance that others might have something to teach us about politics and government. Equally, the economic record of successive Governments since the war does not lead me to fight in the ditches to make sure that all economic decisions affecting the country are made in this country, or to avoid having economic decisions affecting this country being in part determined in conjunction with other people.
Why should we support economic and monetary union? I will run through the simple arguments quickly, but the first point is that transaction costs are reduced. That is a straightforward, unarguable point. It does not apply to the hard ecu, but I shall come back to that. Secondly, there is strong evidence to suggest that it would lower inflation. Certainly the creation of a central bank would lead to a degree of credibility if it was like the Bundesbank, which is not absolutely independent but has an important area of independence. Because they can rely upon the position of the central bank and know that inflation will not rise, employers and employees restrain wages. That in turn has an effect on jobs and investment.
We support a single currency, but the idea that it will be imposed is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the idea that it can be brought in overnight. Nobody will rush headlong into it. We must have a central bank first, as stage 2 of Delors forecast. As I understood it—I may be wrong—the main objection advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to creating a central bank was the democratic deficit argument, that somehow it would be an undemocratic institution and therefore bad, QED. He produced the ECOFIN proposals as a contrast.
There are three reasonable arguments why the Bundesbank, with its current degree of independence, is acceptable to persons who think that democracy is important, as I do. First, its constitution would be written and approved by democratically elected politicians; the bankers would be appointed by politicians; it would have to report to politicians, and its constitution would require it to run its monetary policy in line with the general policies of the European Community.
Secondly, to have an independent bank is in line with the philosophy of limited government. A politically run monetary policy is not necessarily good for the long-term health of the economy. We have been told for 10 years that the central purpose of the Government's economic policy is to reduce inflation. Ten years on, inflation is down marginally from what it was in 1979; certainly it was marginally up not many months ago. Sometimes politicians can go wrong because, as the time approaches to go to the polls, they are tempted to change things and make them a little better.
Thirdly, experience in Germany, and for that matter in the United States, of an independent central bank is good.
500
There is often tension between the elected Government and the bankers, as there was recently in Germany, hut. I do not think that anyone considers that American or German democracy is undermined because of the existence in their countries of a central bank. On the Bundesbank committee there are even representatives of the Lander or the regions, who can vote against the advice of the Bundesbank president.
The hard ecu is an idea, but in the end we regard it as diversionary and political rather than attractive in itself, although it would be reasonable to examine it further to see whether it would have any value as a transitional mechanism. We know that it is not the end of the road, although I suspect that many Conservative Members— certainly those who lend allegiance to the Bruges group —would like to see it at the end of the road. They do not want it to succeed, as the president of the Bruges group has indicated. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary should stop swinging his worry beads.
I have several criticisms of the hard ecu. Undoubtedly it maintains transaction costs. It would also obscure responsibility for monetary policy and divide it between the central monetary fund, whatever it is called, and state banks. In the Government's proposed treaty provisions, article VI(5) says:
"The national monetary authorities of the Member States shall be obliged to repurchase excess quantities of their national currencies held by the Fund."
That is strong stuff, if one's main preoccupation is with national sovereignty. I do not quite understand it. Nor do I understand, despite what the Chancellor said, what the attraction would be for borrowers. If there are realignments, two or more realignments could arbitrarily write up the debt in hard ecu. Overall, I do not think that it will have much future.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Spain had shown interest. That is true, but I doubt whether that interest will be long-term. I suspect that it is part of the bridging operation which is going on in the Community, as is perfectly right and desirable.
We tried to make a small contribution to the debate by publishing this morning a pamphlet which we commissioned from Professor John Williamson, the economist, on the role of the United Kingdom in EMU. I will not quote at length what he said. The pamphlet is available; I commend it to the Chancellor and to hon. Members. Professor Williamson refers to phasing. Liberal Democrats accept phasing. Up to stage 2, we are firm, but stage 3 has no date anyway. We have to be clear that there is much more definite convergence before stage 3 than has been shown so far. That is not to say that, for example, Greece alone should hold up stage 3. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East that regional and social funds will have an important part to play.
There are problems about convergence. One idea suggested by Professor Williamson, which is not entirely original in that it has been used already in a limited way in the United States, is that there could be a European minimum unemployment benefit. He said this morning:
"I argue that there is a far stronger case for coordination of fiscal policy to complement monetary union than is generally conceded in Britain. One aspect of that coordination could help relieve the concerns about exchange-rate flexibility, namely, a European-wide minimum unemployment benefit, set at say current Portuguese levels. It would be paid out by

501
Brussels from a certain tranche of allocated tax revenue taken from member states, who would of course be free to 'top-up' the unemployment benefit."
In a sense, that is another argument for financial transfer to regions within countries which have problems. As I understand it, it operates in the United States and benefited Texas during the 1986 fall in oil prices which severely affected Texas incomes.
Despite the fact that I found the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East persuasive, amiable and clear all at the same time—something fairly rare in politicians—he did not sell ECOFIN to me as the great solution to it all. All that means is that the Council of Ministers shall determine monetary policy, and I do not consider that a good idea in the long term. Politically, it comes back to the desire that I mentioned earlier, which is felt by all politicians, to tune up the economy the nearer an election date comes.
I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman credit for the straightforward way in which he conceded that Government parties in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s misjudged and misrepresented the European Community and its opportunities. As a Liberal who was active in politics throughout most of the period, and certainly active in supporting my colleagues in the run-up to the 1959 election, I take a lot of pride in the consistency demonstrated by the Liberals, the Social Democrats, the Alliance and the successor party over a period of years.
The basic point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is pretty fundamental: that if this country is now set on a course within the European Community—and I see no alternative—it must play a full part in working through the various inevitable changes. It is not going to stop; it is going to move forward. The whole idea of delay, of producing diversions, is not a good one. We must face up to the fact that there will be economic and monetary union and, on that basis, make a constructive contribution to its shape.
6.21 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that the European Community is moving forward and that we must be part of that forward movement, but I suggest that he is a little hard on the Government in his remarks about the hard ecu, particularly when he dismisses it as solely a diversionary and political tactic. The perception which has grown among our European partners of the evolutionary value of the hard ecu proposals is a demonstration of their worth.
However, with due respect to the Liberal Democratic party, if I have the name right, of more significance among speeches from the Opposition Benches are the two contributions so far from the Labour party. First, from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we have a clear-cut call for devaluation. I would have hoped that the Labour party, of all parties, had learnt that the devaluation route is not a way out of economic and social difficulty for either this country or any other. The Labour party's many years of bitter experience should have shown him that.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East produced a very uncertain prospect. Most of it
502
seemed to be a black hole wrapped in cotton wool. The only possible proposal of interest was the ECOFIN proposal, which would be very ill received by many other members of the European Community, who have a much more positive interest in sound monetary policy than in the political controls which would be put in place by an ECOFIN system of the kind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
We are having this debate at a time when the Gulf casts its shadow, quite rightly, over our deliberations here, and economic and monetary union may seem a somewhat esoteric subject at present; nevertheless, we all understand that we are debating something of the most fundamental significance for the future of this country—that is, our collaboration and the part that we shall play in the European Community, and the great significance for us of monetary union or the movement towards it which is taking place.
We all therefore accept the crucial importance of the subject, and we must continue to understand that life will go on after the Gulf, that enormous problems such as the GATT round and the future of world trade must be resolved and that the European Community has a part to play in all this.
The second impact of what has happened in the past few days with Iraq has been the extremely depressing performance of the Community in regard to political co-operation. Some commentators and some of my hon. Friends have taken the view that it proves that the European Community has little future and that we should pick up our skirts, walk away from it and have nothing to do with those funny foreigners across the channel. I do not take that view—quite the opposite. Depressing though many of the developments are, I suggest that they mean that there is a challenge to be faced and a job to be done, and that much of that job is one for which Britain is extremely well qualified by our history and present performance. Far from being negative, therefore, the strong requirements for political, diplomatic and possibly military and security co-operation demonstrate that the European Community is where we need to be.
Fundamental to that is the question of monetary integration. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that monetary integration was a logical development of the single market. That is precisely the point at issue. It is a message that should go out from this debate, that the Government and the majority of hon. Members—even though those of us who regularly attend European debates know that there is a kaleidoscope of opinion in the House, with no demarcation down the middle of the Chamber—believe that membership of the European Community is of great benefit and that this benefit must continue to be reinforced.
One way forward is to make sure that the single market works, and moves to improve monetary integration are an indispensable part of it. The direction and pace of that integration need, quite rightly, to be discussed, and in slow time, at the intergovernmental conference. It will be a great blessing if in such debates we can look at these great issues calmly, because when we do so we shall find that it is not a question of one country against another or of Britian against the 11 but that the pressures and views and stresses are very broad throughout the Community. There are many in France and Italy who feel deeply the sort of concerns that we have about economic divergence and the impact that it would have if nations tried to force the pace.

503
It is significant that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East ducked the issue of regional funding. It would be hugely difficult to move towards the sort of covergence needed, bridging those massive gaps to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred, between the economies and societies of the European Community, by regional funding. It is but one element of a complex advance. That is why the intergovernmental conference is there.
I commend the Government's approach. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has struck a successful and positive note in his exchanges since he assumed that office. I believe that he will receive firm response from our European allies. The French and Germans have precisely the same concerns, for example about divergence, as we do. Therefore, we have many more allies in the corridors of Europe than one might believe from reading the popular press or the simplistic, black-and-white naivety to which we are sometimes subjected in relation to the European Community.
None of us knows where all this will eventually lead. I am suspicious of people who grope for historical parallels and who say that it has never worked in the past. Welding the 12 nations of Europe together, to the extent that all of us wish to weld them together, is an historic development. None of us can forecast where it will end, but most of us accept that the process must be kept moving. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Front Bench colleagues recognise that fact.
Nothing should be said in the House tonight which will leave our partners or the world in any doubt about the Government's commitment to economic and monetary convergence. If we send that sort of negative message, it will have an immediate impact on the level of the pound, and the long-term impact would be even greater. We should not be misled by our present strong and happy relationship with Washington. We should not be led to believe that the old-style special relationship is back. Yes, there is something special about our relationship. When the famous chips are down, there is a firm relationship between Washington and London.
However, the fundamental questions about economics and power will not go away. The Americans believe that the European Community is an entity which is here to stay, with which they will have to deal in the future. They want us to be in the Community, playing a leading part and making a strong contribution. So do I, and so do the majority of people in this country.
6.32 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: There is an air of unreality about this debate, and it is not solely due to the fact that our thoughts are concentrated on the Gulf, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said, and that this debate seems to be somewhat remote from our major concern. It has been misleading to put so much emphasis in the debate on our proposals for the hard ecu, as the Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) have done.
It was interesting to have that subject elaborated, and I do not take the severe view that some hon. Members have taken of the Government's proposals. However, they are relevant only to stage 2 of the three-stage Delors plan. Within that context they may have a serious reception on
504
the continent of Europe, but they divert us from the main issue, because the other 11 countries are really concerned not about stage 2 but about the political objective. They are concerned with the political unionist objective of creating a single currency as a necessary means to establish a union state in western Europe. That is what it is all about, and unless we understand that clearly we may easily be misled and locked into, or tripped up by, relatively technical issues when the main issue is direct and political.
When I re-read the evidence that the Prime Minister—then the Chancellor of the Exchequer—gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on 25 July 1990, I was impressed. In his opening statement to the Select Committee he said:
"it seems to us that the Delors package for Stage 3 would involve transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom and from Parliament of a sort neither the Government nor Parliament would find themselves able to accept."
The Government have come near to restating that during this debate, and I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is nodding his head in agreement. That is fundamental, and I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend would state with equal clarity that he accepts that a single currency—and all that goes with it—would involve
"transfer of sovereignty … of a sort neither the Government nor Parliament would find themselves able to accept."
That is not merely party will but national will, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will come to accept it. A single currency does not merely affect our constitution and our capacity and right to govern ourselves, but is also an economic issue of fundamental importance.
I have heard different views expressed about the use of currency revaluation and devaluation as a means of dealing with serious economic disequilibria and problems such as a major recession, massive unemployment and a huge trade deficit. Everyone knows that devaluation has a downside, and no one but a fool would recommend it as a weapon to be used other than in very serious circumstances. That was our post-war experience. From the end of the war, and from Bretton Woods, we had a fixed but adjustable exchange rate. As my right ho n. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, reminded the House recently, we changed the exchange rate only once in 1949—it had not been changed since the war—and there was one further devaluation in 1967 from $2·80 to $2·40.
If one maintains the exchange rate for a substantial time, no one can say that one is using exchange rate policy frivolously. The major argument, which I think everyone in the country would agree with, was that if the Labour Government of 1964–70 made one mistake which was more searing than any other, it was that they delayed the necessary devaluation. They should have devalued earlier. The country's economy benefited from it.
If anyone had proposed to the United States four or five years ago, or even now, that it should permanently lock its exchange rate to that of the yen, what would have happened? What would happen if it did that now, having gained some benefit and recovery from a floating exchange rate policy in the past few years? If the dollar were to be frozen against the yen, I have no doubt that in a few years the United States would find itself increasingly uncompetitive against the Japanese. Unless the Unites States were prepared to accept the Japanese eating up its industry and becoming the owners of United States real estate and

505
shares, it would feel bound to break the exchange rate's parity that it had established. We know that to be true, so why should we talk not about the exchange rate mechanism, which is a fixed but changeable regional version of the International Monetary Fund, but about an entirely new system which in no circumstances would ever allow us again to change our exchange rate?
If we were not successful economically to the same extent as our partners may be, we should suffer most profound damage as a nation and as an economy. We should find unemployment rising to pre-war and indeed higher levels, and there would be no escape from it. British industry would not be profitable and would close down operations in this country, with new industry locating on the continent of Europe or in other places where sustained growth and profits were possible. All the marvellous training of skilled people and graduates coming out of universities, higher education and other establishments that my right hon. Friends are determined to create would have to look for jobs, not in their own country, but across the channel on the continent of Europe. That is not a vision of the future that I find attractive.
I think that it is almost an act of national suicide for any country, knowing that it is entering a group of nations in which clearly we are not yet as strong as we should be or may be, or in time will be in comparison with Germany and others at present, to expose itself to merciless competition with the Germans whom we know will destroy this country's industry and its jobs. Nobody should impose this on the British people.
I feel that the opposition in principle to EMU is on two grounds. First, it amounts to national economic suicide. Secondly, it is an outrage to the whole tradition of self-government in this country. Those should be the two principles on which we say no to what is being put forward in Europe.
The draft treaty has considerable relevance to what we are talking about. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly said that, after all, this is only the Commission's document, it drew up this document not out of the air or its own cerebrations in that great office building, the Berlaymont, but after taking part in and guiding the major discussions that have been held in the past year with all of the Community members. That is why the document has force and is very powerful.
Alongside it, and in no way disagreeing with it, is the document put forward by the governors of the central banks. Reservations have been expressed by some people to the effect, "If we can only get this put right, it will make such a difference," but in no way are those reservations expressed in treaty terms comparable to the creation of a central bank and other institutions that go along with the creation of economic and monetary union.
Economic convergence is obviously a way of dodging the whole issue. If we did have such convergence in terms not merely of rates of inflation but of productivity and output with our major competitors in the Community, we would not worry. There would be no problem, for we would be doing as well as they were. But who has ever heard of nations over time achieving the same rate of productivity and growth of output? Of course that has not
506
happened. In the past, our currency has reflected that in substantial movements against other currencies on the continent.
I am very much in favour of getting down our rate of inflation and we still have a lot to do in that regard. We could have a rate of inflation no greater than that on the continent of Europe, in Germany, but if we did not have the same rate of productivity, output and growth, we would still become uncompetitive in price terms and would therefore be at an accumulating competitive economic disadvantage. Economic convergence does not help us very much.
Those who take the view that we can put off the whole thing, that we must not have dates in mind or be fixed to a timetable and that all is well, have only to consider the fact that the timetable is written into the draft treaty. Stage 2 begins on 1 January 1994, and stage 3 will, following a review and decision, be taken not later than the beginning of 1997—probably during the period of the next Labour Government, which does not seem very attractive to me, or the Government after that.
I do not know whether the House is aware that those who have looked seriously at this proposition—and not many people look seriously at the consequences of economic and monetary union—have always said that there will have to be a tremendous regional policy, a huge transfer of resources. The only serious study that has been made was that conducted by Sir Donald MacDougall, who used to be chief economic adviser to the Confederation of British Industry, a very distinguished and independent economist. He made the study as long ago as 1977. His finding was that the budget of the Community would have to be at least seven times as large as it is to begin to finance the transfers which are required. That was before Spain, Portugal and Greece became members of the European Community.
How big a European budget do the advocates of this madness envisage, and what method of financing of that budget is envisaged? It would have to be a budget which not merely raised this vast amount of revenue from the nation states, but it would have to be redistributed on a basis that helped us, and no doubt the Portuguese, the Spaniards and others as well—at whose expense? It would be at the expense of Germany.
Mr. Favell: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point extremely well. After more than 20 years of the common agricultural policy, the penny is now only beginning to drop that farmers in Greece, Portugal, Germany and Britain behave in different ways. How much worse will it be when we have to ensure that boot manufacturers, cycle manufacturers, steel makers and coal producers have to behave in the same way to achieve this convergence?
Mr. Shore: I do not think that there is time to answer difficult questions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has posed.
I turn from the business of the convergence and regional policy to another major issue which has not been raised in the debate. We are talking about economic and monetary union. All that I have said so far, and virtually all that the House has had to say so far, has been about monetary union; but economic union is here, too. It is spelt out in a number of interesting and important articles.

507
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) are anxious to retain the powers of Chancellors over taxation and public expenditure. No doubt they delight in the fact that in the latest presentation the original Delors proposal for binding rules that would limit the powers of Chancellors of the Exchequer has been withdrawn. It has been withdrawn in favour of what are now called guidelines.
I draw the attention of the House to the guidelines in the draft treaty presented by the Commission. The guidelines refer to the following matters:
"the development of Member States budget balances; the control of production costs … the level and promotion of saving and investment".
There is reference to other matters, and the article continues:
"The Council acting by a qualified majority … shall adopt these guidelines".
That of course refers to guidelines laid down by the Commission. It continues:
"On the basis of an annual report of the Commission, the Council shall each year decide … on the adjustments that need to be made to the multiannual guidelines".
Later, it says that the Council, acting again by a qualified majority, may, where necessary, adopt recommendations specific to each member state determining the general thrust of its economic and budgetary policy.
Then there is the following passage:
"The Commission shall see to it that specific recommendations are implemented … A recommendation concerning the measures which must be taken to rectify the situation".
That will be submitted privately to the Council of Ministers; if the member state does not obey within a month, the Commission may make its proposals public. The measure is, of course, deliberately designed to destabilise and undermine the authority of a Government who pursue an economic and budgetary policy with which the Community and the Commission disagree. It is not a very welcome prospect. Although they have not the same strength as binding rules, these are serious guidelines.
Moreover, the harmonisation proposals for indirect taxation, although far from complete, are intended to prevent any movement away from the existing average. Following the promulgation of those proposals, indirect taxation in the form of VAT, excise duty and, I am willing to bet, corporation and company tax will become impossible within a few years.
Future Chancellors of the Exchequer will not have much freedom of action. There will still be a Budget, public expenditure exercises and the ability to raise revenue, but, as the indirect taxation will be bound by treaty rules, it seems likely that the only revenue that the Chancellor will be able to raise is income tax. I foresee a significant limitation of power—quite apart from all the damage that would result from a fixed exchange rate, and from economic and monetary union.
We have heard a good deal about the importance of accountability. The draft treaty mentions that, as does the other document submitted by the bankers. The treaty states:
"In performing their duties, the European Central Bank, a central bank of a Member State and members of their decision-making bodies shall neither seek nor take instructions from the institutions of the Community or its Member States or from any other body."
508
It is written into the terms of reference that the overriding priority must be price stability, and that external influence exercised by the Community or by individual nation states must be removed.
Never in my life have I read a document that gave bankers more power over economic, national and Community life. I am referring not to the bankers' document, but to the Commission's document, which takes account of the political worries that have been expressed.
I find the whole prospect extremely unattractive. I should like to send a firm message—sadly, I cannot, because we are debating on an Adjournment motion—to the effect that we are prepared to co-operate as much as we can, and are not opposed to some policy co-ordination where it makes sense; but, by God, we will not, not, not allow majority rule from Brussels to determine the welfare, prosperity and self-government of the British people.
6.53 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I ought to begin by reminding the House of my association with two City institutions, Morgan Grenfell and Dewe Rogerson.
It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—although I rarely agree with him, and did not today. I was, however, extremely amused when he said that no one but a fool would necessarily urge devaluation. I cannot recall one occasion, in all the time I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's political utterances—whatever the state of the business cycle, and whatever the parity—when he did not urge that course. His rejection today of the idea that we could ever compete with Germany in regard to inflation or productivity struck me as the philosophy of despair, and I do not think that any Conservative Member would accept it.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but I am under considerable time pressure.
I wish to make five points, and I hope that the logical connection between them will emerge as I proceed. First, I welcome the Government's decision to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I welcomed it in October, and I do so just as warmly now. I trust, however—I am expressing confidence, not just hope—that when the decision was made, the Government did not consider the ERM a definitive solution to the monetary problems faced by this country or, indeed, by the European Community as a whole.
I have no doubt that, in the short term, the ERM can act—indeed, it is already acting—as a very effective mechanism to enforce greater inflationary and monetary convergence within the Community. Clearly, we can only benefit from that, as our inflation rate is one of the highest. In the longer term, however, the ERM—like any other attempt in human history to establish a fixed exchange rate system—will inevitably run up against the fundamental contradiction that is common to all such systems: if there is no intention that parities should ever be altered, there is no reason for the retention of separate currencies in the first place. A single currency is a much better idea.

509
Once it is accepted that in certain circumstances the parities will be adjusted, there will inevitably come a time when the market anticipates such changes. That will mean extremely high economic costs for member states, which must adjust demand management in their own economies —running demand at a much higher level with inflationary consequences, or at a much lower level with recessionary consequences, in order to maintain the system.
Let no one suppose that we are in a better position to avoid such problems than we were at the time of Bretton Woods. On the contrary, we are in a much weaker position to sustain such a system over a long period, for the simple reason that we now have almost entirely liberated capital movements in the OECD area. Moreover, the volume of capital transactions in that area amounts to more than 10 times that of current transactions in the world. Things were very different when almost all Governments operated exchange controls, and capital movements were a residual balancing item largely controlled by Governments. We must look beyond the ERM, and consider where it will and where it should lead.
Secondly, and for much the same reasons, I warmly welcome the Government's proposals for a hard ecu. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the advantages with great lucidity today and described the sharp anti-inflationary teeth built into the British plan. That, too, will be a powerful mechanism to enforce increased monetary and inflationary convergence in the Community. If accepted, the hard ecu proposal will enable us to establish the institutional basis for a European monetary institution, which could become a European central bank. Clearly, we cannot go further until the institutional structure is in place.
My third point is this. Both moves, although important in themselves, point to the emergence of a single currency at some point in the future, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explicitly recognised. Do we want a single currency? That is the great question. Is a single currency in our interests? Opinion may be divided, and that is precisely why I wanted to speak in today's debate.
There is considerable academic literature on the question of what should constitute an optimum currency area, and there is a consensus remarkable within economic science that, so long as certain conditions are met, a single currency should pertain in an area and that the economic cost of separate currencies is then greater than that of a single currency.
Those conditions are fundamentally twofold. One is that there should be integrated product markets and the other is that there should be integrated factor markets within that optimum currency area. With the single market programme, we are achieving an integrated product market in the European Community and we already have an integrated factor market. There have been integrated labour markets for quite a long time, and integrated capital markets since last year when exchange controls within the Community were finally abolished. I have little doubt that in those circumstances the advantages of a single currency are potentially enormous.
The first advantage, which has often been mentioned in this context, is the abolition of the transactional costs which at present are borne by individuals when they travel and by businesses when they trade across the frontiers
510
within the Community. Those costs will largely remain under the ERM, as is generally recognised. A single currency would also bring about the abolition of the foreign exchange risks which currently burden business and deter some people from quoting when they otherwise might. Thus at present output is reduced and employment foregone. The ERM will help a little with the foreign exchange risks but will not, of course, remove those risks.
The third advantage, which is less often recognised in the debate, is the fact that a single currency will remove the informational barriers to trade which are constituted by fragmented separate currencies. Those barriers are considerable in all aspects of trade and particularly crippling—perhaps even fatally so—in certain sectors of activity such as retail financial services, where the Cecchini report indicated that there was substantial scope for an increase in the wealth of the Community through market integration, and where we in this country believe that we have potentially a particular financial advantage. Those are very important benefits to play for. If we can achieve them, it is our duty to do everything possible to secure for our people, our businesses, our employees and our consumers the substantial benefits that would flow.
My fourth point is that, because the stakes are so high, if we go for a single currency we must get it right. We must not rush our fences. Indeed, if we got it wrong we might lose an historic opportunity and that would be a great dereliction of the duty that we owe to the people who sent us to this place and to future generations. Therefore, the whole matter must be carefully thought through and worked out. The Government are absolutely right to be cautious, to ask the hard practical questions along the way and not to be carried away by any kind of facile Euro-rhetoric. I congratulate the Government on their pragmatic and positive approach.
Judging by the speech in the House today from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), it is almost certain that, if the Labour party were in power, it would not get it right; in fact, it would get it appallingly wrong. I will dwell on one or two instances of that. Within a single currency area in the European Community, there will be internal payments disequilibria as there are within this country, as there are within the United States and other single currency areas. There are current payments disequilibria between the west end and the east end of London.
How will these be coped with? The right hon. and learned member for Monklands, East seemed to presume that they could be dealt with by being recycled through compulsory fiscal public sector transfers. That would be an absolute disaster; we would go right back to the bad old days of subsidising failure and inefficiency and penalising success. I cannot think of a more fatal way to start off this important monetary venture.
Of course, if we are to get this right, current payments disequilibria must be recycled through the private sector capital flows that will take place in the Community. That is the way it is done within the United States—a very substantial single currency area—and indeed, within this country at present. That requires changes that will not come about overnight. At present the banking system in the European Community, the system of distribution of securities, the portfolio preferences of both institutional and private investors are all much too narrowly based nationally. That will not change overnight. It must change

511
in order to permit those private sector capital flows to achieve their proper economic purpose. I have no doubt that in time they will succeed in doing that.
Current payments disequilibria must also be adjusted through changes in output and prices. For that reason, we need more, not less, flexible markets. Those Opposition Members who are always urging us to be more communautaire and at the same time accept the notions of the European social charter are in fundamental contradiction with themselves. If we want a single currency area to operate effectively, we must have more flexible labour prices and markets. Anything like the social charter which creates new rigidities and new costs is thoroughly unwelcome.
My final point is particularly important. Although I believe that the Government are already persuaded on this point, I hope that no-one in this House will have any illusions about it. In the course of these negotiations with our continental partners, should they arrive at a position where inexorably they go ahead with a single currency, regardless of what we propose to do, then I put it to the House that we cannot in any circumstances remain apart from that single currency. Very briefly, I will set out four concrete and specific reasons why that is so.
First, trade between this country and the Community in such circumstances would be conducted in that single currency. That would mean that our producers and our businesses would incur all those transactional costs and foreign exchange risks while their continental competitors would not suffer them. That would handicap our industry indefinitely. Secondly, the same position would apply to investors from ourside the Community who might be looking to invest in this country and to build capacity here targeted at the Community market as a whole.
An example is the Japanese, whom we have welcomed here in that context in the past few years. They would not come here in those circumstances, or they would be much less likely to come, simply because any business located here would face those transactional costs and risks in servicing the continental market. That again is a reason why we dare not go down that road.
Thirdly, it would make it impossible for the financial services sector in this country—here I refer to the retail financial services sector—to cross-sell its products in the Community, whether they be insurance products, unit trusts, or whatever. They would not get the benefit of the branding and the track record and of common computer systems and the common training of salesmen. They would have to repackage and produce different products on the continent, and that would be a very severe handicap in a field in which there is otherwise an immense amount to go for.
Finally, and most significantly, in the circumstances in which there was a single European currency and sterling remained outside, that single currency would become an international reserve currency which would be in almost every international portfolio. Sterling, on the other hand, would be considered a much more risky and volatile currency which was less desirable to hold. It follows, as night follows day, that international holders of sterling would demand a yield premium for holding it. What does that mean? Translated into ordinary language, it means high interest rates. We should be condemning ourselves to a regime of interest rates higher than those of our
512
Community partners indefinitely. That position would be intolerable for any responsible Government of any party to accept.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minutes limit on speeches is now in operation.
7.9 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Joining the exchange rate mechanism was a preparation for and a first step towards economic and monetary union. It was a dummy run for a single currency. I am willing to give a prize to anyone who has seen any of the promised benefits from the exchange rate mechanism. One result is that we can no longer use interest rates for domestic purposes because virtually their sole purpose is to defend the exchange rate. Our domestic economy is crying out for a reduction in interest rates, but that is denied us because, contrary to the promise, the pound is insecure in its ERN band and few believe that it will be possible to hold it there.
In the meantime, the high interest rates push us further into recession, as the rapidly growing number of unemployed know to their cost. Already, the ERM is doing great damage to our economy. The rate of DM2·95 is becoming ever more unrealistic and the pound is becoming artificially high. The ERM now puts a price surcharge on all our exports.
We must ask ourselves how we are to close our trade deficit, especially that with Germany. It is a delusion to think that we can do it in time by supply side measures, and by education and training alone. We shall not, by some miracle, reduce our unit labour costs and increase our productivity and our output per head faster than the Germans or quickly enough, if at all, to achieve that in the foreseeable future.
There are only two main methods of approach. First, we can allow the exchange rate to be altered to a more competitive level; or secondly, we can have deflation which pushes the economy into recession and thus reduces the demand for imports, and is what we are doing now. That is graveyard economics, which is grossly inefficient and socially unjust. It reduces output, causes unemployment and hits those who are made redundant and those in manufacturing industries.
If the exchange rate cannot be altered, as we heard from the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), the method of adjustment has to be real wage reduction. We are already being told that ERM means that wages must not go up with inflation. Whose wages are to be reduced? It is those of the workers in manufacturing and in the traded goods sector. It is the blue collar workers and not the people in the City who will be hit hardest. The dummy run of the ERM is already doing us great damage.
After years of talk about what economic and monetary union might mean, and about whether it might mean anything or nothing, we are coming to decision time. At the inter-governmental conference, there are new treaties and the blueprint to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) referred. We now know what that means. It means a single currency and a single monetary policy because there is no subsidiarity in monetary policy; monetary policy is indivisible. It means a single currency and a single

513
monetary policy controlled by an unaccountable central bank. Inevitably, we should hand over powers over economic affairs, over budgets and over taxation to traditionally conservative central bankers, which would involve a huge loss of democratic self-government.
Control over taxes will go, both because of Commission policy, to which hon. Members have already referred, which talks about the co-ordination of tax policy, and because of market forces. If we are to have the so-called "level playing field", capital will move to where it will get the highest return and to where taxes are lowest. With a single currency and unrestricted capital flows, it would be a delusion to think that the Government could exercise their taxation policies to promote egalitarian or expansionist aims that do not have the support of international financiers.
Why should we want all this ? The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding said that we should have lower transaction costs. If that is the reason, why do we not go for a world currency? Economic and monetary union will not reduce transaction costs with the yen or with the dollar. Transaction costs, even in the European Community, are unlikely to disappear, because banks will still incur costs when they transfer money from one country to another. In the United States, clearing cheques from one state to another still costs money.
The costs to this country in lost jobs, in lost prosperity and in lost output far outweigh any alleged gains on transaction costs. Anyone who imagines that a single currency is merely a technical matter which always brings benefits should look, as has been suggested previously, at what has happened in Germany with German monetary union. Otto POW of the German Bundesbank said that it was economic and monetary union in a nutshell. I like to call it monetary union in a laboratory experiment.
What was the effect of monetary union on two economies with different rates of productivity? It was lethal. It was a death blow for German industry and brought mass unemployment. The introduction of the deutschmark did more damage more quickly than a dozen panzer divisions could have done. The west Germans are now pouring in trillions of deutschmarks to rescue the economy of the German Democratic Republic, which is a country of only 18 million people.
The east Germans are lucky; they have a rich big brother who rescues his kith and kin. Even that is putting a big strain on the west German economy. Are the Germans really likely to do the same for us, for Greece, for Portugal and for Spain? Would they do it for the other eastern European countries? Of course not. We shall be on our own, bearing the full brunt of the cost.
I am brought to another realisation. Economic and monetary union will divide Europe; it will not unite Europe. It will be a barrier to enlargement. The struggling new democracies of eastern Europe could not cope with a single currency or with economic and monetary union. They have seen what it has done already to the GDR which, after all, was the most advanced country in COMECON. Those countries have no big brother to bail them out. Those who want EMU do not want enlargement. The French want to institutionalise their arrangements with Germany; they are not worried about bringing in the eastern European countries.
514
I want to emphasise that we are missing a major opportunity by concentrating on the wrong agenda. We should be considering how we react to the end of the cold war and to the democratisation of central and eastern Europe. Our response is hopelessly inadequate. Here is a chance to unite the whole of Europe in an association of democratic, self-governing states with the sort of vision that we had with the Marshall plan. Instead of that, we are constructing an exclusive ghetto in western Europe on a basis that will shut out half Europe. We are throwing away the chance to put a permanent end to the post-war division of our continent. Having removed the Berlin wall and the physical barriers, we are now re-erecting damaging economic barriers right across Europe in a way that will abandon and impoverish the struggling countries of eastern and central Europe.
Everyone says that there can be no EMU without convergence—without levelling out the differences of economic circumstances. We are told that there must be convergence in growth, in interest rates, in inflation rates, in productivity, in wealth, in standards of living, in budget deficits and in trade balances. Unless that is done, there will be dislocation because the level playing field will be a battlefield. There will be winners and losers. Whole regions with weaker economies could be blighted and turned into depressed areas with mass unemployment and closed industries. At present, there is not convergence but divergence, because the process of capital accumulation and of labour migration—in other words, market forces —tends, uncorrected, towards the cumulative reinforcement of those differences. The rich areas get richer and the poor areas get poorer.
What is the answer? Everyone says that it is regional policy. Having uttered those words, they think that they have solved the problem. They do not examine what regional policy would mean. I do not have time to go into the way public expenditure is redistributive or to consider how existing federations, such as the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany, have horizontal transfers of wealth. The budgets of most countries in the European Community take about 45 per cent. of gross domestic product. The European Community budget is about 1 per cent. The wealth and the resources for a regional policy are not there.
The present regional fund is derisory. In 1990, the European regional fund had a budget of 4·7 billion ecu, which is £3·5 billion. That is 0·1 per cent. of the collective gross domestic product. Sir Donald MacDougall said that a budget of 7 per cent. devoted solely to regional policy was needed. That is a budget 70 times bigger than the existing budget.
One way to approach this is to look at Northern Ireland, where in our regional policy we spend £1·7 billion. That works out at £1,100 per head. There are 140 million people in the areas eligible for regional fund assistance in the European Community. If we had a policy there of £1,100 per head it would work out at £154 billion—4·6 per cent. of GDP. Currently it is £3·5 billion. Instead of the £154 billion which we would need to do there what we are doing for Northern Ireland, the budget is only £3·5 billion. So we would have to spend more than 44 times as much.
There is no chance of getting that sort of regional policy, and Conservative Members are opposed to it anyway.
7.20 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: The Government are absolutely right vigorously to resist the formation of a single European currency. From the point of view of Britain's national interest, it is living dangerously enough to artificially link our currency to that of another country, as we did, for instance, in the 1920s, through the gold standard, to the dollar, and, as we do today, through the exchange rate mechanism, to the deutschmark. But, as was the case in the 1920s, in these circumstances at least we retain a semblance of national sovereignty—so that if, for instance, unit costs of our industry are high in relation to those of the country with which we have chosen to link ourselves and there is therefore pressure on the artificially chosen exchange rate, we have the option of deflating the economy, as was done —with, it has to be said, disastrous effects—under the gold standard.
However, we also have the choice, in the present circumstances, of realigning our currency. That does not necessarily mean, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, devaluing all the time. That is a very pessimistic view of the future of our country. It is a question of allowing our rate of exchange to reflect accurately relative unit costs; and, as we get more efficient, it may well mean revaluation. We also have the option, in the present circumstances, of pulling out of the artificial straitjacket altogether, as was done in the case of the gold standard.
If, however, we were to adopt a single European currency, we would be left with no semblance of national sovereignty. Contrary to what the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), said, this cannot be fudged. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) said earlier, a single currency means a single Government. It cannot be any other way. A single currency requires a single policy towards inflation. It therefore requires a single budget, a single monetary policy, and a single tax-making authority.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Spicer: I shall not give way, because my hon. Friend had 20 minutes and I have only 10 minutes.
Of course, a proportion of the tax-making decisions could be devolved to member states, but the overall budgetary authority could not. The argument is made that in pooling our sovereignty we would, as a nation within a European monetary union, grow in stature and wax in world influence. There might, I suppose, be some merit in this view if it could be shown that we shared some overwhelming common purpose with the other nations of Europe which justified our joining them to become, in effect, one country, because that is the logic of what is involved in a single currency.
Mention has already been made in the House today of the apparent lack of common purpose among European countries in the Gulf. I recognise, of course, that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen have drawn different inferences from this, but the issue, in my view, goes deeper even than whether the European countries are willing to supply us with spare parts for our forces fighting for international security. The fact is that we are different nations in Europe, with differing interests, requiring different economic and monetary policies. Britain, for
516
instance, still exports more per head of its population than does Japan. Therefore, in terms of narrow economic self-interest alone, there must be great British concern to maintain strong bilateral links with the rest of the world.
That does not mean that we should not continue to strengthen our economic ties with Europe. In particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) said in an intervention, we should be pressing hard for a free flow of capital around Europe. We have not begun to have that in many respects. We should be pressing for fully convertible currencies reflecting not some artificial exchange rate but the unit cost differences between the various countries. But a pre-emptive leap towards federalism through the medium of a single currency would be, to say the least, premature.
7.27 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The enthusiasm for economic and monetary union demonstrated by pro-European, pro-market Members or even by our Front Benchers shows a willingness to throw away vital weapons of economic management as a badge of communautaire identity. It is a defiance of the basic principles of economics. The exchange rate is simply a market clearing mechanism. The competitive exchange rate in that situation is simply the rate at which a nation can trade, balance its payments and sustain that balance of payments in conditions of full employment and sustainable economic growth.
That is a market decision. We can influence the market and the exchange rate by high interest rates. The present Government have continually maintained the exchange rate too high by interest rates. We can do it by the way we run the economy. The point is that the exchange rate is essential to our trading ability. For proof of that, one need only look at the balance of payments of this country's manufacturing trade with the United States in 1986, when we had a substantial surplus of about £1 billion, and the deficit that we had last year of about £3 billion simply because the dollar had gone down and the pound had gone up since 1986. The exchange rate is absolutely vital.
I accept that there are divergent interests in connection with the exchange rate. Financial interests in this country want it high. Clearly, as they want to invest more overseas, they want a high and stable rate; while industry wants a low, competitive exchange rate so that it can produce more and sell it overseas. The rich, who have money, want a high exchange rate. The mass of the people, who want jobs, industry and economic expansion, need it to be competitive, and that is the interest of the Labour party.
It therefore follows that it was folly to enter the exchange rate mechanism. It was folly, first, to attach ourselves to fixed exchange rates, the bad old system; we are attempting to fix the needle on the barometer. The markets should decide that. This is not an argument for devaluation; it is an argument for markets. I cannot understand why a Government so attached to markets should want to defy markets on the exchange rate—the central issue. We cannot fix the needle on the barometer and control the weather. It just cannot be done. Also, we cannot transfer control over that vital exchange rate to competitors who have a vested interest in seeing us overvalued so as to sustain their access to our market That is the second folly.

517
The third folly is to go in at an overvalued rate, a rate that is substantially up on the level of the last quarter to 1986—about 23 per cent.—against the deutschmark. It is no use preaching to people to hold wages. If manufacturing industry's workers took a cut in wages, that still could not get us back to the competitive level of the last quarter of 1986. We have embarked on the folly, with the same consequences that Keynes described in "Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill", attached to our return to the gold standard at an overvalued rate in 1925.
The consequences are now the same—increasing unemployment and bankruptcies, a reduction of taxation because corporation tax will be down, and increases in spending because unemployment will be up, so Government surplus moves into Government deficit and the economy winds down. We are screwing down the lid on the recession on which we embarked. That is disastrous when one considers that our manufacturing output is scarcely higher than it was in 1973.
It was a folly to enter the exchange rate mechanism, and a folly about which the Labour party should have warned. We said that we should enter at a competitive rate, but we kept terribly quiet when the Government went in at an uncompetitive rate. The consequences will be ruinous. If this country is to succeed, and if we are to stop the remorseless wind-down into depression and the rise in unemployment, there must be a substantial devaluation. It will come. We shall try to hold back the tide on the mentality that, at this stage in the economic cycle we need a futile gesture—that is certainly what the City wants—but it will come, and better that it comes early rather than late.
Economic and monetary union is a further step down the same road to folly. The currency is rather like the atmosphere around a planet—the framework that sustains life. It sustains independent economic life.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is like the climate.
Mr. Mitchell: It is like the climate in that sense. That is the role of the exchange rate. We cannot abolish it without disastrous consequences for the life that is sustained in that climate. Hon. Members have argued that transaction costs will come down—a huge gain, particularly when we are in deficit. Transaction costs come down for importers as well as for exporters, and with us in substantial deficit that is paying a benefit to them. Sam Brittan argued in the Financial Times that the balance of payments vanishes, and so it does. It vanishes because we must then cut our ability to buy imports to our ability to produce exports to pay for them. We must cut our wages and our standard of living.
That is why it is so extraordinary that the Labour Front Bench should advocate membership of economic monetary union. The consequences of that fall on workers in manufacturing—those on the industrial front line. We are actually shelling our own front line in the industrial war. It will be used to depress, deflate and break the power of the unions and the working class—to increase unemployment—and the consequences of that will fall on manufacturing industry, our front line. Our standard of living will be driven down. We shall become another East Germany. The consequences of one currency for East
518
Germany have been disastrous in terms of employment, jobs and manufacturing. They have big brother to help them out and cushion the blow, but we shall not.
Some people say, "Let us have a machinery for redistribution." I ask those who are enthusiastic about economic and monetary union, "Why concede the principle before the framework of redistribution is agreed? It will be difficult to get it. There will have to be massive transfers on the scale that Opposition Members have indicated. That will require a huge bill to be paid by Germany. Is Germany going to pay it? Is the SPD so enthusiastic about Britain's future that it is prepared to impose those taxes—those burdens—on the German economy? Do our politicians want to turn us into the plangent, begging, scrounging nation of Europe, dependent on handouts and regional aid for our economic existence because we abolished the atmosphere that sustained our own economy? Is that a future for a great and powerful nation? Is that a future on which we can build socialism and a better society? It is not.
That is not Labour party policy, either. Policy, as adopted by conference in "Meet The Challenge, Make The Change", is of opposition to economic and monetary union. That policy was accepted by conference and put forward by our Front Bench. Our leader told us in "Looking To The Future" that its commitments are still binding. It cannot be changed until conference changes it. I am therefore espousing Labour party policy on this issue.
I did not enter the Labour party or Parliament to institute a system of rule by central bankers over this country. I entered Parliament to build a fairer society in this country by providing full employment, building our national economic and industrial strength because the nation depends on its industrial base. It does not depend on mythology or sovereignty. I entered politics to multiply well-being and to get a better life for our people. We do that by developing and building industrial strength, by generating growth and distributing it fairly among our people.
In other words, economic growth is central to my philosophy. It will not be available in the new regime of economic and monetary union. I entered politics to build a better society, not to institute a system of rule by central bankers or to ensure that east Germany is builded here in England's green and pleasant land.
7.37 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: There is something to be said for a single currency. Convenience in transactions has already been mentioned. However, I do not believe that convenience is everything. Nobody now argues that a move to a single currency based on the present basket of currencies does not mean the convergence of economies within the European Community. Delors has said that and the Bundesbank has said that—indeed, the Bundesbank made the point that there should be no artificial deadline before economic convergence is achieved, and it sees it going a long way ahead; otherwise, the single currency cannot conceivably bear the weight placed upon it. Surely the Bundesbank should know. From figures that it has given, I understand that the net public sector borrowing requirement last year was DM100 billion. This year, it is due to go to DM140 billion because of the cost of restoring East Germany.

519
If anyone suggested that we should have such an enormous increase in our public sector borrowing requirement, we would be absolutely horrified. It is the kind of thing to which we are accustomed under Labour Governments. For that to happen in Germany is truly astonishing. However, if that is happening in the strongest economy in Europe, what about less well-endowed countries such as Greece and Italy with their enormous financial deficits? What would it cost to correct such enormous imbalances, and who is to bear that cost? If there is to be a more equal performance on the part of all European countries, the inescapable consequence will be a large Government transfer from one country to another.
Of course, that is called the European regional policy. It means a substantial transfer of money from one country to another. I note that, already, the French are calling for Mr. Solomon Binding who advises incomes policy to be run by the Community. I have no objection to the transfer of funds from one country to another, but that should be done by removing barriers to investment—just what 1992 is supposed to be about.
There will be a call for massive funds to be transferred from richer countries to poorer countries in the European Community. That will inevitably mean higher taxation. Worse, it will mean moving gradually to a command economy, no doubt run by Brussels with substantial offices in other European countries. Our experience—surely it is that of eastern Europe as well—is that the more we move to a command economy—the more we move from people, and the market—the more certain we are to fail, and fail we will.
There are other political consequences of a single currency and further centralisation of economic decision making—which is necessary to make a single currency work. At the least, eastern European countries will not be welcomed into the Community, because a substantial transfer of resources will be necessary to keep the single currency in being. Some issues are larger than the single currency, and one is the unity of Europe in the sense of a Europe sans frontieres in which there is free movement of capital, goods and services. If imposing a single currency means that we have to deny the countries of eastern Europe any prospect of joining the Community, then the price is too high to pay. A single currency cannot be an objective in itself, except in a limited sense. It must be the servant of the political and economic system that we want, not its master.
We must take into account how the Community deals with matters which affect all its members. I have only to refer to the common agricultural policy and my hon. Friends will know what I mean. The way in which the GATT negotiations have proceeded is a disgrace. And what would happen if Britain wished to support the United Nations against another Saddam Hussein? Would we be told that, in order not to exert too much strain on the single currency, we must find savings elsewhere in our budget to accommodate extra defence spending? That is unthinkable.
How then are we to satisfy the demand for a single currency without accepting a centralised economic and political structure close to the lowest common denominator—which the current proposal would produce? The hard ecu is designed to satisfy that demand. It is a common parallel currency, not a single currency. It is subject to a central bank and run by central bankers, not politicians. It is one alternative suggested by my right hon. Friends on
520
the Front Bench. I for one would be glad to see the central bank run by central bankers, not politicians, regardless of the Opposition's view.
By definition, the hard ecu cannot be expansionary or inflationary. It could be a substitute for national currencies rather than an addition to them. Just as the gold standard allowed de facto monetary union, there could he convertibility into the hard ecu as and when people, businesses and, lastly, countries wanted it. That time has plainly not yet come.
The process cannot be hurried. It is not a decision that we in Parliament can take. It will take much longer to establish the conditions for a single currency than the most enthusiastic Community supporters accept. It is much better to establish the Europe that we wish to see—outward-looking, free of internal barriers, in favour of free trade and ready to accept our responsibilities in the middle east and elsewhere under the auspices of the United Nations, and then fashion a common currency that will allow us to pursue those ends.
7.42 pm
Mr. John Battle: With the war going on in the Gulf, it may seem to people outside the House that it is a luxury to indulge in a debate on the finer points of economic and monetary union. But behind the images of war on the television screen, the economic picture is continuing to worsen. Recent high unemployment figures hardly got a look in on the news. Interest rates are still high and result in regular bankruptcies and redundancies in our constituencies. We have a declining manufacturing base and a massive balance of trade deficit. That means increasing unemployment and poverty in many of our constituencies.
The Government's policy on economic and monetary union affects that underlying agenda. At the centre of the Government's approach there seems to be a deliberate ambiguity. The current new-look Conservative leadership attempts to present a pro-EMU stand. Effectively, it is hedging on developments leading to economic and monetary union. More crucially, it is blocking moves to Community convergence in social, regional and economic policies.
The Government still insist on a hard ecu. Today we heard that it would not be subject to devaluation, but it is hard to see how that could be avoided if the Government intend that it should eventually emerge into a common currency. The Government still persist with their hard ecu fig leaf. The key problem is that the hard ecu scheme would not do what most other EMS countries want. The Government's latest proposals on the hard ecu concede the concept of an independent central bank but do not address the key issue of who will make key decisions on monetary policy. Even if the hard ecu worked, there would still be a strong possibility that an unreconstructed Bundesbank would remain firmly in charge.
The Government's proposals for beyond stage 11, published in January, make it clear that the EMS is to be entirely controlled by bankers. They propose that the shape will mirror the structure of the existing Bundesbank. They do not propose that the European monetary fund should be properly politically accountable from the beginning. We insist that it should be. The Government are struggling to remain on the fence on the independence of the European monetary fund or central bank system. In

521
practice the Government are voting for continued control by the Bundesbank. In reality, if the commitment to the exchange rate mechanism is respected, national monetary sovereignty will prove to be a fiction.
The Government and others speak of defending the national interest, but in financial and economic terms, national sovereignty is already a fiction. How else can we explain that, in 1989, even before we joined the ERM, Britain was forced to raise interest rates to keep in line with the Germans? It could be argued that common interest through a European central bank accountable to all member states would give us more power over monetary conditions than we have now. At present, economic policy is effectively dictated by the Bundesbank.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stressed that the Delors proposals dealt with uncertainties which were difficult to predict and that there were no precedents in history. He even suggested that the Bretton Woods agreement could not be quoted as a precedent. However, it is worth reflecting on the Bretton Woods agreement as a precedent of a sort.
The original proposals by Lord Keynes for a world central bank to manage a world reserve asset was sabotaged by the United States on the ground that it did not want to surrender its sovereignty over monetary policy. We were left with the existing international monetary fund which plugs economies driven by market forces, despite the fact that they suffer from high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment and massive balance of trade deficits—hardly recommended models for developing countries. That is what emerged from the Bretton Woods agreement, and it is worth remembering that the United States resisted it on the ground of sovereignty.
If national sovereignty in financial and economic affairs in a world of international financial exchanges is a fiction, it is not too much to imagine that, by the year 2020, local and regional centres of power will be increasingly connected to international centres. That may formulate the axis of power. The role of national parliaments may diminish within the next 50 or 100 years. We should not fear that but face up to it and what it could mean in terms of democratic and internationalist politics.
Another overworked fiction is the mechanism of the market. Today the Prime Minister said that the hard ecu would be driven by the market and not imposed on anyone. He spoke as if market forces had a life of their own, entirely autonomous of human influence and decision. But the Chancellor said that he would work with the market. He implied that the hard ecu would not be so subject to the forces of the market as the Prime Minister suggested. However, there is a dominating fiction that the iron laws of the market exist in a determinist sense, which suggests that we must be committed to an arithmetical equation. We are dictated to by the vagaries of market forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) drew a parallel with the weather. Perhaps it has not occurred to him that clouds can be seeded and climate can be influenced and changed. We do not need to be subject to these determinist laws. In assenting to that, the
522
Government reject any positive role in the plan for an active transition to a single market in economic, social and monetary policy.
The new pro-EMU stance of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is cast and set in the language of free market forces, with the hard ecu as the only iron in the fire. The Government's approach is deliberately to neglect, if not be downright hostile to, the wider agenda set by the Delors report. In particular, they neglect the need for substantial social and economic convergence between member states before monetary union can take place.
Some Conservative Members have suggested, as I think the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) did, that convergence is geographically impossible and unnatural. But surely he and others would accept that, at the very minimum, it is important to prevent increasingly widening divergences that would damage all Community members. Convergences should be not only in terms of inflation, as even the Chancellor accepts, but in terms of ability to gain sustained, balanced growth and development for all in the Community.
The Cecchini report of economic experts on the benefits of the single market, drawn up in 1988, states:
"If the new rewards are not shared fairly, the EC home market will rest on a brittle skein of regional and social tensions … Undoubtedly … assistance will be needed for the Community's declining regions and labour affected by industrial restructuring."
It continues:
"there is a need to examine the sector by sector impact of removing non-tariff barriers and to envisage accompanying social policy measures across a range of fields: vocational training and mobility; labour market flexibility; and the more intensive use of the Community's social and regional funds. The extent to which the 1992 programme can attract economic and social cohesion around it will be the key to its chances of success."
Most recently, some economists have drawn attention to the fact that technology changes in the 1990s could have as devastating effect on employment in the service sectors of Community countries as de-industrialisation had on manufacturing in the late 1970s and 1980s. But at least and at last, employment needs, inequality and poverty issues are getting on to the agenda. Some 14 per cent. of the Community's population lives in poverty which, as we all know, is unevenly distributed throughout the Community, as German reunification graphically demonstrates at present.
There has already been some welcome response to poverty and social needs in the restructuring of funds, such as the European regional development fund. But the real trends of divergent development between European towns and cities continues, increases and needs to be tackled. References to free flow of capital must be matched by references to the movement of labour within the European Community. There is a real danger that all that will happen in 1992 is that the divergent trend between skilled and unskilled labour will be reinforced.
We must face up to the mobility implications of that divergence because professional and skilled people will freely move in and out of major European cities and benefit them, but those northern cities that are in decline will lose their populations as unskilled and semi-skilled labour heads off in search of work. The result will be a growing polarisation between rich and poor within the Community. Unless that issue is addressed, moving in the direction of economic and monetary union alone will be of no benefit.
7.55 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: This is an important debate, and one of the problems is that we are talking about economic and monetary union rather than trying to separate them. There is a distinction between the two; it is possible to have monetary union, with a large degree of discretion and flexibility for Governments in economic and fiscal matters.
Economic union is already being advanced in the European Community, with the support of the British Government, through the single market programme. I for one welcome the Commission's announcement, in its report issued earlier this month, that it is aware that some countries are not applying the single market programme with the same efficiency as this Government and will start proceedings against those Governments. The House will welcome that; it is a good, high priority in the Commission's plans for this year. Economic union will flow from the completion of the single market programme, which does not need to contain fiscal harmonisation or managing, on a statutory basis, budgetary deficits between member countries. Therefore, I do not believe that many hon. Members would oppose economic union, which is certainly very much part of the Government's clear policy.
Monetary union has been more controversial. However, there is now a series of basic agreements on policy between most Governments in the Community that create a favourable atmosphere for discussions in the inter governmental conference. For example, there is general agreement on the value of stable monetary supply, stable prices, low inflation and, crucially, an understanding—unfortunately not shared by some Opposition Members—that there is no value in policies resulting in devaluation. The depreciation of the currency is not, in itself, a merit. The important point is that we in this country have so often had surreptitious impoverishment because we have allowed reduction in the value of our currency without consideration of the fundamental issue of how to improve the competitiveness of our industrial performance. The need to avoid devaluation is understood throughout the Community.
The ERM has been remarkably successful, and I welcome our entry of it. All of us would like interest rates to fall in this country. Those who approach that aim by saying that we must challenge the central rate of sterling in the ERM at DM2·95 do a great disservice to the efforts to reduce interest rates. As long as there is uncertainty about the British Government's determination to hold the DM2·95 level, there will need to be a premium on sterling in terms of interest rates. The greater the confidence that we are determined at all costs and at all times to maintain the DM2·95 central rate, the greater the confidence of people investing in sterling and thus a reduced need to have a high interest rate premium against the deutschmark. I urge those who agree with me that we want lower interest rates to cease to question the DM2·95 level; that would be a great service.
I think that the sooner we move to the 2·25 per cent. margin on either side of the central rate, the sooner we shall increase the likelihood that the market genuinely believes that the British Government are determined to crack inflation—not to resort to the antiquated device of depreciating currency. That would increase certainty,
524
increase investors' confidence, and lead to a reduction in interest rates through a reduction in the premium necessary over the deutschmark.
There are other factors that assist in that, such as the technical rule that any movement of adjustment in the ERM, particularly when there is a smaller central rate margin, should not be done outside the existing rate. At present, there is a 6 per cent. band on either side and we should never move out of that range when resetting the central level of the 2·25 per cent. band. The strength of ERM could develop further by moving progressively downward in the band on either side of the central rate; 1·5 per cent. would be achievable. That would be an extremely beneficial move, and in this country's interests, in terms of reducing our interest rate premium.
The consensus that has emerged on various economic policies has also given rise to the need to bring convergence in the Community between the performance of the various economies. That is clearly an objective of all those involved in the discussions. The question is how to do it. That is where the hard ecu shows the role it can play. Setting a non-inflationary standard through the mechanism of the European monetary fund will provide the possibility of ensuring that good money chases out bad.
Therefore, any country pursuing profligate policies that lead to a tendency of its own currency to depreciate within the ERM bands will find that its citizens and businesses will opt for the harder currency—the ecu. That will be a disincentive to that Government, who will have to put their house in order. Therefore, over a period—one that is not easy to define but will be shorter than expected—there will be a convergence on a lower inflation rate throughout the Community. That will give the right basis for stable money and therefore monetary union.
It is important to understand what the Government have proposed. The European monetary fund will have teeth. It can force countries to make good the loss in value in their depreciating currency by purchasing ha rd currency. That is an important role for the EMF, and one that is deliberately anti-inflationary. Secondly, the EMF cannot increase total monetary supply within the Community because it can only issue the hard ecu against reserves from existing currencies. Therefore, the Germans' worry that the EMF and the hard ecu would increase inflation is unfounded, and I hope that we can get that argument across to the Bundesbank. The worry that it might make Bundesbank management of monetary supply more difficult is also unfounded, and I hope that our arguments on that will prevail.
The other interesting point about the proposals—there is a good deal of agreement with the Commission on this—is that there will be no bail-out of deficits built into the arrangements, as countries will not be able to print money to finance deficits. This is important, because if one has a common monetary policy throughout the Community—that will be achieved as the European monetary fund sets the conditions for monetary policy—each country will have some budgetary flexibility if it is creditworthy, and it will be creditworthy only if it is able to show that it has a sensible anti-inflationary policy.
Furthermore, such a country would be more exposed to criticism and assessment by lenders. Lenders will not lend to a country in whose policies they do not have confidence. However, if the policies are sound, lenders will be prepared to lend to that country, and that will give the Government substantial fiscal flexibility and sovereignty. As has been

525
said, Germany is running a budgetary deficit of 5 per cent. of GDP. That is a remarkable increase, but people still believe that the German Government are pursuing anti-inflationary policies and are prepared to lend to Germany, so there has not been a significant change in German tax or interest rates.
The important point is that we have the European monetary fund as an institution to set monetary discipline. I do not see a great distinction between what the Government are proposing and what many of our friends on the continent wish. The European monetary fund could be the Euro Fed of the future. Our proposals could satisfy our friends because the common currency could lead to the single currency. In my view, the hard ecu is likely to be the safest and fastest route to the single currency, and I hope that our proposals will get more and more consent as the IGC continues.
8.3 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall pick up two of the points made by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on which I came to a different conclusion. I have not yet heard an industrialist or anyone on the commercial sector say that the Government were right to enter the ERM at the rate of DM2·95 to the pound. I do not accept the view of those responsible about the need to keep interest rates high so as to maintain that exchange rate. They are kept high because the Government got it wrong in the first place, and now do not have the flexibility, which they would like, to reduce interest rates. I have met many industrialists, most of whom told me that the Government were wrong even before I asked. Going in at the wrong rate has put our manufacturing industries at a disadvantage and made imports cheaper. That gives the Government another problem to cope with in their efforts to get the economy right.
We fully accept the need to get inflation down and we recognise the importance of that to the economy. However, we believe that the Government fail to recognise the contribution to inflation of interest rates. The Government say that the guilty party in this is wage rates, but interest rates are a bigger contributing factor.
I support the line taken so ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I do so for two reasons. First, I am a regional Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the north-west. Secondly, I represent a constituency heavily involved in manufacturing industry. If we are to maintain our manufacturing industry, we should take the line set out by my right hon. and learned Friend, because that is the best way to protect manufacturing industry and secure job stability.
Because we are in the ERM and fast approaching 1992, with all that that implies, a single currency and European monetary union are inevitable. However, we should not be going along that line with a blank cheque approach, agreeing to every condition. We have to get everything right. When the Government went into the ERM, they did so in a panic, and fixed the rate wrongly. I should be far happier about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and a Labour team
526
negotiating those terms and conditions than I am about Conservative Ministers doing so, because we would look after the interests of Britain and the regions.
Last night, my right hon. and learned Friend and I were at a meeting with the general secretary of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, of which we are both members. He told us that the membership, at grass roots level, was pushing the union to take a far more positive approach to EMU and European matters. That change among the membership is because people working in industry believe that it is the best way to safeguard their future. Anyone who argues that we should not be moving in that direction has to recognise that we have lost so many jobs and that manufacturing industry has deteriorated so much in the past few years that we have to do something positive if we are to prevent a further decline.
My constituency is heavily involved in manufacturing, as is the north-west as a whole. However, despite what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said at Question Time yesterday, investment in manufacturing has fallen by more than 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979, output is down by more than 30 per cent. and jobs in manufacturing are down 38 per cent. in the north west. Conservative Members like to call that an economic miracle, but it spells economic disaster for Burnley and the north-west.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that manufacturing is the creator of wealth, and we want wealth to be created because we want to be able to get enough income for the future Labour Government to fund a more positive approach. We certainly want to encourage that. We believe that what is needed is a much more positive attitude to industry. It is also necessary that there be a much more positive attitude to the regions. The Conservative Government have used additionality against the regions. Only the British Government have operated it in that way, and it is something of which they should be absolutely ashamed.
Many industrialists have put very forcefully to me the point that the ability to trade in a single currency, without the need to be bothered about bankers' commission and so on, would make business considerably easier. We want to be able to compete in Europe on equal terms.
The number of jobs being lost at present may not be so great as the number lost in the early 1980s, but higher productivity means that those losses have a far greater impact in relative terms. That is a matter for concern.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a loss of manufacturing jobs that we are seeing? In the north-west, substantial numbers of jobs are being lost with the closure of firms that were set up in the 1980s for the very purpose of replacing lost jobs. In other words, the so-called new employment prospects in the north-west are also being eroded.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The north-west has changed. Traditional industries have gone, and the new industries are suffering difficulties. Many of these are high-technology firms. It is sad that jobs are being lost there too.
We must enter the negotiations positively, although I realise that we may well encounter difficulties along the route. Perhaps, at some stages, there will emerge certain things that we are not prepared to accept. However—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a prominent union member,

527
will realise—it is absolutely crucial to have a positive approach if one is to achieve a positive result. If our approach to a single currency and EMU is right, we should get the type of agreement that we want. We should be kidding ourselves if we believed that no other country in Europe would at any stage find some of the proposals unacceptable. As certain hon. Members have said, there will be times when Britain is not the odd man out.
The Opposition envisage Europe extending to include EFTA nations and some eastern European countries. If Europe is to play a positive role in the world—for example, in respect of the environment and the third world—we shall have to do everything we can to ensure that its economy, including the economy of this country, is as strong as possible. I believe that movement in the direction I have indicated would achieve that objective.
8.13 pm
Mr. William Cash: The Gulf war that is going on at the moment has demonstrated a number of serious weaknesses in the way in which the European Community has been developing. In the context of this debate, it is important to remember that the system being proposed would effectively—through the interlocking of economic, monetary and eventually, I think, fiscal policy—have a dramatic effect on our capacity in future years to conduct a foreign policy such as we are engaged in now or a defence policy that would enable us to deal with a Saddam Hussein of the future.
I make this point with reference to the explanatory memorandum relating to the draft treaty on economic monetary union. I think that 1 am the only hon. Member—apart, perhaps, from Ministers—to have a copy. I do not want to go through it in detail, but I do want to quote these words:
"The joint exercise of new powers in areas in which reach to the very heart of sovereignty, such as currency matters and foreign policy, will require the existing institutional framework to be adapted to a higher degree of community integration."
It could be said by some, of course, that this is nothing more than a Commission document, which should not be taken too seriously. If one were to take a fairly relaxed view of these matters, one might adopt that attitude. On the other hand, the evidence of the engrenage that has taken place within the Community over the past 15 years indicates that the real muscle—the forward drive for the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union—has lain very much with the Commission. This is what some people believe to be progress.
It is therefore relevant, in the context of the current dramatic events in the middle east, to consider very briefly what would happen if we were faced with this interlocking monetary and economic system in relation to the proposal for a central bank, in which case we should have, effectively, unelected bankers running these policies. That would reduce our ability to determine the economic and social priorities, including defence. We should have to ask ourselves what impact that would have on our ability to respond to a threat similar to that posed by the activities of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Bearing in mind the fact that economic and monetary union, together with foreign policy, lies at the heart of the sovereignty question, I should like to mention that, at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 4 January, Mr. Roland Dumas is reported by The Economist as having snapped:
528
"If the European Community had majority voting on foreign policy you would be outvoted."
One can therefore understand the relationship between political union and economic and monetary union. As has been said during the course of this debate, one cannot really separate them. For practical purposes, once one has moved to economic and monetary union one is on the threshold of, if not right into, political union.
We saw what happened yesterday in the European Parliament. A six-hour debate on the Gulf crisis broke up in confusion. Newspapers reported Mr. Jacques Delors as having put an imaginary pistol to his head and walked out in disgust. I do not take any pleasure in this, nor do I take any satisfaction in saying, as many hon. Members have said from time to time, "I thought that this might happen."
The reality is that it is a matter of immense importance for the future of this country that we should not make any mistakes in this respect. If, for example, the European Community, had a common defence policy—a proper defence policy along the lines of that of the United States—its current average expenditure of 3·1 per cent. of gross domestic product would have to be just about doubled. Incidentally, in the United Kingdom at the moment the figure is about 4 per cent. The extra resources would have to be produced via taxation, which would inevitably have to be drawn from the member states.
To achieve defence at the level of that of a country of equivalent standing, such as the United States, taxation would have to be raised to that extent through the processes of economic and monetary union and fiscal policy, and I just do not believe that the individual member states would wear that. Individual contributions for defence by way of the percentage of gross domestic product, are way below the British contribution. That is a point that we must bear in mind.
I repeat that there is nothing anti-European about my attitude to the various questions. I was the founding member of Westminster for Europe and I want the EC to work, but I do not want to see the whole thing disintegrate as a result of embarking on policies which are essentially impossible and unreal and which, in the context to which 1 have just referred, are potentially dangerous. I have no doubt that the British people, looking at the state of affairs in the Gulf and the almost non-existent contribution that has been made by other member states, would be deeply concerned if they thought that the proposals for EMU could or would have an impact on our defence policies in the Gulf or elsewhere in the future.
If there were an increase in the amount of money spent on defence in percentage terms, it follows that there would be a corresponding decrease in the amount of money available for other areas of public expenditure. That in turn would cause grave difficulties which would probably have something to do with the arguments that were raging in the European Parliament yesterday. There are serious questions about the economic, social, defence and public expenditure policies that would be pursued under the regime that has been postulated by the Commission in its draft treaty. The same could be said of the proposals for a single institutional structure, or political union, which have also come from the Commission.
Our proposals entitled "Possible treaty provisions and statute for a European monetary fund" were published in January 1991 and have been presented to the House. I put my observations in the form of questions, a number of which arise. For example, article II says:

529
"The overriding objective of the European Monetary Fund shall be to promote and maintain price stability in the Community as part of the progressive realisation of Economic and Monetary Union."
It goes on to say:
"Without prejudice to the object of price stability"—
which many economists would say is extremely difficult to define, and is not well defined in any of the Commission documents, but is generally taken to mean that inflation will be kept as low as possible—
"the Fund shall support the other economic policy objectives of the Community."
The question is, what are the Community's economic policy objectives? Is there not an invitation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) suggested, to massage the present arrangements proposed under the document into what he would like, which is the Euro Fed arrangement.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom I have had the pleasure of discussing—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. John Butterfill.
8.23 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: As chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe, I believe that it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I hope that we will eventually evolve much closer unions within Europe, both politically and economically. Evolve is the important word. In recent times, some of our European partners have been trying to press things much farther and faster than most of their populations are prepared to tolerate or economic conditions within the Community can sustain.
I would go even further than my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and say that, first, we must achieve economic union, as we are doing through the agency of the single market, but before we proceed to monetary union, we must have much closer political union, because the two things are inseparable. Unless we can achieve political agreement about the Community's general objectives, it will be impossible to achieve full monetary union. Therefore, to a great extent, we have been putting the cart before the horse; or, more importantly, the Delors committee has been putting the cart before the horse.
That is not altogether surprising because much of the motivation behind the Delors proposals was to achieve the political objective of pushing the Community's political union faster than it had gone hitherto. There is much to support that. Many leading statesmen within the Community accuse us of having no vision, but I do not believe that. I have just as much vision as they have, but I hope that I have a good deal more pragmatism.
Late last year, with some other hon. Members, I attended the interparliamentary convention in Rome and it became clear to me that many of those present wanted things to go much faster in all those areas than we had previously understood to be the case. Many brave words were spoken, particularly about political union. It is rather sad that recent events have shown that when it comes to the political crunch, for example with regard to the Gulf, those brave words have not been matched by brave deeds.
530
I take no pleasure in that, but it is true, so we must take a much more measured approach in the way that we proceed on economic and, later, monetary union.
Having said that, are we doing the right thing? Have the Government taken the right approach? I believe that they have. I believe that, in joining the exchange rate mechanism at the central rate of DM2·95, they have got it right. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher that those who are continuing to speculate that that rate will have to come down in order to give some mythical assistance to British industry are doing nothing but delay the eventual reduction of interest rates which will occur as inflation reduces within the British economy, as I am confident will happen later this year.
We should always speak out against the siren voices that we have heard from the Opposition Benches saying that we must devalue our currency in order to assist our manufacturing industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have done that consistently ever since the last war, and it has got us nowhere. It is short-termism, and it is a road to ruin.
To see the proof of that one has only to look at the situation in those countries that have not followed that route. Exporters in Japan and West Germany have concentrated on quality, delivery, reliability and service to their customers and they have sold consistently better than we have despite the fact that their currencies have been appreciating in value. It is about time that Opposition Members learned that important lesson. It is sad that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who is just leaving the Chamber, has not yet taken that on board.
Should we go along some of the routes suggested in the Delors report? For example, should we have independent central banks within the Community? Greater independence for central banks has a good deal to commend it. It would impose disciplines upon the management of the economy which are desirable and in accordance with Conservative thinking. It would prevent us from running the horrific budget deficits that we have seen in the past. It is perhaps no coincidence that the countries which have had to devalue within the ERM are those which run the highest budget deficits, one example being Italy. Therefore, there should be some rigour in the management of the economy and of detachment from short-term political considerations.
The market approach is the way forward. If we were to go down the line of redistribution within the economy and straight into a single currency, we would be forced back into the old systems of regional support which have served all of Europe, but especially this country, so badly. Previous policies of regional aid in this country were harmful to the development of the regions, because they created a dependency culture and the feeling that someone else would bail them out.
It was not until this Government came along and encouraged the regions to stand on their own feet, by harnessing the innate creativeness of the inhabitants with inward investment, which attracted foreign capital and capital from other parts of the country, that there was the dynamism which we now see in the Scottish and Welsh economies and the resurgence of the economy in the north. That is the way forward for the whole of Europe. It is no use creating dependency cultures all over Europe or talking about monetary union until we have achieved much greater economic convergence of all the regions within Europe.

531
The proposal of a hard ecu is beneficial and should be given greater consideration by our European partners. When I was in Germany in the latter part of last year, I too met Dr. von Wartenberg, the director general of the Federation of German Industry, who confirmed that it was an interesting proposal. He wished to change some of the original British proposals but felt that the hard ecu could work for the benefit of the whole of Europe. Therefore, we should proceed to develop with our European partners the proposals for a European monetary fund. It would impose market disciplines and counteract the centralist and interventionist proposals of the Commission which would be harmful.
Monetary union depends upon agreement among the members of the Community about where we all want to go and how we want to get there. It is no use putting the cart before the horse, as the Community has done to date. If we push it too fast, it will all end in tears. If we try to go down the route that we are being encouraged to go down by the Commission, we will create a structure which will be inherently unstable, which will lead to disaster for the less developed countries of the Community and which will bring the whole Community proposals into disrepute. It is clear that we do not yet have that agreement. Therefore, we must adopt a step-by-step approach.
8.33 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the debate as a chance for my hon. Friends on the Back Benches to contribute to the thinking of Ministers on economic and monetary union before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor goes to the IGC on 28 January. In his excellent opening speech, my right hon. Friend admirably met two of the requirements of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who suggested that the approach to these matters should be realistic and constructive.
That was a fair description of the approach of my right hon. Friend. As the House knows, he is advocating an evolutionary and practical approach to the next stages of economic and monetary union. Indeed, he need not have apologised for that, because those of us who have looked into the foundations of the European idea since the last war were aware of the famous phrase of Jean Monnet when he described his approach to these matters as "une politique de petits pas", a policy of small steps. There is no doubt that the incrementalism implied there is inherent in the Community method.
I understand very well why the previous Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, said that Governments could not accept the imposition of a single European currency since that would imply a political decision to do so taken against the wishes of at least one important member Government. Even though technically it might be possible for that to happen, it would be a disaster, and I cannot believe that in practice our Community partners, especially Germany which also has reservations about the Delors approach, would allow it since it would disrupt the cohesion of the Community at a time when it could not be more important for all Twelve to be united.
Therefore, I wish the Chancellor and his colleagues well in what is likely to be a long haul in terms of discussion and negotiation. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the right
532
occasion to offer a few points of important detail arising from the text of the Government's proposals. I intend to devote my brief remarks to that end.
Taking first the Government's draft treaty articles, it is right that the objectives of the proposed European monetary fund should he the maintenance of price stability and consistency with free markets, as set out in article II. It is also right that the hard ecu should not be susceptible to devaluation in any circumstances since that would make it at least as attractive as the deutschmark and could offer an ingenious way of limiting, and eventually reducing, deutschmark dominance within the Community, without recourse to French-inspired supranationalism of the kind advocated by Mr. Delors.
When it comes to the exercise of the powers and duties of the European monetary fund, I would infinitely prefer alternative 1 in the Treasury paper to alternative 2 in draft article V. That is the only way to guarantee independence for the fund, and it should be done right from the beginning. It would be advisable for the following brief reasons. First, it is advisable to make the proposed new institution and its monetary policy as credible as possible in the eyes of markets. Independence would achieve that. That is the most important reason.
Secondly, it is advisable to make the new institution compatible with the established leading model—the Bundesbank in Germany—and thus attract vital German support in the negotiations. Thirdly, it is important to give the idea the best possible chance of meeting its two principal objectives—those laid down in article II. I realise that would entail a change from our existing approach to these matters.
Indeed, it would probably be sensible for us to legislate at about the same time to put the Bank of England on a new basis of statutory accountability to the House. I sought to pursue that point with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. I would welcome such a change which would make our arrangements institutionally compatible with the arrangements that we can expect to emerge within the Community. It would not erode the sovereignty of the House in monetary matters—quite the reverse, since under the existing arrangements, dating back at least to the Bank of England Act 1946, not even the Cabinet, let alone the House, has effective control over national monetary policy.
It would impose on the Bank of England a duty of periodic accountability to the House for the conduct of monetary policy, at least for the day-to-day administration of that policy, by obliging the bank to give perhaps a quarterly retrospective account of its stewardship. As I sought to say in my intervention, it would be for the European Parliament to provide the necessary statutory accountability for the proposed European monetary fund in the manner suggested in article IX of the draft text. This House should have a more established role in monitoring the administration of the Bank of England.
Furthermore, I believe that the Government are right to suggest in article VII in the draft text that, in the event of infringement by a member state or a national bank, it should be for the executive board of the European monetary fund to bring the matter before the European Court of Justice. That is a wise principle—that independent monetary arrangements for Europe should be reviewed, and disciplined if necessary, by the already functioning independent judicial arrangements of the

533
European Court of Justice. I would not expect such sanctions to be used very often, but it is important that they should be available.
The combination of legal accountability to the European Court of Justice and political accountability to the European Parliament is the right one for the European monetary fund. It is then up to this House rather than the Government of the day to provide a statutory framework of accountability for a much more independent Bank of England.
I believe that the House should welcome these proposals rather than take fright at them. We should start from a recognition that the days of real monetary autonomy for any single nation state or national parliament are long gone. We should therefore move forward pragmatically in discussions with our partners on the basis of these proposals, making it clear all the time that our ideas could evolve towards the establishment of a single European currency by mutual consent and in response to market forces.
If we do this we could find not only that we win the argument at the intergovernmental conference, but also that our partners will accept the idea of having a British president of the governing board of the European monetary fund which, for gastronomic and other reasons, should be located in Paris.
8.41 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: My starting points for my short contribution to today's debate are two quotations. The first is from an address by Leon Brittan last year to the TSB and published under the title "European Monetary Union—What Money for Europe?"
He said:
"there is nothing mystical about national currencies—or international ones for that matter. I am in favour of those arrangements which make our economy work better, and so provide more prosperity and more jobs; and against any changes which do not make economic sense. If, therefore, Britain is better off with its own currency not all the tea in China or even all the directives in Brussels would convince me that it is right to give up that currency."
That seemed to me a pretty sensible base from which to begin one's exploration of this issue. Money is a tool in the service of the economy and one which evolves over time. No one would argue with that.
The second quotation is from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), speaking in the House in a debate on the exchange rate mechanism on 23 October last year, when he said that he entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that
"there is a world of difference between EMS, which is an aspect of economic management, and EMU, which is essentially political."—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 216.]
It is the political aspect of European monetary union that I would like to explore a little. This has been a wide-ranging debate which has enabled us to cover these matters well. I would like to add something on the political aspect, particularly in relation to the issues of sovereignty and the co-operation of European states.
In early November of last year, I was given an opportunity to visit France by the French Government, whom I thank most warmly. I sought to explore the then
534
very strong-running controversy of sovereignty, which was thought by many, both then and now, to be at the heart of the issue of European monetary union. Two questions were uppermost in my mind.
The first was why, bearing in mind just how strong were our feelings on sovereignty, the French were not similarly concerned. Whatever differences we may have, there is no doubt that as a nation state France is as proud and patriotic as we are. Why were the French not up in arms about the possible loss of sovereignty in relation to their currency?
The broad answer that I picked up to this question was that the French consider this argument to be old hat. About 10 years or so ago, it had been much explored, but a consensus had emerged that sovereignty was enhanced through greater involvement in Europe and that European decisions would on the whole be with, rather than against, French interests. They expected this to be the case because they expected to have influence at both political and diplomatic levels. There are lessons there for those who neither expected nor tried to have such influence. Subsequent experience has shown the French that this decision has been broadly correct and they were therefore generally content to move towards a single currency.
At this stage I put in two caveats. It was the view of one leading French journalist that the French were perhaps too unquestioning about the whole business. He thought that sovereignty was an important issue and, while he did not necessarily disagree with the broad consensus in France, he did not believe that either politicians or public were asking the right questions.
The second caveat is that the French system invests rather more executive power in its President than in its Parliament; but, provided that the decision-making system of the European Community allowed for the president to exercise such Executive powers at the highest level, it was felt that the system would be workable. Such veto power is indicative of their desire, as on the Government Benches here, to avoid a completely federal system and to retain the power of the the nation state in some way.
The second question that I wanted to explore, particularly with politicians, was an economic one. Was not the major thrust of European Community economic policy, the common agricultural policy excepted since it is under reform, far from being socialism in disguise, innately market-oriented? Did not the ERM, and future EMU, strengthen this, thus locking political parties of both left and right into a broadly free market economy, limiting shifts in both politics and economics to slightly left and slightly right of centre?
In putting this view to politicians of the right, I was seeking to see whether they shared the reservation sometimes expressed on these Benches that Europe was inevitably moving towards a corporate socialist future. I do not hold such a view, and nor do they. They can see no reason why Conservative politicians should not welcome the growing convergence of European economic policy, because, with the single European market well established, it is inevitable that the economic policy of the Europe of the future will be so market-oriented that socialism as we had come to know it in our country will be effectively impossible to implement.
Putting the question slightly differently to the socialist representative that I met, I was given a slightly different answer. He also recognised that the socialism that we had come to know and be amused by in this country was not

535
truly possible in the Europe of the future, but he certainly believed that socialist social aspirations could be achieved. He was quite prepared to work within the economic boundaries being set, and of course he had a rueful experience upon which to draw.
This reflects a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) in talking about the relative autonomy of any country these days. The experience of socialist France in the early 1980s, when it tried a sort of "go it alone" economic policy, proved to be a disaster. France, it appeared, was already locked into the economic system of others. He recognised, therefore, that his sovereignty and freedom of action, like ours, was already limited. That is a lesson to which I will return in a few moments. From these discussions I drew two particular conclusions.
First, as well as economic convergence in Europe being necessary over the coming years, the French had a feeling that there was already a growing social and political convergence throughout Europe. Putting it in bold terms—I welcome both developments—they saw that we were heading towards the firm establishment of a social market economy throughout the European Community, and a broadly social democratic political philosophy, in which Governments of either centre-right or centre-left would be perfectly comfortable, but those of more extreme views on either side less comfortable, and indeed far less likely to be elected.
Secondly, I believe that the recent history of Europe has left its mark on continental Europe and those islands in quite a different way, and this is partly responsible for our discomfort with moves towards political and economic unity, and their different approach to sovereignty. The experience of the second world war in continental Europe and these islands was different in one major and fundamental respect. Almost every other continental European country suffered the experience of occupation. I do not believe that we in this country have any real conception of what a miserable existence that must be. However, one has only to spend a moment on the continent to understand just how significant it was in their lives and their memories. Their whole political and cultural thrust has been to ensure that such a thing never happens again.
Extreme nationalism—not pride in one's nation, as we know it—was at the heart of their agony and distress. Working to eliminate the bad things of nationalism has therefore been of prime importance—hence the drive towards a unity which may not be fully fleshed out yet but is immensely powerful in its influence. The British resistance to this over the years seems to have had behind it a hesitation, that if the balloon went up again in continental Europe and there was some disaster similar to that of pre-war Europe, there would for us be a way out. We would not have burned our bridges so as to tie us into a disaster. Continental Europe says that all activities are designed to ensure that the balloon never goes up in the first place, and that our influence and determination is needed to ensure that that does not happen. By increasing our level of involvement and commitment, we can ensure that what we fear, and what we may secretly guard against, does not happen.
In drawing all these strands together, I shall leave three final points with the House. First, it is the considered opinion of many people that, whatever we wish to do in this country, continental Europe will move towards a
536
single currency. If this country were not involved in that process, it would be a disaster. We spent too long on the outside of the European Community to underestimate the effects of isolation. We have never truly caught up, and although our economic and industrial performance during the past decade shows many good points, there are enough flaws in our performance to make our isolation rather worrying. Without the discipline which adherence to external forces demands, I am not at all certain that the United Kingdom economy will bite the bullet sufficiently on its own to complete its restructuring to give us the sort of prosperous future for which we are all looking.
Secondly—the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) mentioned the United States—we must recall that the United States and other countries now regard us in relation to our position in Europe and how we feel about it. If we are not fully involved in Europe, their feeling for us will gradually diminish. Thirdly, once we have made the commitment to the future, paradoxically speed is far less important. There is a whole group of questions about monetary union which need to be carefully explored. Too rapid a timetable has many disadvantages, but the rapid timetable that is being pursued by others is nothing more than an attempt to get us involved. Once we make that commitment to a single currency by making it plain that we think that the hard ecu will lead to a single currency, the pressure of commitment will be off and we shall have more time to explore the issues that we need to explore.
8.51 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I intervene in this debate to try to correct any possible impression that there is a consensus across both sides of the House which is opposed to progress towards European monetary union. However, after the outstanding speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), I do not think that it is necessary to try to create that impression.
It is true that there is some sort of consensus extending to both sides of the House, but it extends primarily to those hon. Members who still believe that there is something rather splendid about isolation. Those hon. Members hold the view that we should not move towards economic and monetary union. However, there is a much broader consensus, although perhaps a little less vocal, to the effect that it is to the long-term benefit of this country to be fully involved in steady progress towards European economic and monetary union, even though there is room for plenty of debate as to how fast we go and what route we choose.
In some ways it seems rather quixotic to be arguing now for renewed progress towards a single European currency. It is part of the process of European integration, at a time when the public perception is that the European Community has shown itself to be pitifully inadequate and irrelevant to the gravest problem facing the world today. Furthermore, it is the perception that the first step towards monetary union has tied the Government's hands, just when the onset of recession seems to offer a siren call for maximum flexibility in exchange rate and interest rate policy.
On top of all that, further progress towards economic and monetary union ties us closer to the European Community at the moment when its trading policies,

537
especially in agricultural products, are damaging to world trade and have already brought an open conflict with the United States, at whose side, when the chips are down—as they are in the Gulf—we have to find our place. The arguments for hanging back from the process of European integration—monetary, economic and political—and for blocking progress if we can, have never looked more seductive. It is important to counter those arguments, and I shall try to do so briefly.
I do not like arguments ad hominem, but I feel bound to point out that those in this House, and still more those in the press, who are now telling us with such glee that Europe has let us down, and that we should turn our back on the EC and concentrate on our special relationship with the United States, are the very people who have been scornful of the European Community all along. Those people, particularly in the tabloid press, and very particularly in the Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Star—whose mission in life it is to promote international misunderstanding—are busy spreading stories of, for example, French unreliability, despite the fact that France has committed substantial fighting forces in the Gulf, and has provided staunch, if occasionally idiosyncratic diplomatic support. I may be speaking for others besides myself when I say that it was the much-criticised final French attempt to find a compromise which finally convinced me that war with Saddam Hussein was inevitable and just.
Even if those criticisms were justified, however—and it hardly becomes us to criticise the Germans for not sending troops abroad when we imposed the condition that they should not do so—just what would we achieve if we went along with the argument that we can now let the European Community stew and concentrate instead on our bonds with the United States, and that as a first step we should resist any further advance towards European monetary union, try to block it if we can, and if we cannot, opt out of it to the extent that our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism permits us to do so?
That seems an incredibly dangerous line of argument to me. It is to ignore all the lessons of the past 30 years, and to be influenced solely by the lessons of the past 10 days. None of us can make even an intelligent guess as to what patterns of alliances and commitments are likely to survive the Gulf war but to assume that our ties and shared interests with the United States, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia are likely to prove more stable and more durable than our ties with France, Germany and Italy seems to me to be the very height of imprudence.
No—for all its horrors and its drama, the Gulf war is only indirectly relevant to Britain's long-term interests. However long the conflict, at the end of it Britain's destiny lies in Europe. If Europe has failed to show the unity of purpose which was so sorely needed, that is not a reason to opt out—we cannot opt out—but a reason to redouble our efforts to elicit that unity of purpose in the economic, monetary, and political fields.
Only the charismatic personality of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) could have persuaded anyone of the absurd proposition that a single European market could flourish for long without a single currency. The present Prime Minister is entirely right to argue that the way to achieve that single currency
538
is not by diktat from Brussels, but by allowing free choice and market forces to bring it into being, as they assuredly will.
Nor will anyone be so foolish as to argue that a single currency is the easy way to get back to growth without inflation. We have, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) pointed out some time ago, made this part of our task far more difficult by joining the exchange rate mechanism four years too late, and probably at the wrong exchange rate. But we cannot make things easier in the short run or better in the long run by trying to skip out of this obligation now. We may have started in the wrong weather and along the wrong route, but we are halfway up the rock face now, and it is more dangerous to go down than to go up.
This debate is an opportunity to turn our attention from immediate matters of life and death to long-term issues of national survival. The coming months will undoubtedly forge strong links of blood and brotherhood with the United States of America, but we would be foolish to bank our whole future on the durability of those ties. Geographical and strategic factors, the pull of internal domestic internal politics, will eventually prevail over ties of gratitude and sheer sacrifice. Britain's future lies in Europe now as much as ever it did before the Gulf war. We must accept the implications of that fact and play our part in shaping the economic, monetary and political purposes of the Community to which we have no choice but to belong.
9.2 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I wish to deal with a couple of points. As one or two other hon. Members wish to take part in this debate, I shall be as brief as I can. I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I think that one or two of his points were taken a little politically by some of my hon. Friends, and perhaps in his concluding remarks he will clarify his position further.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said, there is a measure of agreement between both sides of the House and indeed between both Front Benches on one essential element. It is that a hastened, rushed or rapid movement towards a common European currency would be a disaster. Both Front Benches recognise this and would be bold enough to say that they are opposed to such a course. Their reasons and methods of doing so at present seem to diverge. I feel that the Opposition has missed a trick. If they really believe that, it seems to me that finding the way forward from that position might be to take another look at the very proposals which at the moment they are pooh-poohing. I refer to the proposals by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a parallel currency—the hard ecu.
I recognise that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has given his reasons for any form of delay and explained the impracticability of any European currency as the desire to get regional divergencies reversed and to have regional convergence. However, I think that he will admit—my hon. Friends have debunked this theory to some degree—that the costs of so doing in any practical sense in the next 10 years might be prohibitive and extremely unpopular with the electorate. Although

539
perhaps both sides of the House would like to see some of the movement that he anticipates happening, as I am sure would be the view of us all, in the next 15 to 20 years as an ideal solution, the idea that this can be done within the next five or six years, as our partners in Europe might envisage, would be out of the question in fiscal terms.
Therefore, to what step does one look next? One looks at the idea that we want to evolve rather than to have things imposed upon us. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East disagrees with that. I think that, secretly, that is probably the way he would most practically see things move as well. It is evolution. It is not simply a matter of market forces or perhaps his repugnance or his party's repugnance in respect of market forces. It is the question of evolution rather than instant compulsion. An enormous range of topics within Europe can be adopted by this evolutionary process— 1'accord de petits pas that has already been referred to.
A British approach—I appeal to the Opposition to give this matter some thought—with some degree of bipartisan commitment towards that sort of principle, even if there were different interpretations of it, would greatly enhance the appeal that we might find among other countries in Europe. That would probably find an echo in Germany, Italy and Spain, not just among the Christian Democrats but among the Social Democrat and Socialist parties. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East in his reply to touch on whether I have not at least found some measure of accord between both sides of the House.
One area about which I am particularly concerned is the question of the practicability of monetary union in a political sense. I used to be an international banker and still have connections in that direction. I was telephoned in the latter part of last year by three or four incensed French international bankers, including one very senior official from the Banque de France, because the previous day that bank had lowered its interest rates by half a per cent. The following day—without consultation; without even a telephone call—the Bundesbank raised its interest rate by I per cent. That caused extreme embarrassment to the Banque de France, which, the day after that, had to raise its own rate by 1·5 per cent.
That illustrates my fears about the workings of the hurried economic union envisaged by Delors. In practice, the Bundesbank would call the tune and everyone else would jump to it. I do not believe that the Opposition wish to pursue such a course, and I know that Conservative Members do not. Moreover, I do not think that it would be in the interests of the rest of Europe, including Germany and the Bundesbank itself. We need a step-by-step approach.
In that context, I commend the proposals for a European monetary fund advanced most recently by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The EMF that he envisages contains some of the better features of the IMF, and certainly has the fiscal potential to assist member countries with weaker economies. In that regard, it could be enormously valuable. Those on the Opposition Front Benchers should take a second look at that proposal, which I do not consider antipathetic to their wish to maintain some political accountability while also achieving certain ends.
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Favell), for
540
Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt): we are discussing two separate issues, economic union and monetary union. We can all strive towards the achievement of economic union through the opening up of the single market; monetary union, however, has political implications, unless a mechanism is introduced to dilute the political aspect and make it more fiscal.
An alternative exchange rate—ultimately, a freely convertible exchange rate—offers that opportunity. Admittedly, as more and more people use it—especially in the commercial world—it could eventually lead to the introduction of a single or common currency; it would, however, exist as a common currency for some time before it became a single currency, and that would allow a sufficient period for the evolution of political structure and accountability to take effect. I am therefore less worried about that aspect of monetary union than are some of my colleagues.
What hon. Members on both sides of the House must recognise is that, whatever path we choose, the removal of exchange rates as an effective economic tool is not just going to happen; it is here already. We are already finding that, within the EMS structure, our ability to use exchange rates has been reduced. There is no doubt that both the French and the British Government are now in a position to lower interest rates: inflation is on its way down, and all the recessionary indicators suggest that that time is approaching, if not already here.
We cannot do so, however, because the Germans fear that the significant amount of capital needed to rebuild the east German economy will push up German inflation. They are therefore raising or firming their own interest rates and subsequently their exchange rates. That means that we, in turn, are unable to move. The patient has taken the medicine but its recovery, both here and in France, is threatened—in this case by another member state, Germany.
That is the discipline that the EMS has already placed upon us. That is why we must recognise that the removal of significant exchange rate divergence as a monetary tool is already here. Likewise, the removal even of significant moves in exchange rates is already here. It is no longer a tool that we can use at our own discretion. Therefore, it does not pose a significant threat in the future. It is something that we could live with if the system and the structure were allowed to evolve along the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I commend those measures to the House.
9.12 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: There are increasing attractions for businesses and travellers in having a currency which can be used without transaction costs, and, in the case of business, without hedging, throughout the European Community. However, it is apparent from this debate that the time scale within which this could be achieved and the means by which it could be achieved are still very unclear. I very much hope that the present negotiations will lead to an agreement which can be reconciled with the aspirations of all 12 countries concerned.
I believe that there are elements in the hard ecu proposals which could contribute to such an agreement, and I believe it is an advantage of those proposals that they

541
could be the most practical way for the Community as a whole to move towards monetary union. I see two principal advantages in the proposals.
First, I see advantages in allowing producers and customers to determine the pace of advance towards monetary union. Travellers and people who are selling goods and services to the Community could decide to take ecus instead of existing Community currencies. Although the hard ecu would not be legal tender, nevertheless it could be accepted in hotels and shops just as the dollar is accepted in certain Latin American countries and the deutschmark is accepted in Luxembourg. For business, it could be a matter of agreement to use the ecu rather than any other Community currency.
Secondly, I see advantage in that the hard ecu provides a mechanism for testing the system of administration of the proposed single currency before it is fully implemented. It is obvious from the drafts, from both the European monetary union and the central bank, that there are areas where considerably greater thought and experience are required before we can be confident that the proposals will work and will commend themselves to the people of 12 countries.
I was amazed when I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), because I did not realise that there were such experienced and continuing apologists for the role of devaluation and inflation. When I heard him speak, I understood why the two Labour Governments since the second world war that inherited fixed exchange rates both had to devalue the pound. However, I find it astonishing that the disadvantages of those policies should not have come home to the right hon. Member and that he had not noticed that our most successful competitors in the world have ignored this route and followed a completely different path of avoiding devaluation and successfully competing in their exports.
Since 1979, the country has been embarked on a different course. It would be a mistake, either in the House or in the Community, to underestimate the significance of that change of course or the determination to continue with anti-inflationary policies. Although the present rate of inflation is unacceptably high, the average rate of inflation since 1979 is only one half of what it was during the period of office of the Labour Government of 1974–79. In relative terms, the pound has held its value compared with most continental currencies.
It is true that the deutschmark has appreciated against sterling, as it has appreciated against other currencies, but the value of the pound against the dollar is similar to what it was immediately after the 1979 election. The pound had appreciated against the franc, against the Italian lira and against the Spanish peseta. In relative terms, sterling has held its value better in the past 11 years.
After the experiences of the 1970s, many more people now see the advantages of lower inflation. It is significant that, in the past three general elections, the party with the less inflationary policies has been successful. People at work increasingly recognise the advantages of being paid in a currency that holds its value. Pensioners recognise that it is better for their pensions and savings to be in a currency that holds its value.
542
Joining the exchange rate mechanism and taking part in the negotiations on monetary union are part of the anti-inflationary course on which this country has been embarked since 1979. I reject the advocacy of devaluation which has been practised by some in the House tonight and outside the House in certain quarters. There is a good prospect of succeeding in holding sterling within the currency band that we have chosen. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that devaluation is not the answer. It is important that it is realised in this country and in the rest of the Community that there is considerable determination here to make a success of the course on which we have embarked by entering the ERM and by entering the negotiations in which the Government are currently involved.
9.17 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I will take only two minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to say why I am opposed to a single currency and why, regrettably, I too am opposed to the hard ecu plan. The single currency will inexorably lead to political union. That view is held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by many other right hon. and hon. Members of all parties. I will not quote them now; I will save their comments for a rainy day. I shall especially save the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in November. It is engraved on my heart, and I shall produce it on a suitable day, but not now.
I oppose the hard ecu plan for two reasons. Either the other 11 members of the Community, which have already said that they are in favour of a single currency and a single bank, will reject it out of hand because it will not lead to a stable currency, in which case we are back where we started arguing about what we should do about a single currency, or, alternatively, they will accept it. If they do, it will be for one reason—because they believe that it will lead to a single currency. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said that he believes that it may well do so at some time or other. It will lead there even more quickly then Mr. Delors intends because the Commission will ensure that it does. Mr. Delors and all the federalists, both here and on the continent, realise that a single currency is the way to political union.
I believe that the single currency is a Trojan horse to a united states of Europe, and I believe that the hard ecu plan could well be the wheels on which that Trojan horse takes us there.
9.21 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: One of the common themes running through much of our debate today has been the need to recognise that we live in an increasingly interdependent world. As economic activity becomes more transnational in character, we have to establish ways of working more closely together and co-ordinating our economic decision-making. This will become even more essential after the onset of the single market at the start of 1993.
In this debate a number of my hon. Friends, especially perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), have recognised this inevitable truth. It has

543
perhaps not been accepted in its totality by one or two others of my hon. Friends, who have expressed their views with their usual robust vigour.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who has indicated to me that he has to be in his constituency this evening, spoke, for example, of Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism and said that it would have inevitable deflationary consequences. That is indeed the case unless —it is a very important "unless"—we improve our economic performance, because the iron logic of membership of the exchange rate mechanism is that there are only three options open to us—to create unemployment, to reduce real wages, or to improve our industrial productivity and performance.
It is because of that iron logic that it becomes even more important for us to adopt the approach to supply side improvement for which Opposition Members have been arguing for months. The crucial need for that improvement was recognised and put very clearly indeed in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, poor substitute though I may be for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
Of course, everyone in the House recognises that greater international co-operation in many endeavours, including those in the financial field, with techniques and trade increasing, is absolutely essential. The point that my right hon. Friend raised is this. If, through the activities of the Government, our industrial potential does not make the inevitable requirement of improved industrial performance possible, does not advocacy of the ERM consign us inevitably to the other two options?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend rightly identifies a failure in policy on the part of the Government. That failure would be fatal for our domestic economy whether or not we were in the exchange rate mechanism, but it would be especially fatal to us now that we are in the mechanism.
It is clear to us that closer co-operation within the European Community on monetary and economic policy is both inevitable and desirable. The key questions are how that process occurs, who makes the decisions and what the end product is. The Government's response to those issues and crucial questions has been deeply inadequate. The style, of course, has changed in recent weeks—the tone is more communicative—but the substance remains entirely the same as it was when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was in charge. The only proposal currently on the table from the British Government—it formed the bulk of the Chancellor's opening speech—is the hard ecu plan. If anything, the Government's latest working up of the hard ecu idea in the proposed treaty amendments for the intergovernmental conference is an even less attractive proposal than was the initial suggestion that Sir Michael Butler first drew up.
There are three principal problems with the hard ecu. First, it remains unclear whether the entire exercise is designed to provide a transition to a single currency, or to prevent such an occurrence by offering an alternative. The Government are, I fear, still entirely ambiguous on the subject. The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) insistently asked about the objective of our
544
policy. He might perhaps have been better occupied in addressing precisely the same question to his own Front Bench.
We have, of course, had conflicting information from the Government. On 9 October, the Financial Secretary told the House of Lords Select Committee that there could be a faster route to a single currency even than the Delors programme. The former Prime Minister told us on 30 October that it would not become a single currency, because no one would take up the idea. The current document that the Government have tabled in the past couple of weeks says nothing at all about a single currency. It says an awful lot about the European monetary fund, but it does not tell us whether the Government intend the use of the hard ecu to move in the direction of a single currency.
We are left wondering. Is the hard ecu simply a device to cover up the Government's embarrassment, is it a minor tightening up of the current basket ecu—a point taken up by Karl Otto Pohl in his speech to the London School of Economics—or is it a way of proceeding to full economic and monetary union? I suspect that the answer is that it is actually all those options at the same time. The Government wish to keep all those options in play so as to keep the disparate forces behind them in line. The Chancellor, I fear, cannot go on riding three horses at once forever.
Secondly, the Government give great detail in their document about the proposed structure for the new European monetary fund. There are, however, alarming indications in the document "Economic and Monetary Union—Beyond Stage One", about the powers and degree of accountability that they envisage for the European monetary fund. In article V, the Government propose—their ambiguity extends not only to the whole purpose of the hard ecu scheme but to the nature of the European monetary fund—two alternative mechanisms.
The first of those mechanisms is a totally independent EMF. The Government pick up the wording of the Commission document and of the Herman report in the European Parliament. They say quite clearly:
"the Governing Board and Executive Board of the European Monetary Fund shall be completely independent and shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Community institution, national government or any other body or person."
That is put forward by our Government as a viable option within the document that they are tabling at the IGC. If we link with that option the proposals in articles VI and IX of the document, we see that it is the independent rather than the accountable route that the Government are seeking to follow.
The European monetary fund proposed by the Government would be made up entirely of central bank representatives, the Government propose yielding up democratic control to a committee of unelected bankers. That would be entirely unacceptable to the Opposition.
Thirdly, the Government fail to appreciate the inevitable, if haphazard, effect of adopting a common, readily available, undevaluable currency in exact parallel with a weaker domestic currency. In such circumstances, there would be an inevitable drift from the domestic currency to the hard ecu.
Whatever the Chancellor may say about the Government's intentions, over time the common currency would inevitably become a single currency. We would

545
discover that we had arrived at a single currency without any real planning or forethought about the process. The only way of stopping that would be for the Government to place limits on the use of the hard ecu alternative currency within our domestic economy, but the Government specifically ruled that option out in a parliamentary answer to me some months ago.
This afternoon the Prime Minister made much of the market-driven nature of the hard ecu proposal. To the Opposition, that is precisely the problem. The Government's proposal yokes together an unaccountable central bank and an entirely market-led approach to the use of the currency provided. That is the worst of both possible worlds. The timetable and the ground rules will be determined by the players in the marketplace rather than by democratically elected representatives of the people. We do not wish to see that happen.
As the inevitable progress to a single currency takes place, there will be a further problem. It will begin to cause sharper disparities between those whom I would call the insiders of the system and the outsiders. The hard ecu scheme has an unsuccessful precedent. On 1 July 1920, the franc was introduced into the Saarland as a second currency of legal tender with the aim of offsetting the then plummeting reichsmark. Unfortunately, the extra currency did nothing to stabilise the markets, despite the existence of an integrated market in the Saarland between both Germany and France. It impoverished the retail sector and small industries and allowed a safety net only for those with substantial savings.
In exactly the same way, those who would gain most from a hard ecu, especially in the early days, would be people with a day-to-day knowledge of the financial market and people with large resources, often at the expense of those with limited knowledge or limited ability to capitalise on the marketplace. A market-determined system will inevitably lead to such consequences. The Opposition seek a democratically determined system, no arbitrary timetables, no side-show stuff—that is exactly what the hard ecu is—and no selling of the pass at the outset.
It is as irresponsible to accept economic and monetary union, a single currency and a central bank at any price and in any shape—as I fear the Liberal Democrats sometimes appear to do—as it is to rule the option out completely. We want a recognition that a process of integration is under way and under discussion. We want Britain to play a full and constructive part in that process. We want a determination to see that process shaped according to the principles and conditions that will most benefit the British economy and people.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has, at some length, gone into what we should not be doing. Will he now tell us what we should be doing?
Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary anticipates the next five or six minutes of my speech. I am grateful to him for spotting exactly the point at which my speech ceases to be a sharp and cogent criticism of the Government's proposals and becomes an outline of the Opposition's proposals.
546
Our proposals are fully in accord with the views of all —I stress all—our democratic socialist partners in the European Community countries. The following are the principles that we bring to the approach to economic and monetary union. The first is an understanding that we must not consider monetary policy and monetary instruments in isolation from the overall approach to the economy of Europe. That is why we place such emphasis on the potential role of ECOFIN, making it a permanent forum for all the Governments of the Community, including our own, to play a part in determining, democratically, the overall aims and objectives of any monetary institutions. The Government touch on that possibility in article IX of their document, but in a minimalist fashion.
Secondly, there must be democratic accountability for any central bank, not in its hour-by-hour operation, but in the general direction of its policy.
Thirdly, there is a need for a strengthened regional policy. Much has been made of that point by a number of hon. Members in this debate, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). It is important to distinguish between two hostile arguments.
Some people argue against the very principle of regional policy. The Government, in particular, tend to take that line. Their somewhat dated document, "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union", brought us the 12 regional currencies idea. That lasted about two and a half months. It sets out clearly the Government's opposition to the idea of regional policy as the principal mechanism—once the use of the interest rate and exchange rate mechanisms has been ruled out—for addressing imbalances within any integrated European economy. We believe that we need regional policy to begin to address those imbalances—and, of course, to iron them out completely. We need to see those imbalances in a domestic context as well as a European context.
Others argue that regional policy may be right in principle, but that such enormous amounts of money would be required to have an impact that it would become impractical. It is true that, over time, large sums of money would need to be provided. But we should argue—and the Opposition have consistently argued—that there should be a shift within the existing European Community budget, from agricultural support to regional and structural support. In the long term, that is the key to unlocking the funds that may be needed.
Some people have argued that Britain would be a net contributor. I do not believe that that would be the case, but those hon. Members who make that argument miss the crucial point—we are talking about region-to-region transfers, not just nation-to-nation transfers. Do those hon. Members believe that in Wales, Scotland, the north, the north-west and inner London there are not needs to be met and poverty to be addressed? Some of the things that they have been saying today suggest that they do not believe that those problems require tackling.
Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, as I have only a couple of minutes left.
Fourthly, there is a need for a degree of economic convergence before currencies can be irrevocably locked together. In 1979, we had broad economic convergence on

547
a host of indicators. Our economic performance was, broadly speaking, at the European average. It is a measure of the Government's economic incompetence that during the 1980s—
Mr. Maples: On inflation.
Mr. Smith: I should point out to the Economic Secretary that I am right about inflation. In 1979, when the Government came to power, Britain had an inflation rate at the European average. It is now more than twice the European average. It is a measure of the Government's economic incompetence that, during the 1980s—the decade of unparalleled opportunity arising from North sea oil—they have plunged our standing and our performance from the European average to the bottom of the European league.
Our current position—I remind the Economic Secretary of this, as he seems to need remirjding—is one of falling output, falling productivity, falling industrial investment and business confidence, and steeply rising unemployment. Our economy has been gravely weakened and it will take us time to catch up. It will take a Labour Government to begin that process and to secure the best place for the people of Britain in the Europe of the future.
9.40 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): This is the second time that I have had the pleasure of making the winding-up speech in a debate on economic and monetary union. The first time was in November 1989, when I was a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Since then, these matters have been gathered fully into the hands of the Treasury, and I have been gathered with them.
It is genuinely a privilege to make this speech because these matters affect the House of Commons profoundly. They go to the heart of what it does and has done for many hundreds of years. These debates bring out the best in the House of Commons. This has not been a partisan debate. Differences have been passionately and strongly argued, but divisions have not run on party lines. Because these matters are important for the House of Commons, we take seriously this opportunity to hear the views of the House and to understand the mind of the House.
We have heard some immensely distinguished speeches. Although I do not have the time to mention them all, two made a great impression on me—those of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Myer). The right hon. Gentleman spoke with great eloquence and magnificent savagery about the stance of his party.
Mr. Chris Smith: And about the hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Maude: No, the right hon. Gentleman was rather complimentary about the Government's position. I recollect that he expressed the wish that his party might speak on this subject with the clarity with which we spoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West speaks from a standpoint on Europe with which we are all familiar. He spoke quite passionately and eloquently, but he also spoke candidly about the shortcomings that the
548
European Community has displayed. It is not being negative or anti-European to refer to these shortcomings, as he would be the first to recognise.
That illustrates an important point for the debate. It is not about being pro or anti-European. It is about what steps the European Community should take to improve and advance itself. Should it take sensible steps that will benefit all member states and all within each member state, or will it take wrong steps that will cause the European Community to falter?
We believe it to be of profound importance that the Community should take the right steps in a measured and sensible way, having fully appraised all the possible and probable consequences. Of course, the forum in which these matters will be decided is the intergovernmental conference, which has started and will continue next Monday.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney expressed concern about a Commission paper that sets out some draft treaty changes. It is important to stress that that is a Commission paper, whereas the conference is intergovernmental. These are not matters that will be decided by the Commission. Certainly the Commission does not have an exclusive right of proposal to the intergovernmental conference. Indeed, it has no right of proposal at all, save with the consent of the conference. I can assure the House that the Governments taking part in this conference are jealous of their right to take these decisions—and rightly so.
Most of us are familiar with the remarks made by M. Delors after the Rome meeting of the European Council. He talked about whether it might be necessary to provoke a political crisis if things were not to go quite as he hoped they would. I can assure the House that it does not lie within his power to provoke a political crisis. These are matters that will be decided between Governments and by Governments. I can assure the House also that the British Government will take a very full part in those discussions —a part that I believe will be of central influence and central importance.
We have debated two broad questions today. To some extent, they are separate. The first relates to what we believe should be the Community's next step in the economic and monetary field. The second relates to the attitude that we should take to the goal of a single currency and a single monetary policy—the goal of full currency union. On the first question, we believe that attention is increasingly focusing on the next steps and that the debate is increasingly practical and pragmatic. As to the second question, we have set out very clearly our suggestions and proposals for the creation of a non-inflationary common currency, with a new European monetary institution to administer it.
Hon. Members raised a number of points about those proposals—points about how they would work and about how attractive their effect might be. However, there has been very little broad dissent from the notion that this is a sensible set of steps to take. It is sensible that, at the next stage, we should have a common currency with a monetary institution to manage it. That will enable all 12 member states to go forward together with arrangements that will benefit everyone. It will accommodate the aspirations of all member states and will meet the concerns that are expressed in this House. Clearly, it is gaining a good deal

549
of support. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his opening speech, set out some of the support that it is gradually gathering.
The Leader of the Opposition, after a fleeting visit to Madrid in the middle of December, announced to the world that the British hard ecu proposal was dead—"stone dead" is the expression that I think he used. Such is his customary sureness of touch that that pronouncement in itself was enough to stimulate around the Community several expressions of support for the proposal.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was, wisely, rather more circumspect in his remarks about our proposal. I can assure him that the proposal and the idea of a common currency as the next step for the Community are gathering increasing support. He rather misrepresented the proposal's effect, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He suggested that it might lead to a single currency imposed in some way by the market, that there could be such a massive substitution of national currencies through the hard ecu that we could suddenly arrive at a single currency with no further decision taken by Governments or parliaments.
I can assure him that that would not happen, because there could not be a single currency without national parliaments taking a decision at a later stage to abandon their national currency. The hard ecu could not suddenly act as the British single currency without the House of Commons having made a considered decision to abandon the pound sterling. I am happy to be able to reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.
Mr. Spearing: But is that not taking account of the difference between currency and legal tender? If both currencies become legal tender and a preference emerged for one—my hon. Friend says the hard ecu—although the pound sterling might be legal tender, practice might mean that it disappeared. It would exist only de jure, and a de jure cancellation of it would be necessary but not a matter of practical moment.
Mr. Maude: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The matter of legal tender is of slight importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) is something of an expert on the matter, and he made it clear that, for a currency to be used, it does not have to be legal tender. He made the point vividly by saying that Scottish bank notes are not legal tender in this country but that they can be and frequently are used here, even within this building, or particularly within this building. With two Scottish Members on the Opposition Front Bench, the number of Scottish bank notes circulating in the building might increase. It is certainly not essential for a currency to be a legal tender. It is of comparatively slight importance whether a currency is legal tender or not.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) wondered whether there would be advantages in this currency for borrowers. I believe that there would be substantial advantages. This would be a currency with a good store of value for both borrowers and investors. It would not be able to devalue against the other strongest currency in the EC and thus investments
550
made in that currency would hold their value well. Investors like to be sure that the currency that they are borrowing will retain its value.
I believe, and all the evidence suggests, that the currency would be attractive. We believe that its first use would be in the area of investments. It would be used by businesses operating across frontiers in the Community to reduce their transaction costs in a way that is said to be one of the great advantages of a single currency. One would be able to harvest many of the purported advantages of a single currency by creating this common currency. It would be used increasingly by those who travel across frontiers in Europe. In that way, it would increasingly be used and it would be an attractive development for the Community and for our citizens in the Community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North also wondered what protection there would be for the European monetary fund should one of the national currencies which the fund was holding in its reserves depreciate radically. First, if the European monetary fund found itself holding excessive amounts of a national currency, the repurchase obligation would come into effect. The obligation of the national monetary authority to repurchase its national currency using the hard ecu or another EC currency would be operated, so that itself would be a discipline. But should there be a realignment which causes the value to depreciate, a possibility is set out in our proposals.
Paragraph 6 of article VI—which is in square brackets because it is a possibility at this stage—provides an obligation that national monetary authorities should guarantee the value of their national currencies held by the fund.
I hope that that deals with most of the issues raised on the hard ecu proposal. Again, I assure the House that the idea of a common currency is discussed increasingly and is increasingly attractive to those who have the real interests of the European Community at heart.
The second question is what the attitude should be to the move to a single currency. Most of the debate has rightly been on that issue, because it is of huge importance to the House. It provoked many passionate and eloquent speeches, such as that by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney which I have already mentioned. Most hon. Members know their minds on the subject and know where they stand on whether there should be a commitment now to a move to a single currency. Two of the few equivocal speeches on the subject were those of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and his colleague, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. They were profoundly equivocal.
The matter is of economic and constitutional importance. It is important economically because of the devastating impact upon the economy of member states if it were done prematurely before the economies of the European Community had converged sufficiently and were prepared to accept the huge stresses that the introduction of a single currency would bring.
It would be premature to move to a single currency before proper economic convergence had been achieved. I am not talking necessarily about a convergence of levels of income but certainly about a convergence on inflation performance, interest rates and budget deficits or surpluses. On all those matters, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the opening speech, there is massive

551
divergence. On any view, it would be many years before there was enough convergence for a single currency to be introduced without the gravest economic dislocation.
For some, economic dislocation would provide perhaps the opportunity or the excuse for a programme of massive resource transfers. It became increasingly clear that that was the let-out for the Labour party, which believes that, because everyone else thinks that we ought to do this, we should agree to do it as well, leaving the problems to be sorted out later. Opposition Members seem to think that a fairy godmother will appear in the Community and unleash vast amounts of money which will flow around the Community to ease the discomfort and dislocation. I have to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no fairy godmother.
If there were to be a massive increase of the sort that would be needed in the structural funds, a good part of that money would come from this country, from British taxpayers; it would leave the shores of Britain and would go elsewhere. The elegant idea propounded by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that it would not be a nation-to-nation transfer but a region-to-region transfer does not solve anything. It would still be British taxpayers providing money, which would leave Britain to go to other member states. These are powerful arguments for not committing ourselves to move to a single currency, and I can assure the House that we shall not ask the House to do that.
The constitutional arguments are also important. The idea of parliamentary sovereignty is something derided. It is sometimes thought to be of slight importance. Sometimes it is argued, as it has been tonight, that there is already little autonomy, so why should we bother? It is also sometimes argued that other member states do not bother much about this, so why should we? I think that it does matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom must account regularly to the House of Commons for his conduct of monetary policy; this has been the position for several centuries. It is not always comfortable or convenient for Chancellors, but it is rather important for the authority of the House that it should happen. It does not happen in other member states of the European Community.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

MOD Quality Assurance Unit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
10 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: This is an extremely difficult time for the Ministry of Defence and I do not want to add unduly to its burdens at the moment, but I believe that the present crisis in the Gulf and the distractions of Ministers and senior civil servants may be being used as an opportunity to thwart Government policy on the dispersal of civil servants to the regions. This issue is bigger than simply that of whether this unit should be moved; it concerns the trust that the people put in the Government's word, and it is an issue of management because tonight I want to ask the Minister whether he will allow this trickery to frustrate his predecessor's policy. We have a right to know who is in charge of the Ministry of Defence, Sir Humphrey or the Secretary of State.
Let me briefly set out the facts of the matter as I see them and so that everyone else can see what is going on. The Government's policy on relocation is set out in the written reply by the Paymaster General, then my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 9 February 1989 at column 751.
In pursuit of this policy, first announced in 1979, with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—whom I see here this evening—for Hexham (Mr. Amos), and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter}-who has sent his apologies—I went to see the Secretary of State for Defence in late 1988 to secure the movement of the Department's quality assurance unit from cramped and inadequate premises on three sites in Woolwich and Bromley in south London. A bid was prepared by the newly formed Teesside development corporation on the basis of one of its five flagship development sites in Teesside, the Preston Farm industrial estate. As usual, the development corporation carried out an excellent job in presenting the manifold advantages of such a move from Woolwich and Bromley to the north of England.
The project was costed at ·72 million, and the TDC obtained two tenders from established and reputable civil contractors in that amount. In anticipation of the sale of the Bromley and Woolwich premises, which in part could already achieve about ·50 million, it was expected that the relocation could be largely self-financing. An unusual finance package had then to be put together for the Ministry of Defence to bridge the development of the new site and the disposal of the old sites.
When the Treasury would not give immediate consent, my colleagues and I approached the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to ask for her support. This was readily forthcoming, and on 4 July 1989 final approval of the project, now costed at ·120 million, was given by the then Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury).
In September 1989, the present Secretary of State took over, and I invited my right hon. Friend to visit the constituency and to turn the first sod on the development. It was anticipated then that, once the redeployment was completed, savings in revenue costs of the order of £9

553
million a year would accrue to the Department. The development corporation immediately began development of the site and negotiations were started to move three explosive testing units to the same site, so that all Ministry of Defence quality assurance could be centralised in one place.
Those further moves were announced on 25 January 1990, once again in a written answer to me. Work continued apace until 10 August last year when, only seven months after its announcement, the enlarged project was stopped by a letter from Mr. Miller, the director general of quality assurance. In that letter Mr. Miller said that his department had received the first estimate from the consulting engineers, Atkins, of the cost of the detailed design of the buildings and that these were
"very considerably higher than PSA's figures adjusted for addition of the outstations and inflation … This has forced us into a cost-cutting exercise … and a reexamination of whether it makes sense … to replicate on Teesside all our existing facilities."
Later in the letter he said that major contracts associated with the move should be deferred until a re-examination of the costs had been completed.
In my view, and that of all my hon. Friends, the Department would be quite right to hold up this project if, as I am told, the costs have soared from ·120 million to between ·250 million and ·280 million. However, it has become apparent that the Atkins costing is fundamentally flawed, and the Ministry of Defence knows it. The structure and layout of this facility in the plans would make it the most expensive construction ever built on Teesside. Per square foot, it would be nine times as expensive as premium office space under construction on the neighbouring plot.
Atkins is a firm of consulting engineers, not property specialists, and that might, in part, explain what is going on. However, let the House not imagine that this is some complicated venture. We are talking about offices, laboratories and warehouse space of a type commonly constructed on Teesside. The rocketing cost appears also to stem from a specification which can only be described as grandiose. The laboratories are larger than those used in the nuclear industry. That is why the chief executive of the Teesside development corporation has been attempting to get a copy of the specification and the costing from Mr. Miller, safe in the knowledge that Teesside can produce a much more reasonable quotation on a sensible specification.
I put that point to the Secretary of State and the Minister when I saw them formally with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) last year, but I am sorry to say that we have not yet received those documents. As a result, the cost of this project has mysteriously dropped by ·100 million. So officials have now fallen back upon a second tack—"We can't make a decision because of 'Options for Change', the defence White Paper." They even convinced the Secretary of State that the future of the quality assurance unit might be up for grabs, or in question.
On 4 December 1990, I said in the House that the only acceptable way that this redeployment could be cancelled would be if the whole unit were to be closed down by defence cuts. The chief executive and I have been reassured more than 20 times that the fundamental integrity of this
554
project was not in jeopardy. That is why I have urged concerned local councillors not to panic. However, in spite of my many efforts to get those reassurances in writing, they have not been forthcoming.
I did not have any reason to doubt the bona fides of the Ministry of Defence officials until recently, when the full extent of their double dealing came to light. I now understand why the reply to my request for the specifications from the Secretary of State was as follows:
"The issues being considered are wider in scope than the affordability of the DGDQA as planned."
This was because, early in the new year, suspicions were aroused that the director general was examining a move to Portland, in Dorset. That was confirmed when my colleague who represents that part of the world—the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)—started asking me questions about Stockton's interest in the matter while we were on a delegation visiting Israel.
Therefore, it is not the case that the quality assurance unit is about to be closed down completely. The price tag that the Government have put on the project is ·140 million. Portland, which would be a patch-and-build operation, works out at ·135 million—surprise, surprise. Teesside works out at ·180 million on the specification which they will not disclose. This is absolutely disgraceful. Unless the Minister gets to grips with his Department, he will be forced to resile on a firm commitment made to the people of Teesside to move 1,500 jobs to the area. The Secretary of State will be forced to welsh on the promise given by his predecessor and endorsed by the former Prime Minister, and the faith which the people have put in the Conservative Government to deliver their promises will be undermined.
I see from articles in the press that there is speculation that the Government are to dispense with Portland as a naval base. That appears to be confirmed by what is going on in this case. While my heartfelt sympathies go out to the loyal citizens of that town for their long service to the Navy, it is in no way fair to break faith with the people of Teesside in order to soften the blow in Portland. The Ministry of Defence should therefore find the solution to that problem in the many other unannounced redeployments which it is considering.
Mr. Richard Holt: The people of Teesside deserve better from the Government than they have had over this issue. As my hon. Friend knows, this is not the first time that major Government Departments have decided to move to that part of the world and have failed to do so. Every time we ask questions, we are given the trite answer that four fifths of all civil servants live outside London. If one takes all the people who work in the Department of Health and Social Security offices, job centres and everywhere else, that is bound to be the case. But no senior civil servants live outside London. It is because none of them will move to the north of England that we who represent Teesside suspect that what my hon. Friend is saying this evening is absolutely correct.
Mr. Devlin: There was one project 10 years ago when the previous Labour Government promised to move the Property Services Agency to Middlesbrough. The incoming Conservative Government cancelled it, because they wanted to privatise the PSA. That has not been forgotten. But it is different in this case, because the same

555
Government who promised it are now seeking to withdraw it. In the previous case, one Government promised it and another Government then cancelled that commitment.
Perhaps we should wait to see the outcome of the present war before we reshape the nation's defence capability. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement who I know to be a good friend to the north, should not on any account give in to a bunch of southern backsliders. Before my hon. Friend the Minister goes any further down this disagreeable route, I point to six reasons why he should now reaffirm the commitment which the Government made to the people of Teesside, and ask him to confirm two things.
First, such a development would have a major effect on the local economy, and particularly the training of good scientific skills. Indeed, youngsters from Teesside are already training in London for their new jobs once the move takes place. Secondly, the unemployment rate in Stockton is 10·7 per cent., down in the past two years from 18 per cent., whereas in Portland it is only 6 per cent., and until recently has been 4 per cent. Thirdly, this unit would benefit greatly from good access and infrastructure links. These are available on Teesside and are being further developed to take this development, whereas they are not available at alternative sites.
Fourthly, on Ministry of Defence costing criteria, whether one looks at a 20 or 50-year payback period, a patch-and-build scheme will need further expenditure sooner than a complete new build. Fifthly, the project as announced fitted in with the Government's policy of dispersal and played a role in the inner cities initiative, going as it was to an assisted area, in particular, it was a key site for the Teesside urban development corporation.
Lastly, and in my view most importantly, we should regard our word as our bond. Eleven years ago, the incoming Conservative Government cancelled the move of the PSA to Teesside so that they could privatise it. The same Government have now made the announcement that this dispersal is to take place and are now seeking to resile from it.
I ask the Minister three questions. First, will he confirm that the benefits that first attracted the Ministry of Defence to the scheme still stand? Secondly, will he give me an assurance that the original site has not been discounted? Thirdly, will he agree that the specification and costing should be given to the Teesside urban development corporation so that it can be re-examined and further representations made to him about the project? I say in conclusion that it will be to the eternal shame of this Government if this redeployment is allowed to fail.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on securing this Adjournment debate. He has represented his constituency's interests both in the House and outside it—not least when he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself last December. My hon. Friend has pursued the matter with the utmost tenacity and determination, and I respect his anxiety to secure jobs for his constituents and others in the north-east. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the
556
Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is also present: I know that he too is very concerned about the problem, and has supported the project.
I must, however, reject the assertion by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South that the civil service has been involved in double dealing. The civil service is trying to make the best possible decision for the public, in the most thorough possible way. I am the Minister responsible; I am here to make the decision. If anyone is to be blamed, it is me. I assure my hon. Friend that I have the interests of his constituency at heart, but it is essential to the pursuit of good government to make the right decisions and the best possible use of public funds.
Let me briefly give the background to the proposal to relocate the directorate general defence quality assurance to Teeside, and explain what has led to the current review of that proposal and how matters now stand. As the House may recall, in the mid-1980s many organisational changes took place in the Ministry of Defence, with the twin aims of improving efficiency and reducing administrative overheads.
One of those changes was the establishment, in 1984, of the post of director general defence quality assurance. The DGDQA assumed responsibility for quality assurance matters across the Ministry of Defence, absorbing a number of separate departments. One of the DGDQA's responsibilities is to run laboratories and test facilities to provide technical support to the procurement executive and the armed services. The technical support directorate has approximately 1,100 staff of whom some 700 are scientific and technical officers. It handles some 40,000 tasks a year, including product verification, defect investigation, calibration, technical advice to project managers, advice on health and safety, environmental chemistry and some research and development. When my hon. Friend criticises the expense involved in any new building for the establishment, he should recognise the wide variety of work that the people there are called on to do.
Mr. Holt: Does that catalogue of jobs contain any element that was not known about before the Government's first commitment, or has some new requirement suddenly emerged? The employees have been doing this work for more than 50 years.
Mr. Carlisle: I shall explain later why the cost has risen; I think that that is what my hon. Friend is asking.
Even in 1984, it was clear that it was not enough merely to change the management structure. The new DGDQA inherited more than a dozen geographically separated sites: it was very widely dispersed. If overheads were to be cut and staff numbers substantially reduced, a programme of consolidation on to fewer sites was clearly needed. Some changes could be accomplished quickly—for example, sites at Plumstead in south-east London and Harefield in Middlesex were closed, and their facilities were moved to existing accommodation at Woolwich. However, we were still left with DGDQA operating from three large sites —Royal Arsenal west, Royal Arsenal east at Woolwich, and the Aquila site at Bromley, all in south-east London, and a number of smaller sites around the country.
A study suggested three main options—to continue on the three main sites, to collocate on to the main site of Royal Arsenal west, or to collocate on Teesside, which was considered then the best location for a totally new build

557
option. On the basis of initial estimates of construction costs and tested by investment appraisal, the Teesside option emerged then as the most cost-effective solution. In March 1989, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), announced our proposal to move 1,500 DGDQA posts to Preston Farm on Teesside between 1993 and 1995. It was subsequently agreed to add to the package the remaining outstation establishments employing a further 100 staff. Thus, the final package comprised the 1,100 technical support staff and some 500 headquarters and support personnel.
Early in 1990, external project managers were engaged, part payment was made on the main part of the Preston Farm site, and detailed planning was set in hand. At this point I would like to express my appreciation for the co-operation and expert assistance of local authorities on Teesside, and in particular the Teesside development corporation, within whose area the site is located.
As work progressed, it became clear that to replicate on Teesside all existing DGDQA facilities, including the outstations, would cost substantially more than the sum budgeted on the basis of earlier broad-brush and non-site-specific costings—
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Carlisle: No, I will not give way yet. My hon. Friend must let me develop my argument. I will give way later.
This was the case even though the plans and costings were based on a reduction in the area of buildings of some 20 per cent. compared with existing accommodation. When the details were worked out, it became quite clear that, because of the specific needs of the DGDQA, the costs were substantially more than we had initially anticipated.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Carlisle: I am rather anxious to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. It is his debate.
Rather than plough on regardless, which would have been quite wrong, a decision was taken in August 1990 not to cancel or deter the project, but to put it on hold for a short period while we considered how estimated costs might be reduced. That was perfectly reasonable in view of the fact that public money was being spent.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Carlisle: No, I will not give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South has raised these matters; it is his debate.
Design studies had been taken to a point where the cost of constructing individual technical facilities had been identified and it was therefore possible to target these facilities and establish whether costs could be reduced by lowering technical specifications, reducing the size of the building or considering whether a particular task might be undertaken more cheaply or efficiently elsewhere in the Ministry of Defence or by industry.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Carlisle: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South to make his point.
Mr. Holt: Yes, I do have his permission. The Minister keeps talking about replicating on Teesside. This is relocating on Teesside, not replicating. If one relocates, one does not need the facilities that are down in the south; one relocates to the north, and one does not have the expenditure that replication involves.
Mr. Carlisle: When I talk about "replication", I mean that one has to transfer some of the existing activities in the south up to the north, so one needs to build fairly costly facilities to undertake those operations. We looked, therefore, to see whether we could recast our designs and costs to make the transfer cheaper.
However, this is a more complex matter than might be appreciated, as the technical support directorate conducts tests across a range of disciplines, such as materials science, mechanical engineering, electronics and software engineering, on products ranging from main battle tanks and guns, through fuels and lubricants to explosives and micro-electronics. As my hon. Friends will understand, it is a complicated business. These studies have gone well and, although the gap between the August 1990 costings and the sum budgeted has been reduced substantially by our work, it has not been eliminated.
I have, therefore, asked the Department to identify the further facilities that would have to be cut to get down to budget and what the implications of cutting or reducing capabilities would be, both operationally and financially. When looking at the wider picture, we have to consider, for example, whether cutting capabilities would merely transfer costs to other parts of the Department.
Before ministerial colleagues are invited to take a final decision on the project, I have also asked officials to consider—as circumstances have changed considerably since initial feasibility studies were conducted four years ago—whether costs might be reduced by moving to a site where construction costs could be lower than those anticipated at Preston Farm. This essentially implies a site where surplus good quality technical facilities already exist. Local authorities and central government regional offices have identified several sites on Teesside and elsewhere in the north-east of England which, without prejudice, are worth further consideration and will be inspected within the next week to see whether significant savings, compared with Preston Farm, could be achieved.
As the House will be aware, the process of rationalisation and slimming down, which led to the creation of DGDQA, has continued across the Ministry of Defence and will continue for several years, not least following the "Options for Change" studies, and the decision, following "next steps", to create agencies where that promises to be the most effective way forward. We are in the middle of a substantial programme of change in the Ministry of Defence, and we cannot ignore that in making the decision on DGDQA.
I have therefore asked my Department to consider whether any existing Ministry of Defence sites that might be scheduled for closure could accommodate DGDQA with the prospect of significant savings compared to Preston Farm. Only one such site has been identified, and that is in the south-west of England. It is the Admiralty research establishment, Southwell, at Portland in Dorset

559
which, as the staff, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and other interested parties have been told earlier today, is to be the subject of a study as part of a review of ARE facilities.
DGDQA has been asked to examine, if ARE Southwell were to close, what the savings, if any, might be compared to those of Preston Farm. I must, of course, stress that the closure of the ARE site and its occupancy by DGDQ A are no more than possibilities at this stage, and no decisions have been taken. No decision has been taken on the naval base at Portland either.
I am aware that there are hon. Members who question the need for DGDQA to move away from London. I have to say that, although we will re-run our investment appraisals once the above studies are completed, the work conducted to date by our project managers suggests that the cost of necessary reconstruction on London sites were DGDQA to remain on them is likely to be far higher than for sites outside London and that moving out of London will yield lower staff costs and other running costs in the long term.
560
To sum up, our cost reduction exercises are almost complete. We will look sympathetically at Preston Farm. If all things were equal, we should like to move to the north, but, in reality, we have to consider all the interests carefully in the purpose of good government. We have to consider the interests of the taxpayer as well as the efficiency of the operation and the availability of spare buildings. It is my responsibility to see that all the options are taken and considered.
Although I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South, and although I have considered seriously the wish that DGDQA should go to his constituency, the right way to proceed is to examine all the options if the public is to get proper value for money. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate, and for his understanding and tolerance in the task that we face.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each training agency area the employment training training agents and training managers who have since the start of the programme(a) gone into liquidation, (b) not had contracts with the training agency renewed and (c) ceased to provide employment training for any other reason.

  Employment Training

  Destination of trainees leaving in period August 1989 to July 1990 (estimated)

  Region

  Full-time job

  Part-time job

  Full-time Education/Training

  Self-employed

  Jobclub

  Unemployed claiming benefit

  Unemployed not claiming benefit

  Other

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  South East

  27

  12

  2

  6

  3

  33

  8

  8

  London

  22

  6

  4

  7

  5

  41

  7

  5

  South West

  26

  8

  2

  10

  4

  35

  6

  8

  West Midlands

  26

  7

  3

  3

  4

  45

  5

  8

  East Midlands and Eastern

  25

  8

  2

  5

  5

  41

  5

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27

  7

  2

  6

  4

  43

  4

  6

  North West

  26

  7

  2

  7

  5

  43

  4

  6

  Northern

  27

  6

  2

  3

  5

  46

  5

  6

  Wales

  25

  7

  2

  8

  4

  40

  6

  7

  Scotland

  25

  5

  3

  4

  5

  47

  4

  7

  Great Britain

  25

  7

  2

  5

  5

  43

  5

  7

  Source: Respondents to the Employment Training Follow-up Survey.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for each quarter since employment training was introduced the number of participants who(a) fell within the guarantee group and (b) fell within the aim group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of places available on the employment training scheme for each year of operation; and how many places were in urban programme and partnership areas.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, information is available on the estimated number of ET starts, as shown in the table:

  ET starts (GB)

  Percentage in inner cities

  September 1988-March 1989

  238,600

  42

  April 1989-March 1990

  430,600

  39

  262
  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, the number and proportion of employment training trainees who three months after leaving were(a) in a full-time job, (b) in a part-time job, (c) in a full-time education or training course, (d) employed in their own business, (e) in a jobclub, (f) unemployed and claiming benefit and (g) unemployed and not claiming benefit.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following table gives the proportions of trainees leaving employment training in the last 12-month period for which information is available arid their destinations. Detailed numbers as requested are unavailable.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was Government spending on employment training at 1989 prices for each year of operation.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table shows expenditure on employment training for each year of its operation to date at 1989–90 constant prices.

  £ million

  1988–89 (from 5 September 1988)

  452

  1989–90

  1,097

  1990–91 (to end December 1990)

  675

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who is now responsible for recovering any overpayments that are made to people in receipt of the enterprise allowance scheme in areas covered by training and enterprise councils; in what circumstances recovery of overpayments will be sought; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils are responsible for recovering overpaid moneys to people who are in receipt of the enterprise allowance in the areas they cover. Each training and enterprise council assumes this responsibility from the date it becomes operational.
  263
  The decision to take recovery action rests with the training and enterprise council.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the proportion of female part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1990 whose hourly earnings exclusive of overtime fell below(a) £3·10, (b) £3·40, (c) £4·00, (d) £4·60 and (e) £4·75.

  Mr. Jackson
  The estimated percentages of part-time adult female employees earning below specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1990 were:

  Hourly earnings excluding overtime less than:

  Percentage

  £3·00

  36

  £3·20

  44

  £3·40

  52

  £4·00

  69

  £4·50

  78

  £5·00

  83

  Estimates of the percentage earning below £3·10, £4·60 and £4·75 are not available; the nearest available figures have been given. The figures relate to employees on adult rates whose earnings for the survey period were not affected by absence.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of male part-time

  Training Agency Programme Expenditure 1989–90

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Region

  ET

  Residual AT

  YTS

  BGT

  SFS

  EAS

  BEP (Outside ET)

  WRFE

  TVEI

  Total

  South East

  31·21

  1·65

  74·55

  1·56

  0·41

  12·55

  0·45

  19·22

  26·57

  168·17

  London

  46·11

  3·54

  38·78

  1·80

  0·20

  14·82

  1·06

  14·28

  12·27

  132·86

  South West

  25·60

  1·42

  59·39

  0·87

  0·27

  12·32

  0·34

  9·66

  8·19

  118·06

  West Midlands

  43·23

  1·86

  87·65

  1·32

  0·25

  12·52

  0·35

  11·49

  13·06

  171·73

  East Midlands

  33·08

  1·66

  91·14

  0·98

  0·36

  12·81

  0·33

  12·40

  12·17

  164·93

  Yorks and Humberside

  50·97

  2·20

  87·11

  1·03

  0·29

  12·69

  0·34

  9·68

  9·99

  174·30

  North West

  56·11

  3·65

  120·94

  1·70

  0·52

  19·75

  0·83

  15·38

  13·80

  232·68

  Northern

  42·10

  1·31

  69·44

  1·01

  0·21

  7·72

  0·24

  4·51

  9·07

  135·61

  Wales

  32·74

  1·75

  50·75

  0·47

  —

  8·95

  0·20

  5·31

  7·50

  107·67

  Scotland

  60·70

  3·24

  102·69

  0·91

  —

  10·97

  0·33

  —

  11·54

  190·38

  TNPU

  109·30

  —

  181·34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  290·64

  RTC

  7·37

  1·75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9·12

  GB

  538·52

  24·03

  963·78

  11·65

  2·51

  125·10

  4·47

  101·93

  124·16

  1,896·15

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure excludes training allowances and other costs administered centrally.

  2. The TECs and National Provider's Unit (TNPU) is based centrally and holds contracts for major companies who provide training throughout Great Britain.

  3. Figures given for residual AT include Voluntary Projects Programme (VPP), Community Programme (CP) and New JTS.

  4. Figures quoted are as at end March 1990 and some minor adjustments may have been made when the end year definite statistics were produced.

  5. London is Greater London.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what account he has taken of the representations on youth training funding for special needs young people, made to him by the Arthur Rank centre in its letter of 19 December 1990, in determining levels of such funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 23 January 1991]Decisions on the appropriate levels of funding for youth 264
  workers in Great Britain in April 1990; and what was the proportion of those workers falling below the hourly earnings threshold of (a) £3·40, (b) £4·60 and (c) £4·75.

  Mr. Jackson
  There were an estimated 906,000 part-time male employees in employment in March 1990. The estimated percentages of part-time adult male employees earning below specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1990 were:

  Hourly earnings1

  Per cent.

  £3·40

  49

  £4·60

  72

  £4·80

  74

  1 Including overtime.

  Estimates of the percentage earning below £4·75 are not available; the nearest available figures have been given. The figures relate to employees on adult rates whose earnings for the survey period were not affected by absence.

  Training Agency
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table of expenditure on the programmes run by the Training Agency in 1989–90, broken down by programme and cross-tabulated by standard regions, with Greater London shown as a separate region.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  training providers are for local negotiation between the providers themselves and their local training and enterprise council.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the public expenditure on housing as a percentage of gross domestic product in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  The figures given are for Great Britain. They are based on gross expenditure on housing including spending from receipts and expenditure on housing benefits:

  Year

  Gross domestic product per cent.

  1980–81

  2·7

  1981–82

  2·2

  1982–83

  2·3

  1983–84

  2·8

  1984–85

  2·8

  1985–86

  2·5

  1986–87

  2·4

  1987–88

  2·3

  1988–89

  2·1

  1989–90

  2·2

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date the present method of dumping sewage into the sea will cease or be amended at Ilfracombe, Combe Martin and Lynmouth.

  Mr. Baldry
  The target date for completing improvement schemes for sewage discharges at Ilfracombe, Combe Martin and Lynmouth is end 1995.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his timetable for his review of local government finance and structure.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is conducting a thorough and fundamental review of local government functions, structure and finance to identify a stable basis for the future development of local government. It is premature to say when it might be complete.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for 1990–91 for each local authority(a) the total amount of national non-domestic rate income to be collected, (b) his best estimate of the amount collected thus far and (c) the amount of national non-domestic rate income being made available to each authority in 1990–91.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am arranging for copies of the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the personal community charge payable in 1991–92 by each couple eligible for the community charge reduction scheme where the personal charge for 1990–91 was £350, and that for 1991–92 was £390, and where the total domestic rates paid by the household in 1989–90 was(a) £225, (b) £325, (c) £375 and (d) £275.
  266
  Mr. Key
  In general, assuming that the couple did not benefit from or contribute to the safety net in 1990–91, the amount payable by each partner in 1991–92 would be as follows:(a) £204·50, (b) £254·50, (c) £279·50 arid (d) £229·50.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to use a de minimis rule on the operation of community charge capping in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will decide whether to adopt a de minimis proviso and the figure for any such proviso in making his designation decisions under section 100 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. As we have made clear local authorities should not assume that there will be such a proviso.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish his final criteria for the purposes of community charge-capping designation in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend intends to take his designation decisions under section 100 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as soon as reasonably practicable after authorities have set their budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the qualifying date relating to residence in a property for eligibility for the community charge reduction scheme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  Broadly, as with the current transitional relief scheme, a person may be eligible if he or she was subject to a personal community charge by virtue of residence in the relevant property on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum number of assumed poll tax charges that will be used per household for the purposes of calculating help under the community charge reduction scheme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  As with the current transitional relief scheme, two community charges will be used in the calculation of a reduction where there are two or more eligible charge payers in a property. However, special rules will apply to residents of sheltered housing schemes who will be able to qualify for a reduction in their own right.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumption of population mobility for 1990–91 and 1991–92 he used for the purposes of calculating the numbers of poll tax payers likely to qualify for help under his proposed community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  A depletion rate of 10 per cent. per annum has been assumed in arriving at the estimates for the community charge reduction scheme, to allow for cessation of entitlement for charge payers who have moved or have died.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on the urban programme 1989–90 showing expenditure broken down into economic, environmental and social categories and cross-tabulated by standards, region, with Greater London shown as a separate region.
  267
  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: Approved urban programme expenditure levels for 1989–90 for

  Urban programme region (£ million)

  Economic

  Environmental

  Social

  Northern

  21·006

  5·656

  9·695

  Northwest1

  21·452

  5·577

  9·010

  Merseyside1

  14·163

  7·698

  6·466

  West Midlands

  19·828

  5·665

  10·925

  East Midlands

  4·994

  2·157

  3·405

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13·521

  4·917

  4·671

  Southwest

  0·998

  0·499

  0·689

  London

  24·416

  13·270

  11·147

  1 These two urban programme regions form one standard Northwest region. All other urban programme and standard regions are identical.

  North Devon Coast
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the cause and the content of the layers of brown, greasy material that coat areas of the sea bed off the coast of north Devon.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no information on any unnatural or unusual materials coating the sea bed off the coast of north Devon.

  HM Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the current staff complement of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and how many staff will be in post by the end of the current financial year;

  (2) how many inspectors and how many administrative staff are employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and what the numbers are expected to be for the next financial year;

  (3) how many staff will ultimately be required to enforce integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are currently 220 staff in post in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP)—115 professional and 105 administrative staff.

  The approved complement for the end of the current financial year has recently been increased from 223 to 248, and the approved complement for the end of 1991–92 to over 300. HMIP will therefore continue to recruit and expand during 1991–92.

  Thereafter, complement may need to be increased further as IPC is progressively implemented and HMIP's workload increases further. Provisional assessments suggest that HMIP may ultimately require a total staff of up to around 400 when IPC is in full operation, but these assessments are subject to practical experience of operating IPC and are being kept under review.

  When HMIP was formed in April 1987 from the merger of three previous inspectorates, there were 133 staff in post. The substantial increase in HMIP's strength demonstrates the Government's commitment to the highest standards of environmental protection.

  Recruitment of further pollution inspectors is now in progress. Salary scales have been increased by 18 per cent., and this has overcome the recruitment difficulties previously experienced. The competition currently in progress has attracted nearly 600 good-quality applicants, showing a very encouraging level of interest among scientists in joining the inspectorate and being involved in its work of protecting the environment.
  268
  economic, environmental and social categories are shown below. The urban programme regions are cross-referenced to standard regions.

  The table shows the detailed complement and staff-in-post figures for HMIP since its formation in April 1987.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution staffing1

  1 April 19872

  1 January 1991

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  Complement

  199

  223

  248

  3300–310

  Staff in post

  133

  220

  —

  —

  1 All figures exclude the former Radioactive Waste Policy and Administrative Division, (25 administrative, two professional staff) which transferred from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to the DOE Directorate of Pollution Control and Waste in November 1990.

  2 Date of formation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he is satisfied that the price being agreed for the sale of the Crown Suppliers transport section fully reflects alternative uses of all five sites which form part of the sale;

  (2) whether the sale of the five land sites belonging to the Crown Suppliers transport section provides for a valuation based on existing use value, planning hope value, or a valuation based on approved planning applications following the completion of any sale.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are concerned to ensure that they obtain a fair price for the business, having regard, among other things, to the market value of the assets, including the land. To this end independent professional valuations of the freehold sites have been obtained.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy not to permit control of the transport section of the Crown Suppliers to be varied prior to the payment of moneys by the management buy-out for the transport section of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State will retain control of the transport business of the Crown Suppliers in the run-up to any sale.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date Mr. Bill Pinkney first approached the Crown Suppliers or his Department directly with an offer to purchase the Crown Suppliers transport section.

  Mr. Yeo
  In April 1989.
  269
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what moneys have been allocated, paid or contracted for payment to the management buy-out for the Crown Suppliers transport section connected to Mr. Bill Pinkney and Mr. Bramall of Dewsbury.

  Mr. Yeo
  A total of £36,000 has been paid in support of professional fees incurred by a team lead by Mr. Pinkney. Provisional agreement has been reached to provide additional support of up to a further £111,000, subject to certain conditions being met. No commmitment to this further amount has so far been given. If Mr. Pinkney's team were successful in acquiring the business, the new company would have to repay all Government support.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will make a statement as to the investigation carried out by the Property Services Agency audit section into the activities of Mr. Bill Pinkney;

  (2) whether he will list the actions taken by Mr. Bill Pinkney which led to an investigation being carried out by the Property Services Agency audit section.

  Mr. Yeo
  An audit of travel and subsistence, and certain other expenditure in the Crown Suppliers, including the transport business in which Mr. Pinkney is employed, has been undertaken by the Property Services Agency internal audit. The Crown Suppliers management have considered and are following up the matters arising from that audit.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value of the orginal hid in cash terms submitted by the management buy-out led by Mr. Bill Pinkney for the transport section of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Yeo
  It would not be in the interests of a successful sale to reveal at this stage the details of any bids for the business.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he took to satisfy himself that the offer to purchase the Crown Suppliers transport section by a group of persons led by Mr. Bill Pinkney is a valid management buy-out initiative.

  Mr. Yeo
  The members of the team, the sources of finance, control and structure of the proposed new company will be included in the factors to be taken into account in assessing their bid for the business.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what values have been placed on the five sites comprising the property portfolio which forms part of the assets of the Crown Suppliers transport section.

  Mr. Yeo
  The market values of the three freehold sites in 1989 were as follows:

  £ million

  Nine Elms, London

  1·5

  Burnett, Bristol

  0·7

  Biggleswade

  1·5

  Total

  3·7

  The leasehold sites are not considered to have any realisable value.
  270
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any Minister in his Department or their officials have met Mr. Bramall of Dewsbury to discuss the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers transport section.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes.

  Housing, Hyndburn
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in Hyndburn are classified as unfit.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information on unfit dwellings relates to 1 April 1990 and was provided by Hyndburn borough council in their April 1990 housing investment programme return (HIP 1 ), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of housing investment programme allocation made to Hyndburn borough council for each year from 1978–79 up to the present time.

  Mr. Yeo
  Details of the allocations made to Hyndburn borough council since 1978–79 are listed in the table. Since 1981–82 authorities have been able to augment the borrowing power of their housing investment programme allocations by using the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts. For 1990–91 and 1991–92, under the new capital finance system, the housing investment programme allocation does not convey borrowing approval directly.

  Housing investment programme allocations for Hyndburn borough council

  £ thousands

  1978–79

  2,210

  1979–80

  2,388

  1980–81

  2,358

  1981–82

  3,600

  1982–83

  4,350

  1983–84

  3,390

  1984–85

  3,675

  1985–86

  3,315

  1986–87

  3,375

  1987–88

  3,870

  1988–89

  3,599

  1989–90

  5,401

  1990–91

  14,386

  1991–92

  23,525

  1 Provisional.

  2 Initial allocation only.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the housing investment programme for Hyndburn to take account of the number of unfit houses in Hyndburn.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. Account was taken of all relevant factors, including the likely demand for renovation grants arising from unfit housing, in determining Hyndburn's housing investment programme allocation for 1991–92.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Belmarsh
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what delays there have been in the Property Services Agency paying sub-contractors for work carried out on the construction of Her Majesty's prison, Belmarsh; and if he will take steps to ensure that the outstanding sums are now paid.
  271
  Mr. Yeo
  Payments to sub-contractors who have worked on the construction of Her Majesty's prison, Belmarsh are the responsibility of the management contractor.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each enterprise zone, the number of(a) new businesess created, (b) jobs created, (c) business bankruptcies and (d) jobs lost in each year since the creation of each enterprise zone.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest published information on new businesses and jobs is included in the Department's report "Enterprise Zone Information 1987–88", a copy of which is in the Library. Information for 1988–89 will be available shortly. Data on business bankruptcies and jobs lost in each year are not collected.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the changes proposed in his Department's amendments to approved document B of the Building Regulations (England and Wales) will affect levels of life safety.

  Mr. Yeo
  The consultation proposals for amendments to part B, "Safety in Fire" of the Building Regulations 1985 incorporate a number of provisions to improve levels of life safety. These include the new requirements relating to access and facilities for the fire service, the extension of the means of escape requirements and the proposals relating to smoke alarms in dwellings. A number of those who have commented have suggested that other proposals, such as those relating to the reduction of fire resistance periods, reduce levels of life safety, and these comments are being carefully examined by the fire advisory panel and the building regulations advisory committee.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the effect that the larger compartment sizes proposed in his Department's amendments to approved document B of the Building Regulations (England and Wales) will have on means of escape planning and the evacuation of a building in the event of fire with particular regard to maximum travel distances.

  Mr. Yeo
  The consultation proposals for amendments to part B, "Safety in Fire", of the Building Regulations 1985 incorporate detailed practical guidance relating to means of escape, including the provision and protection of escape routes, and maximum travel distances for escape purposes. This guidance is not affected by the proposals relating to compartmentation, as maximum travel distances are measured to a protected escape route or final exit, regardless of compartment size.

  Housing
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the new role of local authorities as housing enabling authorities under the Housing Act 1988;

  (2) how local authorities will fulfil their statutory responsibilities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 in their enabling role under the Housing Act 1988.
  272
  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities have been acting as enablers for many years-although often in a small way. The new emphasis on local authorities acting as enablers rather than direct providers of subsidised housing parallels the expansion of the housing association movement. Housing associations are becoming the principal providers of new subsidised housing. Local authorities can fulfil their duties under the homelessness legislation by placing those they accept as homeless in their own dwellings; by using nomination arrangements to place them in dwellings owned by housing associations; or through similar arrangements made with other providers.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest evidence he has on changes in the level of private rented accommodation arising from the implementation of the Housing Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  There is a significant anecdotal evidence of an increase in the amount of property available for new lettings in the private rented sector. We have a survey in hand which will provide firmer evidence, the results of which should be available within the next two to three months.

  Large Combustion Plants
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue his formal plan for reducing sulphur dioxide and NOx emissions from existing large combustion plants.

  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom's programme and national plan for reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from existing large combustion plants was published on 20 December. Notice of the making of the plan was given in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazette. Copies have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses and are also available from my Department.

  Long Sea Outfalls
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of disposal of leachate from landfill sites through long sea outfalls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for the NRA to set conditions on discharges through long sea outfalls.

  Ministerial Responsibility
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a list of all those Ministers who have been given a specific responsibility for environmental matters within their respective departmental portfolios.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am responsible, supported by my ministerial colleagues, for all environmental matters within my Department's remit. The current list of Ministers nominated to be responsible for considering the environmental implications of all their Department's policies and spending programmes and for following up the relevant parts of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200) is as follows:
  273
  Department and Minister

  Lord Chancellor
  The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mackay of Clashfern

  Environment
  The Rt. Hon. Michael Heseltine, MP

  Transport
  The Rt. Hon. Malcolm Rifkind, QC, MP

  Energy
  The Rt. Hon. John Wakeham, MP

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  The Rt. Hon. John Gummer, MP

  Trade and Industry
  The Rt. Hon. Peter Lilley, MP

  Law Officers'
  The Rt. Hon. Sir Nicholas Lyell, QC, MP

  Privy Council Office/Office of Arts and Libraries
  The Rt. Hon. Tim Renton, MP

  Overseas Development
  The Rt. Hon. Lynda Chalker, MP

  Home Office
  The Rt. Hon. Angela Rumbold, CBE, MP

  Treasury
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard, MP

  Defence
  Kenneth Carlisle, Esq., MP

  Education and Science
  Michael Fallon, Esq., MP

  Employment
  Eric Forth, Esq., MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  The Hon. Mark Lennox-Boyd, MP

  Health
  Stephen Dorrell, Esq., MP

  Northern Ireland Office
  Richard Needham, Esq., MP

  Scottish Office
  The Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MP

  Social Security
  The Lord Henley

  Local Government
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a list of statutory bodies set up to carry out successor functions of the Greater London council and metropolitan counties, showing the expenditure of each successor body in 1989–90 and the principal sources of income of each successor body.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: I have today arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Interest Rate Swaps
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement in the light of the House of Lords' judgment on local authority interest rate swaps.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The House of Lords' judgment concerns local authorities' powers to undertake interest rate swaps and similar business. The Government are considering the implications of the judgment.

  The statutory powers of local authorities to borrow money, and the protection provided by legislation to those who lend to local authorities, were not in issue in the Hammersmith and Fulham case. The legislation provides that a person lending money to a local authority does not have to ask whether the authority has power to borrow the money and the lender is entitled to repayment of the loan, together with any interest thereon, regardless of whether the borrowing was within the authority's power or not.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions, within the last 12 months, when a London Underground station has been evacuated, or closed for a period exceeding 10 minutes, listing(a) the length of time the station was closed or evacuated, (b) the reason for the closure or evacuation and (c) whether the closure or evacuation took place during the peak period.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not kept by my Department. It is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those bodies to which he makes appointments, giving the number of people whom he appoints to each body.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The majority of the appointments for which 1 am responsible are listed in either "Public Bodies 1990" published by HMSO or "Women into Public Appointments" produced by the Women's National Commission, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The appointments which are not listed in either document are:Acting conservator of the River Mersey;
  Four delegates to the Central Rhine Commission;
  Chairman and six members of the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and diabetes;
  Chairman and five members of the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and disorders of the cardiovascular system; Chairman and eight members of the honorary medical advisory panel for driving and disorders of the nervous system and chairman and two members of the panel's sub-committee on mental health drug and alcohol misuse.

ENERGY

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since 1983, the Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) has promoted a range of programmes and other services to encourage the adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures in industry and the domestic sector. These initiatives have led to recurrent annual energy savings now worth over £500 million a year and currently include:the ministerial group on energy efficiency which aims to promote awareness and raise the profile of energy efficiency; encourage an energy efficiency lifestyle at home, at work and in transport; and lead by example in the development of policy initiatives and by taking forward the energy efficiency campaign on the Government estate and in other public sector bodies;
  the best practice programme which provides independent and authoritative advice and information on energy use and efficiency in industry and commerce, and in the public sector and in housing; the programme will continue to promote combined heat and power;

  275
  regional energy efficiency officers who lead the drive to encourage energy efficiency by visiting main energy users to guide them in developing energy management programmes, promoting EEO programmes and energy efficiency seminars and exhibitions, and encouraging the energy efficiency industry;
  in the domestic sector, the home energy efficiency scheme, which began on 1 January 1991, replacing the community insulation programme which has insulated some 850,000 homes; it will offer grants towards the cost of basic energy efficiency measures in low-income households; the EEO has also launched a new domestic advertising campaign to motivate those moving house or improving their homes to improve their energy efficiency; This campaign is supported by a new information pack —"Energy in Your Home"—which provides information and advice on a wide range of measures.

  The EEO is also carrying forward a number of new initiatives which were announced in the White Paper on the Environment, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200), and which include:
  developing proposals for a new scheme of project management assistance for implementation of energy efficiency investments;
  considering with the lighting industry how to overcome barriers to the uptake of high-efficiency lighting;
  pursuing appliance labelling and minimum standards with our own appliance industry and in the EC.

  With regard to the Department of Energy's own energy use, during the first year of occupation in our new headquarters building, which incorporates energy-efficiency systems, major energy initiatives were precluded by the process of ensuring that all plant and equipment were operating correctly and efficiently. However, during the coming year, my officials together with those of Property Holdings, will be investigating the feasibility of a contract energy management package. In addition, my Department will be running year-long schemes designed to promote staff awareness of the importance of energy efficiency through a variety of means including leaflets, poster campaigns and staff suggestions schemes.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he has received approaches seeking consent by National Power for the use of Orimulsion in any of their power stations:

  (2) if he has received approaches seeking the consent by Power Gen for the use of Orimulsion in any of their power stations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to the postponement of the flotation of National Power and PowerGen until after the cessation of hostilities in the middle east.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Preparations for the flotation of National Power and PowerGen are proceeding to timetable. Subject to market conditions, I intend to float both companies next month.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the present plans and timetable for the installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Ferrybridge and Ratcliffe power stations.
  276
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  PowerGen has submitted applications for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to install flue gas desulphurisation equipment at its Ratcliffe-on-Soar and Ferrybridge C power stations. These applications are under consideration.

WALES

  Bristol Channel (Pollution)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date Welsh Water will cease the dumping of sewage sludge into the Bristol channel; and what quantities were disposed of by this method in the latest two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The sea disposal of sewage sludge is to be terminated as soon as possible and by 31 December 1998 at the latest. Welsh Water is preparing plans to meet this requirement. The amount of sewage sludge deposited by Welsh Water in the last two years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Thousand tonnes (wet weight)

  1988

  1989

  55

  62

  Community Charge
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give his estimate of the community charge for 1991–92, including precepts for each of the district councils in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The level of community charges for 1991–92 will depend on the spending decisions of each local authority. If counties and districts spend in line with the realistic settlement that my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 17 January the average community charge component for each tier should be around £190 and £38 respectively, giving a combined community charge for standard spending of £228. The average community charge payable should not exceed £200 after allowing for the £62 million which the Government has provided for the community charge reduction scheme. This is £23 lower than the average actual charge for 1990–91 after relief, and is eminently achievable.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure the adequate protection of the public in respect of irradiated food in Wales since last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Regulations permitting the irradiation of food came into operation on 1 January this year. The regulations incorporate a strict control framework both in respect of the licensing of food irradiation premises, and in respect of the categories of food which may be subjected to irradiation. Additionally, official recognition is needed for the use of the process in connection with imported foodstuffs.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss Wales's share of inward investment projects going to United Kingdom assisted areas.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency about a range of matters concerning the development of the Welsh economy, including inward investment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crawfordsburn Hospital
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations have taken place about the closure and subsequent disposal of Crawfordsburn hospital between the Eastern health and social services board and the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Eastern health and social services board first sought the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services to the closure of Crawfordsburn hospital in September 1987. A further submission was made to the Department in September 1990 and formal approval to the closure was conveyed to the board on 25 October. No consultations between the board and the Department about disposal of the property have so far taken place.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the future of Crawfordsburn hospital was first discussed at a meeting of the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  A proposal to close Crawfordsburn hospital was first discussed by the Eastern health and social services board at its meeting on 26 March 1987.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consider the conversion of Crawfordsburn hospital and its grounds into a retirement village for the elderly of North Down.

  Mr. Hanley
  The future use of Crawfordsburn hospital is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board in the first instance. Decisions about the disposal of the hospital will be taken in the light of any proposals put forward by the Board for its future use.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the future of Crawfordsburn hospital was discussed at a meeting of the North Down and Ards unit of management of the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  The future of Crawfordsburn hospital was first discussed by the then North Down and Ards district executive team in August 1982.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the owners of the Bryansburn Inn in Bangor were first notified by the eastern health and social services board that Crawfordsburn hospital was to be closed.
  278
  Mr. Hanley
  A document containing proposals for the closure of Crawfordsburn hospital was issued for public consultation by the Eastern health and social services board in March 1987. I am not aware of any contact between the Eastern board and the owners of the Bryansburn Inn about the future of the hospital.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to reduce the concentration of hospital provision in west Belfast so as to achieve more equitable provision over the province as a whole.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the provision of hospital services in Northern Ireland lies in the first instance with the four health and social services boards acting within the regional strategic guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Social Services. I am aware that the Eastern board is at present developing a strategic approach to the delivery of acute hospital services to its population, but so far no firm proposals have been put to the Department for approval.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated amount of funding that goes directly to the Eastern health board area for the treatment of residents of other board areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the present arrangements, resources are allocated to health and social services boards on the basis of the levels of service provided by each board. Resources are not specifically earmarked or identified in the Eastern board's allocation for the provision of services to the residents of other board areas.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an estimate for the total Government expenditure on the upkeep, care and protection of historic buildings and monuments in Northern Ireland in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Needham
  Estimated expenditure for 1990–91 is £4,664,000 and for 1991–92 is £5,028,000.

  Director and Co-ordinator of Intelligence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement as to the present duties and activities of the present Director and Co-ordinator of Intelligence for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is not my practice, nor has it been that of successive Governments, to comment on such matters.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to apply the non-fossil fuel obligation to Northern Ireland; and what size tranche of renewable power he expects to grant.

  Mr. Needham
  The Electricity Act 1989, which contains the powers relating to the non-fossil fuel obligation, does not extend to Northern Ireland.

  Disability
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the work force in Northern Ireland is registered disabled.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 January 1991]: About 1 per cent.

  Thousands

  1978–79

  1988–89

  change

  percentage

  Public sector manpower: total

  6,565

  5,361

  -1,204

  -18·3

  Civil Service manpower: total

  734

  572

  -162

  -22·1

  Source: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm 1021): chapter 21, appendix D.

  Had public sector manpower changed at the same rate as civil service manpower, it would have fallen by 1,449 thousand.

  Civil Service Posts, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to locate additional permanent civil service posts in Renfrew district.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's relocation policy is not centrally directed. But I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the then Paymaster General gave on 25 October 1990, columns 303–5, to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), which listed civil service posts located or relocated out of the south-east since 1979 together with the relocation plans announced by Departments but still to be implemented.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what poll tax figures he used for the purposes of calculating the retail prices index in 1990–91; and if he intends to make any change in 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  In 1990–91 the average community charge figures used in the retail prices index were:

  £

  England

  357

  Wales

  233

  Scotland

  306

  The same principles will be followed for the purpose of calculating the RPI 1991–92 as were applied in 1990–91.

  Redundancy Payments
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the transfer of employees of state enterprise which have been privatised, if he will list(a) those where there has not been any reduction in public service redundancy payments compared with those they would have received if they had remained in the public service and (b) those where there has been any such reduction.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Manpower
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manpower in the whole of the public sector has changed between 1978–79 and 1988–89; by how much civil service manpower has changed between those dates; what would have been the changes in manpower for the whole of the public sector if it had changed at the same rate as civil service manpower; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  1981, civil servants transferred to a new employer on privatisation are entitled to redundancy compensation, which is identical to that available under the principal civil service pension scheme. The question of reduction in redundancy compensation therefore does not arise.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of redundancy payments to(a) a civil service employee and (b) an employee of a normal commercial undertaking.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 requires employers to make redundancy payments. The Act does not apply to the civil service. However, arrangements have been made to ensure that redundancy payments to civil servants are at least comparable with the requirements of the Act and, in common with other good employers, the civil service provides payments which are in almost all cases more favourable than those requirements. The compensation terms are set out in section 10 of the principal civil service pension scheme.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rihand Power Station, India
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the terms of reference of the World bank environmental assessment of the area around the Rihand power station in India.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The environmental assessment of the Singrauli area, which includes the Rihand power station, is being conducted under terms of reference agreed between the World bank and the Government of India, which are not in the public domain. We are, however, satisfied from our discussions with both parties that the study will be wide-ranging and comprehensive.

  Environment and Development Conference
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations he is making for the United Nations 1992 conference on environment and development; and if he will make a statement.
  281
  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 10 December 1990, c. 283.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has actively encouraged local education authorities to conserve energy in educational buildings. Savings have been achieved by supporting development projects, dissemination of guidance on good practice and commissioned research. LEAs are currently spending £43 million a year less in real terms on energy than they did in 1978–79.

  Current initiatives include supporting work being undertaken by the building research energy conservation support unit (BRECSU) in connection with its four-year £1 million programme to save energy in schools. DES publications offering advice on how to make energy savings are also in the course of preparation.

  Regarding DES buildings, a sum of £10,000 was spent on power factor correction equipment at its Darlington headquarters offices in the 1989–90 financial year. This built on a sum of £28,000 spent on electrical lighting control sensors at the same site in the previous financial year. Expenditure on energy-saving equipment at the Department's London HQ cannot be justified as insufficient time remains in which to recover capital outlay prior to a move to new premises. A building management system has been specified as an energy-saving measure for the Department's new building which is in the course of construction.

  Complete statistics are not available to enable us to say by what amount and by what percentage the Department's total energy bill has been reduced over the past year, but our target savings for the 1990–91 financial year are 3 per cent. compared with the previous financial year.

  Rodent Carcases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report all methods of disposal used by the Medical Research Council for irradiated rodent carcases since such disposals have been required following research; and what current licensing arrangements exist for disposal.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The disposal routes for such carcases used by the Medical Research Council are:

  1. Maceration followed by disposal to the sewer, or,

  2. Incineration and landfill.

  The disposal of irradiated rodent carcases is subject to authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Authorisations are issued only after careful assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed disposals.

  Bomb Scares
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice is given to local education authorities and to governors of(a) local education authority maintained schools, (b) grant-maintained schools, (c) local education author:ity maintained colleges and (d) colleges of higher education and polytechnics about how the staff of these institutions should be involved with the police when searching for explosive material during a bomb scare.

  Mr. Eggar
  No advice is given by the Department on how to deal with local emergencies. The police, who should be the first point of contact in the event of an emergency, will give all necessary advice.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice the Government have given to governors of grant-maintained schools regarding support for, and integration of, children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Fallon
  Such advice is contained in "Guide to the Law for Grant-Maintained School Governors" issued in September 1989, in DES circular 10/88 "Education Reform Act 1988: Grant-Maintained Schools" and in DES circular 21/89 "Grant-Maintained Schools: Financial Arrangements". Governors of grant-maintained schools will also receive copies of other relevant guidance such as the recently issued DES circular 11/90—"Staffing for Pupils with Special Educational Needs".

  Reading Standards
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report all national surveys of reading standards conducted in the last 10 years which his Department has available, with dates of survey and publication, and the sponsor and executor of the research in each case.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Much of the available information about reading standards in the 1980s derives from surveys conducted by individual local education authorities. However, the following national surveys are also available:The results of the assessment of performance unit's annual surveys of reading at age 11 and 15 during the years 1979–1983, published in summary form in 1988 in "Language Performance in Schools—Review of APU monitoring 1979–1983". The APU was sponsored jointly by the DES, Welsh Office and Department of Education for Northern Ireland.
  An HMI inspection report on "Reading Policy and Practice at ages 5–14" based on a survey of primary and secondary schools in 1989 and published the same year.
  An HMI report on "The Teaching and Learning of Reading in Primary Schools" based on a survey of primary schools in autumn 1990 and other inspection evidence a nd published in 1991.
  A report by the National Foundation for Educational Research entitled "An Enquiry into LEA Evidence on Standards of Reading of Seven Year Old Children" based on information about reading standards among seven-year-olds during the 1980s submitted to the NFER by local education authorities. The work was sponsored by the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) at the request of my predecessor.

  History Teaching
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the principal differences between the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council relating to history and his proposals now the subject of consultation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The principal differences between the draft order for history, published on 14 January, and the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council relating to history, are set out in the table. The programme of study for key stage 4 and certain of the non-statutory examples illustrating the attainment targets have been adjusted to focus on the first half of the 20th century, with references to events from the turn of the century to the 1960s. These changes reflect my view that the law should not require teaching about particular contemporary events and people as part of the national curriculum history syllabus because of the difficulty of treating such matters with an historical perspective.

  Summary of main changes

  Programme of study for key stage 4

  Page number of (a) NCC report (b) draft order

  The preamble to key stage 4 model 1 indicates a focus on events from the turn of the twentieth century to the 1960s

  (a) 56

  (b)36

  Sub-sections on "British Democracy" and "International Conflict and Co-operation" now specify study should be up to circa 1960

  (a) 59

  (b)39

  The supplementary study units in model 2 changed to set terms to the periods of study as follows:

  (a) 63

  (b)42

  —Russia and USSR 1905–1964

  —The United States of America 1917–1963

  —The Indian sub-continent 1914–1964

  —Africa south of the Sahara 1900–1963

  —The Middle East 1914–1967

  —Latin America 1910–1962

  —Japan 1904-mid 1960s

  —China 1911–1966

  In addition, the draft order includes a number of complementary changes to the non-statutory examples which will accompany the order but which do not form part of the national curriculum requirements.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to lay orders relating to the national curriculum, history.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In March 1991.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the latest report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I received the report on 18 January and will publish it shortly.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes that the recommendations of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions should be fully funded.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Funding for teachers' salaries for 1991–92 was settled when the Government announced 284
  increased education standard spending for that year. The increase took full account of the remit given to the interim advisory committee and would fund recommendations within that remit.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, columns 25–26, what guidance he has given to local education authorities as to the maximum percentage of their budgets to be applied to the funding of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has given no such guidance.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the distribution of the science budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have considered the recommendations of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the distribution of the science budget, and have decided to accept the board's advice that the £920·8 million for 1991–92 should, subject to approval by Parliament of the estimates in due course, be allocated as follows:

  Allocations for 1991–92

  £ million

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  93·47

  Economic and Social Research Council

  35·51

  Medical Research Council

  200·42

  Natural Environment Research Council

  122·56

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  451·30

  The Royal Society

  15·74

  The Fellowship of Engineering

  1·39

  ABRC (Secretariat and Science Policy Studies)

  0·36

  Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology

  0·08

  TOTAL

  920·83

  I have also accepted the board's recommendation that for planning purposes the following indicative allocations should be adopted for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94:

  Planned figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  90·53

  91·58

  Economic and Social Research Council

  37·24

  37·71

  Medical Research Council

  206·35

  208·80

  Natural Environment Research Council

  119·99

  121·28

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  462·96

  469·16

  The Royal Society

  15·77

  15·97

  The Fellowship of Engineering

  1·44

  1·46

  Unallocated1

  88·94

  160·40

  1 Including £50 million (1992–93) and £100 million (1993–94) consequent on new arrangements for funding of scientific work in higher education institutions.

  In making these allocations I have accepted the board's advice that additional provision of £4·1 million, £6 million and £6 million in each of the three years 1991–92 to 1993–94 should be made available to the Medical Research Council for the restructuring of clinical research through its clinical research initiative.

  The indicative planning figures above contain an unallocated £39 million in 1992–93 and £60 million in

  285
  1993–94 on which I expect to receive further advice from the ABRC in the spring. The allocations to funded bodies also exclude the increases in the science budget of £50 million in 1992–93 and £100 million in 1993–94 to take account of the new arrangements for funding scientific research in higher education announced on 8 November, Official Report, columns 27–28.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations Security Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the establishment of a seat on the United Nations Security Council for a representative from the European Community in place of the United Kingdom and French representatives.

  The Prime Minister
  According to the charter of the United Nations, only states may be members of the Security Council.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals have been put to him relating to the relinquishing of the United Kingdom's seat in the Security Council.

  The Prime Minister
  No such proposals have been put to the British Government.

  European Community
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to put proposals on the subsidiarity of powers between the European Community and United Kingdom national and local government to Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  We have already made clear in the political union intergovernmental conference that, provided that an acceptable definition can be agreed, we want to see the principle of subsidiarity recognised and observed by the European Community.

  Wealth
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will take urgent action to avoid negative redistribution of wealth between rich and poor in Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  Real personal sector wealth has increased by some 60 per cent. since 1979, while there has been little change in its overall distribution. Government policies will continue to promote a dynamic, wealth-creating economy.

  Kurds
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will seek European Community and United Nations support for a homeland and state for the Kurdish people.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the treaty of Lausanne of 1923 which established the present-day frontiers in the region bounded by Iran, Iraq and Turkey. There can be no question of our seeking support for the establishment of a separate Kurdish state within those boundaries.

  United Nations Resolutions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government last pressed the European Community for initiatives to enforce United Nations resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973.

  The Prime Minister
  We are in regular contact with our EC partners about the peace process and the role of the Twelve in it. Community policy on the issue was set out in the European Council's Venice declaration of 1980. This made clear, as have subsequent Council statements, most recently on 15 December 1990, that Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis of any settlement.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed with Prime Minister Shamir the need to accept and abide by United Nations resolutions 242 and 338; and if he will make a statement on United Kingdom policy regarding the self-determination of the Palestinians and protection of the state of Israel.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the Arab-Israel peace process with Mr. Shamir during his visit to London last December. I reiterated the need for early progress towards a settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. This will need to match the Palestinians' right to self-determination with Israel's right to security.

  British Muslims
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the British Muslim community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no recent meeting, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, saw a group of Muslims for discussion on the Gulf situation on 18 January, and has also seen a group of Muslim journalists: further meetings are in prospect. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office met representatives of the United Kingdom action committee on Islamic affairs yesterday. Such meetings reflect continuing contacts at ministerial and official level.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines he has issued to British citizens in civilian employment in Saudi Arabia and their employers regarding conformity with civil air raid warnings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British embassy in Riyadh has given written advice to British nationals in the eastern and central provinces of Saudi Arabia on precautions to be taken in the event of conflict. The embassy has also issued respirators and full instructions on their use in the event of an attack by chemical weapons. The embassy maintains close and continuing contact with the British community both directly and through the wardens.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the United Nations coalition
  287
  of nations in the Gulf hostilities regarding the co-ordination of guidelines for civilian employees and employers in Saudi Arabia in responding to air raid warnings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had frequent exchanges with the Governments of the coalition and other Governments about the protection of civilians in Saudi Arabia. The most important of these contacts have been with the Saudi Arabian Government, who are responsible for providing air raid shelters, instructions and air raid warnings.

  Squid, South Atlantic
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to safeguard Illex squid stocks in the South Atlantic.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Yes. We and the Falkland Islands Government are conscious of the need to conserve these stocks. As part of our efforts to do so we agreed recently with the Argentine Government measures to enhance fisheries conservation in the south-west Atlantic, including the establishment of a Falkland Islands outer conservation zone in which all fishing has been banned for one year beginning on 26 December 1990. An Anglo-Argentine joint commission on fisheries, at which information about and ideas on conservation will be discussed, will meet in March.

HEALTH

  Mentally Ill People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mentally ill people are(a) in long-stay mental health institutions, (b) in care in the community, (c) in prison and (d) homeless.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of mentally ill residents in national health service hospitals and units on 31 March 1990 who had been resident for more than one year is estimated at 31,200.

  The precise number of mentally ill people in receipt of care in the community is not known. The number of people in homes and hostels for mentally ill people who are supported by local authorities under the provisions of schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977, as at 31 March 1989, the latest available date, was 3,549.

  The total number of prisoners who suffer from some form of mental illness is not recorded centrally. A total of 245 prisoners were reported by prison medical officers on 31 March 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, to be mentally ill within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, to a degree to meet the criteria for detention in hospital set out in that Act. Annually over 1,000 prisoners are transferred from prison to hospital under the provisions of that Act following reports by prison medical officers.

  The number of mentally ill people who are homeless is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any information on the staffing and management arrangements of mental nursing homes registered to take detained patients with particular 288
  reference to the responsibilities of such homes under the Mental Health Act 1983; and what plans he has to increase the information available on such mental nursing homes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The numbers of registered mental nurses and registered nurses for the mentally handicapped in registered mental nursing homes are reported to the Department by district health authorities in return K036. The figures for 31 March 1989 were 1,050 full-time and 714 part-time registered mental nurses and 142 full-time and 65 part-time registered nurses for the mentally handicapped. We have no plans to collect any other information on the staffing of mental nursing homes.

  Registered mental nursing homes are subject to the Registered Homes Act 1984 and must meet the requirements of that Act before they can be registered. Homes registered to take patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 must comply with all the relevant sections of that Act, including those concerning patients' rights while detained and access to the mental health review tribunals and the Mental Health Act Commission. The responsibilities of managers of registered mental nursing homes under the 1983 Act are broadly comparable to those of managers of NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of detained patients cared for in mental nursing homes during 1990; and how many mental nursing homes are registered to take detained patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available information is for 31 March 1989 when there were 89 patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 in private mental nursing homes in England. This does not include patients cared for under contractual arrangements with health authorities. On the same date there were 60 mental nursing homes registered under part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and authorised to detain patients.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the number of hospital beds by district health authority in the Trent regional health authority(a) in 1979, (b) in 1985 and (c) for the latest date for which he has figures.

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

  Number of beds available in Trent regional health authority and district health authorities 1979, 1985. 1989–90

  Years

  1979

  1985

  1989–90

  Regional total

  31,711

  29,391

  24,554

  North Derbyshire

  1,722

  1,749

  1,574

  South Derbyshire

  4,208

  3,535

  2,700

  Leicestershire

  5,140

  5,045

  4,436

  North Lincolnshire

  2,815

  2,110

  1,413

  South Lincolnshire

  1,894

  1,768

  1,481

  Bassetlaw

  403

  433

  409

  Central Nottinghamshire

  1,997

  1,794

  1,484

  Nottingham

  4,198

  3,931

  3,334

  Barnsley

  962

  1,134

  1,111

  Doncaster

  1,808

  1,879

  1,657

  Rotherham

  1,331

  1,251

  1,129

  Sheffield

  5,233

  4,771

  3,828

  289

  Number of inpatients treated in Trent RHA and DHAs—1979, 1985, 1989–90

  Finished hospital stays (discharges and deaths)

  Finished consultant episodes

  1979

  1985

  11989–90

  Trent regional health authority

  464,917

  578,370

  698,776

  North Derbyshire

  22,989

  28,185

  37,345

  Southern Derbyshire

  47,540

  53,724

  61,608

  Leicestershire

  74,454

  95,365

  110,970

  North Lincolnshire

  25,751

  29,279

  36,600

  South Lincolnshire

  23,535

  31,003

  39,124

  Bassetlaw

  9,111

  11,953

  15,110

  Central Nottinghamshire

  32,095

  36,472

  43,221

  Nottingham

  73,992

  97,291

  117,018

  Barnsley

  21,449

  27,512

  32,908

  Doncaster

  28,103

  39,936

  47,926

  Rotherham

  27,805

  30,727

  38,380

  Sheffield

  78,093

  96,923

  118,566

  1 Figures for 1989–90 refer to finished consultant episodes and should not be directly compared with earlier figures (discharges and deaths).

  In 1988–89 when data were collected on both bases, finished consultant episodes in Trent regional health authority exceeded discharges and deaths by 8 per cent.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service has met the target of reducing energy consumption by 1–5 per cent. a year suggested by the Public Accounts Committee in 1980–81 and there is a commitment to save a further 15 per cent. in consumption over the next five years.

  Guidance is provided by the Department's "Encode" and the performance of regional health authorities is monitored by the national health service management executive.

  It is estimated that £379 million has been saved in the national health service in the last 10 years due to reductions in energy consumption, changes in fuel prices and rationalisation of the estate. The latest annual figures which have been validated are for 1986–87 and they show a saving of £4·7 million representing 2 per cent. of the total energy bill for that year.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the name, address and telephone number of each national health service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given with regard to the charging by national health service trusts of local authority social services departments for services currently provided freely by local health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No guidance is being given to trusts on systems for charging local authorities for 290
  services. The powers for national health service trusts to charge for services are no different from the powers which continue to be available to health authorities. Health services to individual patients remain free at the point of delivery. Local authorities remain responsible for determining charges to clients for social care which they arrange or provide.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy towards national health service trusts who may wish to make direct community care provision.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National health service trusts can enter into contracts with district health authorities for the provision of any health service including community health services. National health service trusts may make direct community care provision for local authorities if they wish, bearing in mind that the funding of such provision is subject to section 7 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made for national health service trusts to purchase the services of hospital-based local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities will provide hospital social work services to national health service trusts on the same basis as to the rest of the hospital and community health services.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average dental charge in 1988–89 and in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The average dental charge in England for the financial year 1988–89 was £19·84. The figure for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service district general hospitals in England and Wales provide British sign language interpreters for deaf people; and which charge for this service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made to ensure that United Kingdom food hygiene standards are maintained throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Major changes are being introduced in England and Wales from 1 April to improve food hygiene by the appropriate use of temperature controls during production, distribution and sale. The controls apply to food whether produced in this country for consumption here or for export and to foods which have been imported. Different food hygiene requirements apply in individual member states of the European Community. Where the European Commission puts forward proposals for European standards the views of the United Kingdom Government are fully represented.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of local authorities have their own secure accommodation available for young people for whom it is judged necessary.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 31 December 1990, 26 local authorities, 24 per cent., in England provided secure accommodation. All local authorities have access to this national network of secure facilities.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority secure places were made available to other local authorities willing to pay for them, in the last year for which figures were available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Of the 1,417 admissions to secure accommodation in England during the year ending 31 March 1989, 775 were placed by local authorities which did not provide such facilities; 11 were placed by local authorities outside England, and 60 were placed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority secure homes for young people have been closed in the last five years; and what proportion this is of the total at the beginning of the period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In January 1986 there were 46 community homes providing secure units. Ten (22 per cent.) of these units have since closed permanently, primarily because the associated open part of the home has become surplus to the requirements of the local authority. A further four such secure units are currently temporarily closed while the local authority reviews their long-term future.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from chief constables with regard to the availability of secure accommodation for young persons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been no representations from chief constables specifically about the availability of secure accommodation. The Department has received comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on the draft regulations and guidance on secure accommodation that were issued for consultation under the Children Act 1989. ACPO's comments will be taken into account when the final version of these regulations and guidance are prepared.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his estimate of the number of local authority care home trusts; and in which local authorities they are located.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development of short-term respite care in both the local authority and the private sectors to avoid permanent admissions to care homes.
  292
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's White Paper "Caring for People" makes it clear that respite care has an important part to play in supporting carers and enabling dependent people to continue living in the community. The White Paper also asks local authorities to promote the involvement of and make maximum use of the non-statutory sector in improving community care.

  The Department has awarded a grant to the National Association of Family Based Respite Care and has funded research at Bristol university about respite care for families with children with a mental handicap.

  The report "Care for a Change", produced by the Department's social services inspectorate and published in 1987, a copy of which is available in the Library, gives guidance to local authorities on the provision of respite care.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to registration authorities regarding arrangements that may be made by private care and nursing homes for insurance cover for contents, liability, and loss of revenue.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. These are matters for the organisations concerned.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of the implications of the growth in private care homes for the type of resident now accommodated in local authority part III accommodation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the Government's policy, set out in the White Paper "Caring for People", to encourage the contribution the independent sector can make in providing residential care for vulnerable people, in order to increase the choice for individuals and promote competition among providers. It is for individual local authorities in drawing up their community care plans to identify the range of services required to meet their population's community care needs, assemble information about current and prospective demand and supply of services in their locality, and secure a supply of appropriate services.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of the capital investment needed by local authorities to bring the structural standards of local authority residential care homes up to the level required by his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local authorities to determine their capital needs for personal social services. The assessment of the need for structural work to be carried out in local authoritty residential care homes depends upon a number of factors, including the condition and suitability of the premises in the light of the standards they apply, as registration authorities, to independent homes, the extent to which they need to retain their own homes, and the availability of resources. Only local authorities themselves can carry out such an assessment.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to local authorities with regard to the criteria which may be applied to the size of private care homes when contracts for the provision for care are being placed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local social services authorities and health authorities, which are the
  293
  registration authorities for independent homes, to judge whether a home is of an acceptable size, in the light of such factors as the premises, staffing levels, the level of care required for residents and the quality of life offered.

  Guidance has been issued to local authorities about the size of new local authority residential care homes. The code of practice for residential care, "Home Life," a copy of which is available in the Library, advises that the size of the building and the proposed number of residents should be considered in the context of the stated aims of the home. We would expect local authorities to have regard to this guidance when arranging contracts with private care homes.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a local authority's statutory responsibilities for residents in local authority care home trusts differ in any way from their responsibilities for residents in local authority part III accommodation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide residential accommodation for persons who, by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances, are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them. This duty can be exercised by social services authorities either by providing the individual with accommodation in a local authority residential care home or by sponsoring them in an independent sector residential care home.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by his Department to develop alternatives to the institutional model of care for elderly or disabled people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are firmly committed to a policy of community care which enables elderly and disabled people, with appropriate support, to live in their own homes or in small homely settings in the community for as long as this is feasible and sensible.

  The White Paper "Caring for People" made clear that health and local authorities are expected to work closely together in preparing community care plans that are compatible and comprehensive. Following the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the Department issued guidance to assist authorities in this task and to develop good practice. We have continued to stress the key role of the voluntary sector in this process and the importance of ensuring that the wishes of the elderly or disabled person are taken carefully into account.

  Social Service Placements
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of special agency placements by local authority social services departments for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the number of such placements is not available centrally.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what feasibility studies his Department have undertaken into the comparative costs and benefits of differing forms of community care provision; and what were the results.
  294
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has undertaken a number of such studies in particular those carried out by the personal social services research unit at the University of Kent. They have shown that the costs and benefits of community care are dependent on a range of factors with a complex interrelationship. Copies of relevant studies will be placed in the Library.

  Child Welfare
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to bring forward legislation on transferring responsibilities for child welfare within local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no such proposals.

  Social Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to transfer the responsibility for the provision of personal social services from local authorities to district health authorities or national health service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.

  Home Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities currently operate a 24-hour, seven days a week home care service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Special Agency Placements
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial implications for local authorities of the increased use of special agency placements by social services departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In deciding on appropriate finance for local authorities the Government take account of local authorities' assessments of the cost to social services departments of changes in policy, demand and demography.

  North Devon Health Care TN0
  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
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 January 1991, c. 161]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now decided to approve the application from Northern Devon Healthcare, formerly known as North Devon Healthcare, to be an NHS trust. The criteria adopted in considering trust applications were previously listed on 4 December 1989 at columns 77–82. They included:
  that the establishment of a trust will give clear benefits and improved quality of service to patients;

  295
  that management has the skills and capacity—including strong, effective leadership, sufficient financial and personnel management expertise and adequate information systems—to run the unit effectively;
  that senior professional staff, especially consultants, are involved in the management of the unit.

  In the case of the Northern Devon Healthcare Trust my right hon. Friend agreed, in response to a request from the sponsors, to defer the establishment of the trust at the time he made his decision to approve 56 NHS trusts.

  My right hon. Friend has now decided, after careful thought and after having taken into account comments made during the consultation, to approve this application for trust status. The management team has now established itself and obtained the involvement of senior professional staff. The unit can now take advantage of NHS trust status.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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.

  Mr. Leigh
  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.

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

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: None. It is for businesses themselves, in consultation with their banks and financial advisers to consider what measures are appropriate to their specific circumstances. DTI regional offices are, however, giving priority to the needs of affected companies to help them find new markets. My Department is also taking appropriate action to assist British industry in playing a significant part in the reconstruction of Kuwait after its liberation.

  Local Government
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a table of expenditure of his Department's programmes of grant aid and support to industry in 1989–90, broken down by programme and cross-tabulated by standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region, and including programmes of grant and other financial aid and also programmes of advice and training.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: A regional breakdown of expenditure on the Department of Trade and Industry's regional programmes and for other industrial support under the Industrial Development Act 1982, including the consultancy initiatives, is provided in
  296
  the appendices to the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual report for the year ended 31 March 1990. A regional breakdown of expenditure on other programmes is not available, nor is separate information available for Greater London, except at disproportionate cost, but the total level of expenditure on each of the Department's programmes is shown in the appropriation accounts for 1989–90.

  Iraq (Loans)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of Export Credits Guarantee Department loans outstanding to Iraq, and the cost, per year for 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 of facilities to promote British trade with Iraq.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 January 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 October 1990, Official Report, column 837. There are currently 19 ECGD supported loans outstanding to Iraq.

  The total cost by year of the various trade promotion facilities available for Iraq could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's initiatives have focused on the prison estate. Energy efficiency has been promoted on the estate in the following ways:

  the use of low-energy light units;

  the use of high-frequency light units;

  improved insulation of distribution pipework;

  the installation of decentralised boiler systems using gas;

  the use of automatic controls for lighting;

  the introduction of building management systems;

  water surveys;

  energy surveys;

  improved heat distribution;

  building insulation;

  the use of low-energy equipment;

  the use of fuel additives;

  waste-derived fuel trials;

  zone control of heating;

  the use of condensing boilers; and

  the use of workshop heating controls.

  Reductions in energy bills have resulted from tariff analysis, maximum demand analysis and power factor reduction.

  Future measures will include the following:
  the evaluation of combined heat and power systems and of waste gas fuel;
  considering the use of contract energy management; staff training; and equipment evaluation and testing.

  The energy bill for the prison estate was reduced from £19·43 million in 1988–89 to £19·2 million in 1989–90, a reduction of 1·2 per cent. despite an increase of 2·5 per cent. in the size of the estate.

  We intend to introduce a programme of similar measures in non-prison estate buildings in 1991–92. It is not possible to provide the information requested on costs

  297
  in respect of those buildings, because the Department has been billed directly for its use of energy in them since April 1990.

  Emergency Communications Network
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report of Scicon Ltd's study of the emergency communications network; how much the study cost; what are the report's recommendations; and whether he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. John Patten
  The study, which is expected to cost about £150,000, is not yet complete. A final report is due shortly. Because of the classified nature of some of the material, it is not proposed to place copies in the Library.

  Cardphones (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on allowing cardphones to be available at a prisoner's own expense for use in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will list the prisons where such a scheme now exists.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We believe that the use of cardphones by prisoners is an important way of sustaining relationships with family and friends and relieving stress during the time in custody, and can help prisoners to prepare for release.

  Cardphones are now available for the use of prisoners at all the establishments listed in the table. This includes all open establishments and almost all category C and equivalent female and young offender establishments; the installation of phones is in progress at the remainder. In addition a trial is under way at Winchester under which unconvicted prisoners have access to cardphones. The trial will shortly be extended to Manchester prison.

  HM Prison Service establishments with cardphones for the use of prisoners

  Acklington

  Aldington

  Ashwell

  Askham Grange

  Blantyre House

  Camp Hill

  Campsfield House

  Channings Wood

  Cookham Wood

  Deerbolt

  Dover

  Drake Hall

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Ford

  Glen Parva

  Gloucester

  Haslar

  Hatfield

  Haverigg

  Highpoint

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  Huntercombe and Finnamore Wood Camp

  Kirkham

  Kirklevington

  Lancaster

  Leyhill

  Littlehey

  298

  Lowdham Grange

  Morton Hall

  The Mount

  Northallerton

  Northeye

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Onley

  Ranby

  Risley

  Rochester

  Rudgate

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Spring Hill

  Stafford

  Stoke Heath

  Styal

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  Thorn Cross

  Thorp Arch

  Usk

  The Verne

  Wayland

  Wellingborough

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Whatton

  Winchester

  Wymott

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the United Kingdom personnel in the Trevi group working on European policy; what are their terms of reference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I attend Trevi Ministers' meetings, and other meetings are attended by United Kingdom officials and police service representatives. Trevi exists to promote practical co-operation among European Community member states against terrorism, drug trafficking and other serious crime.

  I attended a special meeting of Trevi Ministers on 22 January in Luxembourg, at which we discussed measures to counter the threat of terrorism associated with hostilities in the Gulf and reaffirmed our determination to co-operate fully to the end.

  Police Posts
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police posts were authorised throughout the United Kingdom(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend is responsible only for the police service in England and Wales. Between February 1974 and April 1979 the authorised establishment of the police service in England and Wales rose by 5,809. Since the Government took office in May 1979 the establishment of the police service has increased by 8,687 and my right hon. Friend has recently announced a further increase of 700 police posts to be implemented during 1991–92.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what active steps he has taken to resolve the case of Mr. A. A. (Reference A413117/2 (S)); why there have been delays in resolving this case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I explained to the hon. Member in my letter of 3 January further inquiries are necessary before we can reach a decision in this case. I shall write to the hon. Member when the inquiries are complete.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were sent to adult prisons whilst awaiting trial in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of them were involved in incidents where there were allegations of them being threatened or they came to physical harm.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  During 1989, the last year for which figures were available, 4,300 unsentenced young offenders were initially received in adult prisons. Information is available centrally on alleged assaults only where these gave rise to action by the police. In 1989, there were 13. Of these, 10 were carried out by other young offenders and three by adult males. There is no centrally available information on threats.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence his Department has obtained on the likelihood of young people awaiting trial to be sent to an adult prison if they live in a local authority which does not have its own secure centre as against those in an authority which does have such a centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  Local authority secure accommodation is a resource to which all local authorities in England and Wales have access. But the availability of secure accommodation locally and the local authority's willingness to use it for remanded juveniles may affect at present a court's decision whether it is necessary to remand a juvenile in Prison Department custody.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the daily cost of keeping a young person in(a) local authority secure accommodation and (b) an adult prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The daily cost of keeping a young person in an adult prison during 1989–90 was £44.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the disparity in types of local authority secure accommodation makes in impossible to provide a realistic representative figure for the cost of accommodating a young person in such accommodation.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to stop young people awaiting trial being sent to adult prisons.

  Mr. John Patten
  We intend to issue very soon a consultation paper setting out our detailed proposals for reforming the arrangements for the remand of alleged offenders under 17. This will include proposals affecting the use of Prison Department establishments for remanded juveniles.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unruly certificates were issued in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. The only information available relates to juveniles initially received on remand into prison service establishments. These statistics are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 2·7 of the volume for 1989, Cm. 1221), a copy of which is in the Library. An unruliness certificate is required for juveniles received as untried—1,387 in 1989—and for some of those received as convicted unsentenced—89 in 1989; it is not required for those committed in custody to the Crown court for sentence under section 37 of the Magistrates Courts Act.

  Detention
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what statutory authority residents of Arabic or Palestinian origin are being arrested or detained, arising from the war in Iraq; what source of information led to arrest; whether these detainees have been questioned on these allegations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what basis residents of Arabic and Palestinian origin are being arrested or detained arising from the war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what rights of representation have been accorded to persons detained without charge or trial in response to the war in the Gulf;

  (2) what criteria applied to the recent arrest and detention of individuals currently resident in the United Kingdom without charge; and what is the authority under which they are held.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  By virtue of section 3(5) (b) of the Immigration Act 1971 orders of intention to deport have been served on a number of Iraqi and other nationals on my right hon. Friend's personal direction that their deportation would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. These decisions have been taken individually after careful consideration of information about the activities and associations of those concerned and in the light of the present threat of terrorist activities against the United Kingdom.

  Under section 15(3) of the Act there is no statutory right of appeal against these decisions. Paragraph 157 of the statement of changes in the immigration rules, however, provides that those concerned may appear before a panel of independent advisers and make representations to them before the advisers tender their advice to my right hon. Friend. If it is decided to make a deportation order, they also have a right of appeal to the immigration appellate authorities against the destination specified. Under paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Act persons may be detained on my right hon. Friend's authority pending deportation.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of people detained under powers given to him under the Immigration Act 1971 who are holders of(a) Iraqi passports, (b)

  301
  Jordanian passports, (c) Israeli passports, (d) UN travel documents and (e) other passports since 1 January; how many are in (i) prisons and (ii) police stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by nationality, what are the numbers of persons arrested and detained without charge or trial in response to the war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many non-Iraqi Arabic or Palestinian residents in Britain have been arrested or detained over the last two weeks; from what parts of the United Kingdom they have been taken; how long they have been held; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many residents of Iraqi origin have been arrested or detained in the last fortnight; from what areas of the United Kingdom they originated, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since August 1990, 160 Iraqi and 12 other nationals living in England, Scotland and Wales have been served with notice of intention to deport them from the United Kingdom on the grounds that their deportation would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. Fifteen Iraqis left for Jordan on 23 January and about half these individuals have now left the country before deportation orders were made. At 1030 hours on 23 January 47 Iraqis, four Lebanese, three Jordanians, one Yemeni and one naturalised United State's citizen were in detention in prisons, having been detained between 15 and 18 January; 31 Iraqis were detained in police cells having been detained on 22 January and 23 January. Additionally, two Iraqis detained had been identified as serving military personnel and transferred to military custody as prisoners of war.

  Those detained have been advised of their right to make representations to the advisory panel and the majority have already done so. The decision to deport and to detain will be kept under review in the light of any representations which they may wish to make.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Ali El Salem, of 69 Hamble road, Bedford, has been detained and considered for deportation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that Mr. El Salem should be served with notice of intention to deport him from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his deportation would be conducive to the public good for reason of national security. He has been detained pending any representations which he may wish to make as to why he should not be deported. He may, if he wishes, appear before an independent advisory panel and make representations to it before it tenders its advice to my right hon. Friend. If it is decided to make a deportation order he will have a right of appeal against destination to the independent immigration authorities.

  Mr. Mullins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list Iraqi nationals resident in Sunderland who have been detained within the last 10 days; and what decisions have been taken about their future in each case.
  302
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Three Iraqi nationals resident in Sunderland have been detained in the past 10 days pending deportation on grounds of national security. I am not prepared to comment on individual cases.

SCOTLAND

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Up to 31 December 1990 the total number of reports in Scotland of people who have contracted AIDS as a result of their having received whole blood transfusions/platelets within the United Kingdom and abroad is five.

  Farm Assurance Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any discussions concerning the Scottish farmers farm assurance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend is aware of this initiative by the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

  Details of the scheme have still to be developed. In his view, however, the aims of this proposal, which are to secure consumer confidence in and demand for Scottish farm produce by developing and applying on a voluntary basis codes of best farming practice, are to be commended.

  Salmon
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any plans to introduce further controls in respect of the salmon farming industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to introduce a long-term strategy to control salmon farming.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government recognise the importance of the marine salmon farming industry in bringing economic and social benefits to communities in Scotland. Equally they acknowledge that the longer-term existence of the industry can be assured only if the natural resource base on which the industry is dependent can be used in a sustainable manner. In conjunction with the Crown Estate Commissioners the Government have therefore strengthened the procedures for open and independent consideration of the more contentious seabed lease applications for marine fish farming through the establishment of an advisory committee. The Scottish Office is currently engaged in drawing up revised guidelines covering the location and siting of marine fish farms and will consult widely before these guidelines are introduced.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link to discuss salmon farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I met representatives of Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link for this purpose on
  303
  21 January. We welcome the involvement of voluntary conservation bodies in the debate on the future of the salmon farming industry and plan to consult Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link members as part of a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the establishment of revised guidelines covering the siting and location of marine fish farms.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average time that patients wait for the results of cervical smear tests in(a) Britain, (b) Scotland and (c) each of the health board areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Figures are not available on a Great Britain basis. The average time taken to report results to patients across Scotland for the latest figures available (January to June 1990) was 30 days.

  Information for each health board is as follows:

  Health Board

  Average time in days

  Argyll and Clyde

  31

  Ayr and Arran

  21

  Borders

  21

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  Fife

  33

  Forth Valley

  29

  Grampian

  77

  Greater Glasgow

  14–7

  228

  Highland

  32

  Lanarkshire

  35

  Lothian

  15

  Orkney

  3—

  Shetland

  48

  Tayside

  14

  Western Isles

  4—

  1 high risk

  2 low risk

  3 Tests processed by Grampian HB Separate figures not readily available

  4 Tests processed by Highland HB

  Separate figures not readily available

  I regard those averages of more than 14 days as unacceptable and I instructed health boards on 13 December 1990 to achieve this average turnround time for all results by no later than 31 May 1991. Boards have already indicated that they are making progress towards this and the position will be monitored.

  Missing People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the Strathclyde police force area how many(a) children and (b) adults are known to have gone missing for each of the last five years for which he has records; and how many were subsequently traced.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the chief constable of Strathclyde police that the available information is as follows:

  Year

  Missing person reports received by the police

  Persons traced (as at 31 December 1990)

  (a) Children (aged under 16)

  1986

  5,582

  5,582

  1987

  5,701

  5,701

  304

  Year

  Missing person reports received by the police

  Persons traced (as at 31 December 1990)

  1988

  4,733

  4,732

  1989

  4,411

  4,411

  1990

  4,604

  4,592

  (b) Adults (aged 16 or more)

  1986

  3,139

  3,135

  1987

  3,442

  3,440

  1988

  3,767

  3,762

  1989

  3,862

  3,854

  1990

  3,559

  3,525

  Notes:

  1. The information given relates to reports rather than individuals. Thus if the same person was reported missing on more than one occasion he will have been the subject of more than one report.

  2. The information given does not include reports of persons missing from local authority residential establishments, prison establishments or the State Hospital, Carstairs.

  3. Of the children untraced at 31 December 1990, two had been missing for more than 28 days.

  Child Care Law
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to integrate the work of the Scottish Child Care Law Review Group with the work of law reform of the Adoption Law Review and the Scottish Law Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of the Scottish child care law review recognised the interaction between child care and adoption law. The observations made in that report about adoption have been conveyed to the interdepartmental group which is currently reviewing adoption law in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Law Commission subsequently published its discussion paper, "Parental responsibilities and Rights, Guardianship and the Administration of Children's Property". In considering the commission's final recommendations the Secretary of State will take into account the outcome of the two reviews.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to take forward the work of the Scottish Child Care Law Review Group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When the report of the Scottish child care law review was published on 19 October a wide range of organisations was invited to submit their comments on the recommendations by 14 December. A total of 79 responses have been received and are now being assessed. We shall carefully consider that assessment before deciding whether to accept the various recommendations and whether to promote legislation.

  Recycling
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the plans announced on 9 November for a programme of investment in local authority recycling facilities will be implemented in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland capital expenditure allocations are not identified separately for local authorities' waste disposal and recycling activities. It is for local authorities to make my right hon. Friend aware of their intention to incur expenditure on recycling
  305
  facilities through their financial plans. Where authorities have identified such projects in their plans, priority has been given to these projects when consent allocations have been determined.

  Conveyancing Research
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on conveyancing research by his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce that a research report on factors influencing the market for conveyancing in Scotland has been published today. I have placed copies of the report, "The Market for Conveyancing in Scotland", in the Library. The research was carried out at Strathclyde university with Scottish Office funding.

  The report concludes that there has been greater competition in conveyancing and house selling since 1985 when, with Government persuasion, the Law Society of Scotland introduced changes relating to advertising and fee quotations and abolished scale fees. The report also found that 40 per cent. of solicitors who responded were in favour of multi-disciplinary partnerships with non-lawyers. The statutory barriers to the formation of such partnerships were removed by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

  A second study which looks particularly at fees charged for conveyancing before and after the abolition of scale fees is in progress.

  Haemophilia
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many haemophiliacs in Scotland who require Factor VIII injections are given the new highly purified material from Armour Pharmaceuticals; how many are given the older material from Bio Products; and if he will break down the figures for each health board.

  Community Charge Benefit

  Percentage of community charge paying population

  With Income Support (000)

  Without Income Support (000)

  Total (000)

  per cent.

  England

  3,190

  4,070

  7,260

  20

  Wales

  270

  240

  510

  23

  Scotland

  480

  470

  950

  25

  Great Britain

  3,950

  4,780

  8,730

  21

  These figures are likely to underestimate the current position, because some authorities still had a number of unprocessed claims at the time. Not all community charge payers are eligible for community charge benefit, and it is not possible to give estimates of the eligible population for community charge benefit until the appropriate survey data becomes available.

  Note: Total does not equal sum of components because of rounding.

  Source: Housing and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System August 1990 quarterly count of claims; and Family Expenditure Survey-based analyses.
  306
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: Five patients, four in the Lothian health board area and one in Greater Glasgow, are being treated with Factor VIII produced by the Armour Pharmaceutical Company. A further 245 are being treated with intermediate potency Factor VIII concentrate produced by the Scottish national blood transfusion service (SNBTS).

  The prescribing of Factor VIII is a matter for clinical judgment, but there is no reason to consider that the current SNBTS product is less efficacious than commercial products for those patients for whom it is prescribed.

  The SNBTS keeps all its products under review, developing them in line with technological and scientific advances. I have today given my approval to the SNBTS to enter into agreement with the French blood transfusion service at Lille to exchange technological knowledge. This agreement will enable the SNBTS to produce a higher potency Factor VIII which will be available for clinicians to prescribe to haemophiliacs in Scotland in the course of 1991.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many people in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland are in receipt of(a) full community charge benefit and (b) partial community charge benefit, also giving these figures as a percentage of the total number of poll tax payers; and if he will make a statement on his estimates of the number of people who are eligible but are not claiming community charge benefit for all poll tax payers and for all those aged under 25 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available estimates, based on benefit caseload processed by 31 August 1990, are as follows:

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were(a) the total numbers of recipients and ( b) the total values of the payments made in (i) cash and (ii) constant terms under the exceptionally severe weather payments under the single payments regulations in each year from 1980 to 1988 and subsequently under the social fund exceptionally cold weather payments in each subsequent year, in Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  Figures for Scotland are not available for 1980–81, and in 1981–82, 1982–83, and 1983–84 no payments were made.

  Figures for subsequent years are as follows:
  307

  Awards

  Expenditure (Cash terms) £

  Expenditure (At 1990–91 prices)1 £

  1984–85

  1

  60

  85

  1985–86

  84,235

  1,927,991

  2,591,741

  1986–87

  291,177

  1,455,885

  1,892,421

  1987–88

  84,631

  426,583

  525,846

  1988–89

  502

  2,510

  2,884

  1989–90

  43,782

  403,157

  435,410

  1 The Gross Domestic Product Deflator has been used to show expenditure at 1990–91 prices.

  Note—Awards up to and including 1986–87 relate to the number of payments made, after then awards relate to the number of recipients during the year.

  Dangerous Loads
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines are issued to his Department's local offices regarding co-operation with other agencies in planning emergency liaison procedures in case of accident during the transportation of(a) radioactive waste, (b) nuclear warloads and (c) toxic waste.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Local offices have standing instructions on what to do in the event of local disasters. Action required includes liaison with local authorities and other appropriate agencies.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how a household of(a) below-average income and (b) above-average income is calculated.

  Mr. Jack
  In the technical annex to the publication "Households below Average Income A Statistical Analysis 1981–87", published in July 1990, pages 75 to 78 are details of the definition of income, of how income is equivalised across households, and of the calculation of average income.

  Each household's income is calculated as the total net income of all household members, either before or after housing costs. This amount is then divided by the equivalence value of the household concerned, using the DSS'sequivalence scales. This produces "equivalised household incomes", and takes account of the different income levels required by households of different compositions to achieve the same overall living standard.

  The average equivalised household income is then calculated across the whole population. Thus this average is the sum of the equivalised household incomes of all people in the survey, divided by the total number of people. Each household's equivalised income is then either above or below this average.

  Disability
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the purpose of the functional test of disability that claimants of the disability working allowance will be expected to undergo; and whether any duplication, in the evidence of disability required to be provided, will result from the new test.

  Mr. Scott
  In almost all first claims for disability working allowance (DWA) and about 60 per cent. of repeat claims the claimant's declaration that he has a308
  disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job will be accepted. The test of functional disability will be applied in other cases to provide evidence that the claimant still has a disability.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of the functional test of disability that claimants of the disability working allowance will be expected to undergo in order to ascertain whether they are at a disadvantage in getting a job on account of a physical or mental disability where their own declaration is not accepted as sufficient proof; in what percentage of cases his Department envisages the need for an additional test to provide proof of disadvantage; and what are his Department's estimates of the additional cost this test will entail.

  Mr. Scott
  In almost all first claims for disability working allowance (DWA) the claimant's own declaration will be accepted. In addition, we estimate that about 60 per cent. of second and subsequent claims will be by people whose declaration will generally be accepted without further confirmation; that is, those getting one of the higher rates of disability living allowance (the rates which are equivalent to the present attendance allowance and mobility allowance) or an analogous benefit or who were getting severe disablement allowance before claiming.

  In other cases where the claimant is applying for a repeat award of disability working allowance, the claimant will be asked to complete a questionnaire about their functional disabilities. We estimate that the cost of administering the test for these claimants will be about £0·5 million per annum.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to revise social fund loan arrangements in order to reduce the amount of staff time committed to calculating repayment schedules.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no plans to revise social fund loan arrangements at present. The microcomputer system was recently enhanced to provide more assistance to staff in the calculation of repayment terms.

  Attendance Allowance
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the six-month waiting period for attendance allowance has been waived since the relaxation of the rule for terminally ill people.

  Mr. Scott
  From 1 October to 31 December 1990 there were 14,200 awards of attendance allowance under the special rules for people with a terminal illness. This figure includes awards made on review.

  Local Office, Glasgow
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what options are currently under consideration by his Department in relation to the site of the planned Glasgow, Pollok local office; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 20 December 1990 at column 318.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will consider expanding the categories of claimant service providers to whom payments of benefit may be made directly rather than to the user to include those respite care projects administered by the archdiocese of Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. Individual cases are considered on their merits.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will consider directing offices to inform administrators of respite care projects of payments made to user claimants and carers in those cases where the authority of the recipient has been obtained; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All personal information held in social security records is regarded as confidential and is not normally disclosed to third parties without the consent of the person concerned. Where the benefit recipient has given his consent, information on benefit payments can be given to the administrators of respite care projects. This is reflected in the procedural instructions issued to staff in DSS local offices.

  Carers
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will consider undertaking a review of the presentation of explanatory information accompanying payments of benefit to carers; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Invalid care allowance is paid by order book. The information pages in the Department's order books are kept under review.

  The Department is currently engaged in producing a new version of the invalid care allowance explanatory leaflet and claim form which we expect will be available from April. A new leaflet, containing general advice about benefits and services of interest to carers, is being developed at present and will be available in the summer.

  Direct Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will consider undertaking a review of the categories and criteria under which claimant service providers may receive payments of benefits direct; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what ways the arrangements for the provision of income support for residents entering local authority trust care homes differ from the arrangements for a resident entering a private care home.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for income support is defined by regulations. They provide that income support is available in respect of fees, up to certain limits, to 310
  residents of registered residential care homes and in certain other types of homes. Independent adjudication officers decide on benefit payable and are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer in the published adjudication officer's guide, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that prior to the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act income support payments towards the cost of residential care are only made available to those individuals who actually require such care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The level of income support payable depends on the type of care the residential care home is providing for the claimant. The adjudication officer must be satisfied that the home is recognised by the registration authority as able to provide a level of care and that the resident is receiving such care. We have no evidence to suggest that residents of registered care homes do not need to be there.

  Care Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he has issued regarding the payment of care allowance for those already entitled to the married woman's share of her husband's invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Regulations govern both the award of invalid care allowance and invalidity benefit as well as the treatment of overlapping benefits. Decisions under those regulations are made by independent adjudication officers.

  Guidance to adjudication officers is the responsibility of the chief adjudication officer and is published in the adjudication officers' guide.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Car Parking
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will arrange for a report on the feasibility of using the courtyard at the rear of the Norman Shaw North parliamentary building for parking by members and their staff.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The arrangements for car parking in the Norman Shaw car park were considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in May 1988. However, I will arrange for the hon. Member's suggestion to be looked into.

  Parliamentary Pension Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the terms of his reference to the Top Salaries Review Body of hon. Members' and Exchequer contributions under the parliamentary pensions scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following discussions with the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, and subject to the views of the House, I propose to write to the chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body as follows:"At the conclusion of the debate on Parliamentary Pensions held on 17 January 1990 my predecessor said that he would examine what hon. Members had said with a view to framing a future reference to the TSRB on Parliamentary

  311
  pensions. He subsequently held discussions with the Trustees of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme and others on both the current shape of the scheme and the implementation of the recommendations made in the review body's last report (the 26th). You will have seen that I introduced a Bill to enact those recommendations and other matters this session and the Second Reading took place on [] Because of acute Parliamentary concern about the state of the Fund, we have taken the unusual step of making some changes to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF), particularly on widows' benefit, without consulting you. Nonetheless, a number of issues remain on which we would welcome your guidance.
  As debates in the House have made clear, the principal issue on which we need your advice is the question of the so-called 'balance of contributions', that is the balance between the Exchequer and Member contributions.
  The PCPF is a final salary scheme with the Member contribution determined on the basis necessary to fund benefits over the long term, leaving aside surpluses and deficits. Under section 3 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, the Government Actuary's Department (GAD), on the basis of the cost of known benefits, estimates the total contributions necessary to fund it in the long term (the total standard contribution). Since the Member contribution is fixed this yields the Exchequer contribution as a residual. Taking account of the performance of the Fund, the GAD then adjusts the Exchequer contribution to produce the rate actually paid. The effect is that the Exchequer funds deficits but, where there is a surplus, enjoys a contributions holiday. The financing system is in other words symmetrical.
  The Trustees of the PCPF, amongst others, take the view that the character of the scheme in which the Exchequer makes contributions in this way—taking the benefit of surpluses and making good any deficits—should be changed. Their preference would be for a system which held a fixed relationship between the Exchequer and Member contribution—say in the ratio of 5:3 or 60:40. To match the current system, such a system would need to be symmetrical with regard to both surpluses and deficits, implying that the Member and Exchequer contributions would move up or down together according to the state of the Fund.
  We would therefore welcome your views on the short and long term financing arrangements of the scheme and in particular what role the GAD should play. I intend that your report be debated and that the eventual government decisions on it should establish a definitive position on this issue for some considerable time to come.
  On scheme benefits, as I have mentioned, we have decided to improve widows' and widowers' pensions from half rate to irate in response to the Trustees' request for an increase to in the light of the debate in the House on 17 January 1990. In consultation with the Trustees the Government concluded that this was the appropriate response to Members' immediate concerns over the surplus in the Fund and the level of Exchequer contributions. I have made it clear that when there is no longer any surplus in the Fund Members' contributions will have to rise to meet the cost of this new level of benefit. This should not influence you in determining the Government's policy towards the financing of the Fund nor to what we consider the proper use of surpluses, generally. It was a specific action to meet a specific need.
  During the 17 January 1990 debate, however, Members also raised the question of the accrual rate. You last looked at this in 1983 when you recommended an improvement in the accrual rate from 1/60, to 1/50 I would be grateful for your views on whether a further improvement is justified and if so on the implications for contributions.
  I ought also to record some feeling among the Trustees and other Members that you should take account of experience in other Parliamentary schemes, both Commonwealth and European. Given the timescale, this might well need to be covered in a separate, subsequent Report.
  I would like to consider and debate your report as soon as is practically possible so that any necessary changes can be implemented speedily. (As you will see, the Bill includes a power to make such changes by secondary legislation). So it would be of great assistance if you could report by this April.
  I would like to conclude by thanking the Review Body for its last report under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden and
  312
  thank you in advance for agreeing to examine these complex matters. The Trustees of the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme will join me, I am sure, when I say that we are fortunate to being able to call on the Review Body's objectivity in assisting our consideration of these difficult issues."

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Farmers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist small livestock farmers in the south-west who are in difficulties.

  Mr. Gummer
  All livestock farms, including those family farms, in the south-west to which my hon. Friend refers, benefit from a wide range of Government support measures which are forecast to cost some £815 million in 1990–91.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the amount of money spent in 1990 on the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  Payments under the set-aside scheme are made one year in arrears. In the 1990–91 financial year £17.5 million has been allocated to cover payments to farmers who joined the scheme in 1988 and 1989.

  Oil Prices
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effects in the British farming industry of the rise in oil prices, since August 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information on the cost of farm inputs, including fuel and oils, is published in table 6.1 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1990", which is now available in the Vote Office.

  Brogdale Horticultural Research Station
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about progress towards finalising the sale of the Brogdale horticultural research station and the future arrangement for the national fruit collections.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is in negotiation on the terms of sale of the Brogdale site.

  The Government will continue to fund the national fruit collection at Brogdale and it is intended that arrangements for its management will be secured by a contract between the Ministry, the Brogdale Horticultural Trust and Wye college.

  Ramblers Association
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Ramblers Association to discuss the future of access 'in the countryside: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My noble Friend the Minister of State met officials of the Ramblers Association on 3 May last year when a number of matters of mutual interest were discussed.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an estimate of the number of farmers using alternatives to organo-phosphorous sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  One alternative to an organophospho-rous sheep dip product is currently licensed under the Medicines Act. No estimate is available of how many farmers use it.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  Representatives of the Consumers Association were present on 31 October 1990 at the third periodic meeting between my right hon. Friend and the office holders of consumer organisations.

  The next meeting is planned for 20 February.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Food Advisory Committee last met to discuss food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  At their meeting on 6 December 1990 the FAC continued its review of food labelling and considered also the safety of and need for two specific food additives.

  Fishermen's Incomes
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to safeguard the future incomes of British fishermen.

  Mr. Curry
  At the Council of Fisheries Ministers in December we secured the best possible quota allowances for our fishermen for 1991 consistent with maintenance of the stocks. We are considering further technical measures to safeguard those stocks.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest Fisheries Council.

  Mr. Gummer
  At the December Council of Fisheries Ministers, overall the United Kingdom secured a good package consistent with conservation of the stocks and which should benefit catchers, processors and consumers.

  National Fanners Union
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss farming matters; and if he will make a statement.
  314
  Mr. Gummer
  I frequently meet representatives of the farming unions to discuss matters of interest to the industry.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss prospects for 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  I meet the industry frequently during the course of the year.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to increase the level of payments to farmers in the south downs under the environmentally sensitive area scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  ESA payments were reviewed last month and I concluded that they were still broadly at the right levels. Farmers will, however, benefit from a single annual payment rather than in two instalments. I will be reviewing the whole scheme this year on the basis of an evaluation of its environmental and economic impact and this w:ill determine the way forward.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the export of farm animals on the hoof through the proposed Euro tunnel to mainland Europe.

  Mr. Maclean
  This Department remains ready to provide advice and to consider the practicability of detailed proposals to transport farm livestock through the tunnel. Were such traffic to be contemplated there would, of course, need to be stringent safeguards to protect the welfare of the animals in relation, for example, to ventilation and temperature.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on the farming industry which would result from a ban on live exports.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no point in carrying out such an assessment, as a ban on the export of animals would contravene the treaty of Rome and would not therefore be proposed or permitted.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made towards his goal of retaining the minimum values order in respect of exports of horses and ponies.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been no negotiations on the proposed Community regulation on the protection of animals during transport since February 1990. When negotiations resume we will continue to press for the retention of measures to prevent the export of horses arid ponies for slaughter.

  Meat Production
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentages of(a) cattle, (b) sheep and (c) pigs are (i) exported live for slaughter,

  315
  (ii) exported as carcases and (iii) consumed within the United Kingdom; and if he will give the most recent figures available for each category.

  January to September 1990

  Beef and Veal

  Mutton and Lamb

  Pork, Bacon and Ham

  Thousand tonnes (dressed carcase weight)

  Percentage of United Kingdom home-fed production

  Thousand tonnes (dressed carcase weight)

  Percentage of United Kingdom home-fed production

  Thousand tonnes (dressed carcase weight)

  Percentage of United Kingdom home-fed production

  1. Live exports1

  10·8

  1·5

  15·3

  5·5

  6·0

  0·9

  2. Carcase exports

  81·6

  11·5

  54·2

  19·4

  41·2

  5·9

  3. Remaining amounts available for consumption in the United Kingdom2

  709·7

  87·0

  279·9

  75·1

  699·4

  93·2

  1 Total live exports (other than pure·bred). A split is not available between animals exported for immediate slaughter and animals exported for further fattening.

  2 Home·fed production minus exports. Includes quantities sold into intervention.

DEFENCE

  United States Special Forces
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom location of the United States armed forces special forces operational base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Woodbridge.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to what role RAF Finningley will undertake if the Gulf dispute develops into armed conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Finningley's role as a flying training station is unaffected by current operations in the Gulf.

  Mustard Gas
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken to assess the lethal potency of mustard gas used in hot dry climates compared with cooler wetter climates.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the use of mustard gas in the first world war, many nations have conducted studies. Work was done in the second world war to assess the hazard presented by mustard in a variety of climatic conditions. The material has been continuously studied at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down to ensure that the armed forces are provided with effective protective measures. The United Kingdom abandoned its chemical weapons capability in the late 1950s and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that we would take the gravest view of any Iraqi attack using chemical weapons.

  Army Exercises
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom has ever given permission for non-United Kingdom nationals to participate in Army exercises or operations in Northern Ireland since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All members of the regular Army, regardless of nationality, are liable to serve in
  316
  Mr. Curry
  The information is in the table.

  The following table gives information both in tonnage and percentage terms for the first three quarters of 1990 (latest available).

  Northern Ireland. Members of foreign armed forces serving in exchange posts do not serve in Northern Ireland, nor do foreign units take part in operations or training there.

  Air Defence Radar
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the contract for the data processing network for air defence radar contains penalty clauses.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the contract for the integrated command and control system for the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment.

  In line with normal Ministry of Defence practice, this contract does not include penalty clauses, which are not enforceable in English law.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has set targets for the reduction in consumption of energy, with a system of energy managers and wardens to help achieve these. In addition, investment has been made in "spend to save" measures, on items such as automatic lighting controls. In the future MOD will continue to set standards and to invest in energy-efficient measures such as combined heat and power (CHP) schemes. Although in the last financial year MOD continued to make savings in energy consumption, price alterations led to an increase in expenditure of £14·7 million or 8·3 per cent.

  Gulf Forces
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contribution from each EEC country to the coalition forces in the Gulf to date(a) in manpower, (b) in aircraft, tanks and artillery and other equipment, (c) in financial support, (d) in spares and (e) others; and what steps are being taken to increase the Community countries' support in line with that of the United Kingdom.
  317
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At the outbreak of hostilities on 16 January, the United Kingdom had some 35,000 service personnel in the Gulf. Of the other EC member states, France has committed naval, land and air forces; Italy, naval and air forces; Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain have sent naval vessels. In addition the United Kingdom has received assistance from a number of EC countries, including: NBC reconnaissance vehicles from Germany; ammunition from the Netherlands and Germany, and transport from Germany, Belgium, Spain and Portugal. Belgium and Denmark have also offered medical support. We will be discussing with our allies ways in which they might help meet any future needs.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended that all members of Her Majesty's armed forces based in the Gulf should have been inoculated against hepatitis A; and how many have been.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel are given immuno-globin where it is judged necessary.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the terms of the contract for public relations given to Mr. Peter Gummer of Shandwick.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have passed this question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who will reply shortly.

  HMS Ark Royal
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests have been made to him by the United States Government for the transfer of HMS Ark Royal from NATO exercises to an active role in the Gulf; and what was his response.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have regular discussions with our United States allies on our contribution to the coalition forces in the Gulf, but no decision has been taken to deploy a Royal Navy carrier group to the region.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the changes to be made in the Army's logistic support under "Options for Change."

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work is still continuing in a number of areas to determine the size and shape of the 318
  Army's logistic support under "Options for Change". However, as the first stage in this process, it has been decided to close the following establishments with effect from the dates shown in the table.

  Date

  Moenchengladbach

  37 Rhine workshops

  31 March 1992

  Recklinghausen

  Forward vehicle depot

  30 September 1991

  Krefeld

  232 mobile civilian engineer group

  30 September 1991

  Viersen

  Ordnance services and associated supply depot

  31 March 1992

  Willich

  40 Army engineer support group

  31 March 1992

  64 (RCZ) workshop

  31 March 1992

  Antwerp

  Ordnance depot and other units at Antwerp station

  31 March 1992

  These plans take full account of the need to maintain effective support for our operations in the Gulf. Consultations on the closures have taken place with the appropriate German and Belgium authorities and NATO has been informed.

  Royal Navy (Women)
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to widen further the opportunities for the employment of women in the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We intend to widen the employment of women as aircrew to enable them to undertake aviation roles in the Royal Navy. Women will be employed initially as pilots, observers and aircrewmen in Sea King anti-submarine warfare and airborne early warning and Lynx anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare helicopters. Employment in the Sea Harriers and Commando helicopters will follow at a later stage. We intend to begin considering women for recruitment as aircrew immediately and also to seek volunteers from within the WRNS.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Harmsworth Lord Harmsworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.

Air Transport: Slot Allocations
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether at the meeting of the European Community Council of Transport Ministers on 17th-18th December 1990 it was agreed that there should be a further if informal meeting to discuss the slot allocation proposals of the Commission prior to action being proposed at the forthcoming meeting on 27th March.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Commission's slot allocation proposals were not discussed at the EC Transport Council last December. However, I understand that the Commission has now agreed a draft regulation on slot allocation, and this will be sent shortly to member states. The proposal will then be discussed fully by the Council of Ministers and its working groups. It is too early to say whether Ministers will discuss it at their meeting on 27th March.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the problem of slot allocation is a vital one for the future of our aviation industry, especially considering the recommendations made by the CAA yesterday, is the Minister able to give the House any indication of when he expects the draft regulation to be circulated to member states? Can he also give the House any help about the Government's own slot allocation consultancy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. The Commission's proposals should be circulated in the next two or three weeks. As regards the Government's own slot allocation consultancy, the consultants have recently completed stage one of the work. The Government see the work of the consultants as a valuable contribution to the debate within Europe about slot allocation methods.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear that there is no intention on the part of the Government to hand over the allocation of the slots from British authorities to European ones?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the moment the allocation of slots is not made by the Government but by the scheduling committees of the various airports themselves. I believe that the Commission's proposals make arrangements for new entrants
328
particularly if they are to come into the market. We welcome the principle of the proposal, but there is a great deal of detail that needs to be sorted out.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in the light of current difficulties being experienced by major United States carriers, does the Minister agree that at this stage the wrong signal should not be sent about the possibility of making slot allocations to new carriers, in place perhaps of Pan Am and even TWA, before any question of concessions is sought from the United States' authorities which would enable much greater freedom of the skies by British and other carriers in the United States?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We are in negotiation with the United States Government at the present time. We had a round last week and there is another next week. That is more concerned with the traffic distribution rules on which the CAA's advice was published only the day before yesterday.

National Curriculum: Pupil Assessment
3.5 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further developments there have been with the Government's plans for the assessment of 14–16 year-old pupils under the National Curriculum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has responded positively to views expressed by the teaching profession in developing his predecessor's plans for flexible assessment arrangements for 16 year-old pupils.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which I did not find very enlightening. In order to get the matter absolutely clear, can the Minister say whether the assessment for the National Curriculum at key stage 4 will be separate from the results of the GCSE, or will they be amalgamated? If an employer wants to know the results, and a young person has a grade A, B or C in GCSE, will that be the exact equivalent of the assessment for the National Curriculum?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, because the flexibility has only recently been introduced, the very specific arrangements for testing and attainment targets are still under discussion. The National Curriculum scales will be most commonly used. I promise and assure the House that all subjects will be tested against validated attainment tests. They will all be subject to consultation with the professions.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say when these matters will be straight—
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the discussions will include such bodies as the Confederation of British Industry in

329
order to ascertain what can be done to reduce the number of pupils who seem to leave school unable to read, write or to do simple arithmetic?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the first question, I can tell the House that all these matters are being addressed at this time. The House will be informed of the detailed arrangements for each subject. That links closely with the second question from my noble friend. All the reforms to be put in place are precisely to address the issue of standards. Business and technical subjects are very much a core part of the National Curriculum.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, can the Minister say how the assessments made at the school leaving age will relate to the records of achievement which the Government have already piloted? Are the Government proposing to introduce this system? How will it relate to the assessments that are made at the school leaving age?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the record of achievement is a subject for another Question. Achievement in terms of examination results is only one part of the profile of a young person leaving school.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, when these arrangements are completed will they be reduced to writing? Can my noble friend say what plans the Government have to publish them, and when?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a firm commitment on the part of Government that the outside world shall know about the achievements of our young people in school.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister say what are the Government's intentions concerning the individual school-by-school publication of results of the assessment of the National Curriculum? I believe that over a year ago there was some indication that the Government would say what they intended but, so far as I know, we have not heard anything. Can the Minister say what is intended and whether the intake of schools will be taken into account in the presentation of any results?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an entirely different Question to the one on the Order Paper.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must protest. The Question on the Order Paper is a wide-ranging one on further developments in relation to the assessment of the National Curriculum. The question of publication is absolutely crucial.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is about the method of assessment; it is not about the publication of results.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one further question. As a result of the changes in the Government's plans there will be a need for a great deal of extra finance for education. Will more money be provided to schools for the extra text books and so on which will be needed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a great deal of extra money directly related to the development of the National Curriculum. The Government will continue to address the needs of the National Curriculum when considering the budgets for schools.

Gulf War: Casualty Dispersal Plans
3.11 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that sufficient liaison has taken place with the local health authorities to ensure that any casualties from the Gulf are sent to the most appropriate hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for that very assuring response. Does the noble Baroness not agree, however, that all war wounds are of a special nature? Does she not further agree that on this occasion we may be facing wounds resulting from the use of biological weapons? We have learnt from medical staff dealing with those injured through contact with oil slicks that they have themselves been contaminated. Will that matter be taken into consideration when treating casualties resulting from the use of biological weapons? Can we be sure that the staff treating them will not be contaminated?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, arrangements exist for casualties resulting from the use of biological or chemical weapons. The immediate effects will be dealt with and treated in the war zone. Decontamination will take place there. Only the long-term effects will need to be catered for in the National Health Service.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that casualties will be dealt with in the most appropriate hospital, whether that be National Health Service or private?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, each region has considered with its managers and senior clinicians the arrangements for dispersing casualties. In some regions, specific hospitals have been designated to be on call; in other regions, all district general hospitals will stand by. Final decisions will be made in the light of the circumstances at the time. Into this context we would feed the fact that private sector hospitals have offered certain facilities. They are being taken into account and the arrangements are being made.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday that he has requested health service managers to use private hospitals to avoid existing waiting lists growing as a result of war accidents. I ask the noble Baroness for two assurances. First, will the Government ensure that in this connection private profit is not made out of those who suffer in this war? Secondly, will she give an assurance that additional funds will be made available to health authorities so that they do not suffer as a result of dealing with war casualties?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last week that we shall provide extra money to meet the full costs of any Gulf casualties. 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, even if this is deferred as a result of any casualties.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the world experts on war-related injuries are surgeons from Northern Ireland? Should they be needed, will they be called upon, or are they perhaps already in the Gulf?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, assessment of the type of expert who may be needed in relation to casualties has been taken into account and provision has been made. Some are in the Gulf and others will remain in the United Kingdom to deal with homebound casualties.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the reply she gave to my noble friend on the Front Bench will be very much welcomed by local authorities and the National Health Service? It was a good answer.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I do believe that things which are rare need to be underlined. Does she not agree that the private sector and the National Health Service will regard their treatment of our wounded or injured servicemen and servicewomen as an act of joining together in a national emergency? They will not be too concerned with the cost of the service they give.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fully agree with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. As for the second part, I take the opportunity to emphasise once again the way in which our emergency services—the ambulancemen, our doctors, nurses and all our hospital workers—respond so magnificently to emergencies in the health service: witness the Cannon Street disaster a week or so ago. In this situation, time will be on our side because there will be a time lag between any treatment given on the spot in the Gulf and the arrival of casualties in this country.

The Baltic Republics: Independence Dispute
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they consider to be the best and most appropriate ways of assisting those in the Baltic republics who are seeking independence.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we believe that the best way we can help the Baltic republics is by using our influence with the Soviet authorities to urge
332
them to negotiate with elected republican representatives to bring about a peaceful resolution to their dispute.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer and also for his Written Answer of yesterday. In view of the urgency and seriousness of the situation, will the Government consider raising the matter with the United Nations Security Council and possibly also with the International Court of Justice?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is an urgent and serious matter. He asked about raising it at the United Nations. That can be done, but one has to question whether that is the most effective way to proceed. What we want to do is to resolve the problem. The best way of resolving it is by negotiation between Moscow and the republics.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that his caution in reply to this Question is commendable? Is it not the case that a federal or confederal arrangement might be very much better than the Balkanisation of the Balkans?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not for us to say.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how the matter is to be dealt with? Is it on the agenda of the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers? If it is, what will the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, be advocating? Furthermore, while we deeply deplore the violence used by the Soviet troops in Estonia and Latvia, is the noble Earl able to say whether there is clear evidence that this was due to orders from Mr. Gorbachev? Although we appreciate that he is responsible for what takes place in the Soviet Union, was this regional action taken without his knowledge?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is still not clear on whose responsibility the latest actions were taken. When that is clear I hope to be able to bring the House up to date.
With regard to the noble Lord's first question, we shall be looking for ways in the longer term to promote the prospects of fundamental reform in the Soviet Union. Our assistance to the Soviet Union cannot continue as if in some way isolated from the real political world. I am sure that that will be raised at the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not ironic that Mr. Gorbachev is the man who opened the doors and enabled these people to protest? I agree with the noble Earl. This is a matter for negotiation between ourselves, Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Parliament. Let us see whether we can get some sense out of this extraordinary situation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree with the noble Lord that negotiation is the right way forward.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, might it be possible to remind the Russian Government that even in the days of Mr. Stalin Russia voluntarily withdrew

333
from the parts of Austria she had occupied in return for a neutrality zone and non-militarisation? Is there perhaps some way forward in that direction?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think there are lots of ways forward. Those are best pursued not by us making suggestions but by negotiation between Moscow and the Baltic republics concerned.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, following on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, can the noble Earl say whether this matter is on the agenda for the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers? If that is so, can he say what line the Government will take? Further, will they aim to achieve unity at the meeting?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know whether the matter will be on the agenda. In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, I said that I thought it most likely that the subject would be raised as it is of some anxiety. It has already been raised in the Community forum and action has been taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 30th January
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Rodney set down for Wednesday next shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules of the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Skelmersdale be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

334

Grey, E.

Hanworth, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lowry, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Renton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out; and
That a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday 6th February next at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Crime of Vagrancy (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Stallard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before we embark upon the Report stage, I should like to place on record my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for the way in which he communicated with me, and indeed with other noble Lords, in response to various points raised in Committee. That can only help the way in which we conduct the proceedings on Report and I thought it appropriate that I should place my appreciation on record.
Clause 1 [Concession agreements]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("Part") insert
(" a general environmental duty arising under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 8. I should point out at this stage that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are merely paving amendments for Amendment No. 8 which proposes that there should be a new clause placing a "general environmental duty" upon the concessionaire and the highway authority when a new private road is being built.
Like, I hope, most of your Lordships I am in favour of new roads being built by private enterprise, but surely they should not be built in ways which may damage the environment. The Bill at present makes no reference to the environmental effects of proposed privately-funded roads, nor does it deal with their effect on land-use planning policies. Surely there should be at least as much care and public scrutiny when building privately-funded roads as when building public roads. I am glad to say that the proposed new clause is supported by my noble friend Lord Norrie and that the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, have also attached their names to it.
The proposed new clause would ensure that powers given in the Bill were exercised in a way that would,
"further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty",
and so on. There are good precedents for it; indeed, there are no fewer than nine of them already on the statute book. The first is to be found in Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1957 which, I should confess, was proposed and approved in another place when I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Power. Since then other precedents have followed, the most recent of which happened to apply to privatisation Acts. The same provisions, broadly speaking, can be found in the Water Act 1989, the Electricity Act 1989 and the Coal Industry Act 1990. If it was right to legislate in that way for those three big industries, surely it must be right for us to do so when private roads are being built. I hope that this innocuous but obviously desirable and necessary provision will appeal to the Government as well as to noble Lords on both sides of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe that when private companies are given powers which have previously been the sole domain of public authorities we have an essential duty to ensure that adequate environmental safeguards are mandatory and not discretionary. That is especially important because under such conditions a developer of privately-funded roads will be seeking to balance his books as quickly as possible and environmental protection may be cut to reduce the financial burden.
Let us consider, for example, the consortium which has proposed the east coast route. On Tuesday it published its report on an extension from the M.11 over the Humber Bridge alongside the North Yorkshire moors to Tyneside. It could be that during the preparation and design stage the financial outlook of the consortium changes. Consequently, the countryside protection measures, such as major work to minimise disruption to the natural drainage system or the construction of tunnels to maintain the integrity of ancient woodlands—expensive, but vitally important—may be dropped.
We must try to prevent the countryside from being short-changed simply as a consequence of the economic outlook. We must ensure that the private developer has a legal requirement to protect and repair the countryside through which his new road will
336
pass. As my noble friend said, public authorities, including the Department of Transport, have an environmental duty under Section 11 of the Countryside Act. I believe that a similar safeguard must be passed on to the private sector through this legislation because of the major impact of roads on wildlife and the landscape of our country.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I also support the proposal in this group of amendments. It surprises me that the Government did not volunteer such a proposition in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there is ample precedent for including a provision of this kind. There could be no more demonstrable need for it than in this Bill. In a sense, we are talking about a not altogether unprecedented situation, but a largely unprecedented one, in the development of concession roads. The public are entitled to demand that the most stringent environmental standards will be deployed in these circumstances.
Amendment No. 8 is valuable because it concerns itself with the environmental implications of concession roads, and the existence of a duty along the lines proposed could help to mitigate their impact. I do not wish to pre-empt the wider proposition contained in the coming debate, but it is not irrelevant to say that two important factors arise in the context of that environment amendment.
In regard to Amendment No. 1, my first point effectively relates to localised environmental implications. It does not seek to tackle the effects the construction of a concession road could have, for example, on the Government's policy of returning carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2005. Secondly, as a condition precedent the amendment requires arrangements to be in place to ensure that the concessionaires comply with their environmental duty. That would require the type of objectives-led assessment procedure to which we will turn later.
Having said that, I support the proposition before the House and hope that the Government will welcome it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I, too, welcome the amendment. It is undoubtedly a multi-party issue; it is not necessarily a non-party issue but I am glad to say that environmental matters now stretch across party boundaries. There is no doubt that the representations we have all received from interested countryside bodies commend the amendment to the House.
When building a private rather than a public road there is perhaps a temptation, from the financial aspect, to squeeze out some of the environmental aspects that would normally be considered if the local authority or highway authority were building such a road. It is therefore important that there should be this safeguard.
No doubt the Minister will say that there is no need for the amendment and that these matters can be included in the concession agreement. I am sure that

337
that is the Government's intention, but I feel that it is not only useful but essential that the provision should appear on the face of the Bill to ensure that future governments are not tempted to go back on it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say that in regard to including that provision in a concession agreement the new clause provides for that to be done. However, there is no such requirement in the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, obviously I did not make myself clear. I commended the amendment to the House because the Bill does not contain a requirement and it therefore needs an amendment to ensure that such matters are included in a concession agreement. I hope that the Government agree.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government fully recognise and support the importance of conserving and protecting our countryside and our natural and historic heritage. Indeed, because of this we already make full assessments for our road schemes of the effect on those items listed in this amendment, and also on other factors. Our environmental appraisal procedures involve the assessment of 11 separate factors: they are more thorough than those required by the European Community and they cover a wider range of road schemes—all except the smallest local improvements. These procedures will apply equally, and no less rigorously, to roads promoted by concessionaires.
Measures to mitigate any adverse effects identified form an important part of the design of all our road schemes. The range of measures taken, in consultation with statutory environmental organisations like the Nature Conservancy Council and English Heritage, is wide and impressive. Route proposals can be realigned to avoid natural or historic features. New habitats can be created to entice creatures as varied as dormice and butterflies away from roads. On the M.40, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport opened last week, we dismantled and rebuilt a listed building.
Our procedures and practice are continually being improved. A revised version of our manual of environmental appraisal is being produced this year, and we expect shortly to receive the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on the monetary valuation of environmental effects—a subject on which we have also commissioned research. There will be further developments as the proposals for privately financed roads already on the table come to fruition. The standards applied to those roads must be the same as those applied to the Secretary of State's roads, and we should not seek to limit their application, as is implied in the phrase "so far as possible" in the amendment. We expect the same high standards to apply to the tenderers for concession agreements as currently apply for trunk roads, and indeed we shall not settle for less. I am confident that local highway authorities would not either.
I find the purpose of the amendment extremely laudable. These are important issues and it is right
338
that they are fully discussed; but I firmly believe that the existing procedures would not be improved by the amendment. Indeed, they may even be slightly damaged. Privately financed roads must, and it is our intention that they shall, be assessed by the same environmental criteria as apply to the Secretary of State's roads.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. He said that the Government's methods of appraisal in regard to the planning of these matters are wider than the European directive. Am I to understand that they are wider than the regulations that were tabled in 1988? I refer to the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 and unless I am mistaken they merely mirror the provisions of the European directive.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am told that the methods are in fact wider, as I said in my opening remarks, and involve 11 separate factors. If the noble Lord wishes I shall write to him with a full explanation of them. However, having given that assurance to my noble friend I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend has given the broad statement that the Government's proposals are wider than the European directive. He spoke of existing procedures and practice. He said, and we welcome it, that the Government intend that the same high standards will be maintained in the building of private roads as in the building of public roads. However, he has not mentioned a single legal provision to support the arguments that he used. Before I reply I give my noble friend the opportunity to quote the legal provision on which he relies. In default of that we shall have to reconsider the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give the legal provision required by my noble friend. However, all these roads will have to go through the same planning procedures as ordinary government roads. In my hand I hold an introduction to the Highways Act. I am prepared to allow my friend to see it, but I do not wish to quote from it extensively at the moment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the new clause. I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer as far as it goes. I hope that I am not presuming too much, but when he is being advised on an important matter of this kind the House is entitled to chapter and verse in regard to the provisions on which he relies. After all, statements made by him, however well worded, sincere or well-intentioned, are not part of the law.
The right course for me to take in the circumstances is this. I shall give my noble friend the opportunity between now and Third Reading of inviting the attention of all noble Lords who spoke to the amendment, including myself, to the provisions upon which he relies. My understanding is that the

339
Highways Act 1980 applies only to public roads because privately-funded roads were not even thought of when that Act was introduced.
In Clause 22 there is a difference to the Highways Act 1980, but it does not refer to any environmental factor, to town and country planning or to conservation. If he relies on that in saying that private roads will have the same treatment as public roads, I invite his attention to the fact that it does not do so. Therefore perhaps I may have the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment, on the understanding that between now and Third Reading my noble friend will produce the provisions on which he relies, if he can do so. If he cannot, we shall have to come back to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("in accordance with a scheme approved under section 16 of the Highways Act 1980 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 and it may be for the convenience of the House if we also consider Amendments Nos. 179 and 40. This is a much wider issue than that which was posed in his customary eloquent way by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The purposes of the amendments which we are moving are three. First, we are looking for a detailed environmental assessment to be made available when a concession agreement is entered into by a highway authority and concessionaire.
Secondly, we require any proposed new road constructed under the provisions of the Bill to be subject to an environmental assessment wider in its implications than those so far signalled by the Minister. Thirdly—and this is part and parcel of what I have just said—we seek to revise substantially the environmental assessment procedures for the purposes of the Bill.
I ought to say right at the beginning that there is a minor drafting error in the amendment. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause should refer to subsection (3) (g) rather than (e). No one can doubt—and this is a major part of the point deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that we are dealing here with environmental implications relating to transport policy which are of the greatest significance.
At Second Reading we deployed arguments concerning the broad issues which we are now considering. We embarked on that further at Committee stage, but nonetheless I make no apology for returning to these matters at Report stage. The matter is of considerable environmental importance and the Government themselves recognised that in their White Paper. The White Paper sought to stress a number of issues which need to be addressed if transport policy is used as a means of improving environmental quality. What it did not do—and this is a significant omission—was provide the kind of national policy commitment that is required if the
340
benefits it holds out are to be achieved. The weaknesses contained in Parts I and II of the Bill exemplify that failure.
For example, concerning global warming, the White Paper simply reiterates the Government's commitment to return carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2005. It recognises that the transport sector is a significant contributor to the total CO2 emissions and to other greenhouse gases. It identifies a range of measures which are designed to make people aware of the environmental implications of their transport machines, to improve vehicle fuel consumption and to encourage transport choice.
However, having said that, the glaring failure of the White Paper was to establish a target for the transport sector so that it would shoulder its proper share of the burden of the Government's CO2 commitment. It simply does not face up to the implications of the most recent national road traffic forecasts or the need for the Government to indicate what level of traffic growth they are prepared to accept. We know that the 1989 national road traffic forecast indicated that total traffic would increase between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. We know those facts but the Government duck the implications.
A study has been undertaken by Earth Resources Research for the World Wide Fund for Nature which I hope the Minister has read. It illustrates the tremendous atmospheric implications of traffic growth at the level suggested by the 1989 forecast. By the year 2020, at the level predicted, traffic growth would outweigh the benefits of catalytic converters; it would lead to more nitrogen oxide emissions than we have at present and between 50 and 63 per cent. more carbon monoxide emissions. Despite improvements in road vehicle fuel efficiency and assuming the lower traffic forecast, it would result in an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 20 per cent.
These matters have been addressed by a number of respectable bodies: the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities. All of them come to a similar conclusion: that it is essential that the question of what level of traffic growth to plan for is addressed by central government, involving all relevant departments of government, and by local authorities.
It is necessary in such discussions to take into account the need to ensure that transport policy contributes to a reduction in emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide. It is also necessary to consider the extent to which transport needs, which the forecast growth in demand is expected to meet, can be satisfied by alternative transport modes or by land use policies aimed at reducing the need to travel. In summary, that is what the AMA and the other organisations say.
In the amendment we wish to ensure that roads which are promoted under this Bill can be dealt with satisfactorily within a concerted effort to achieve the Government's own environmental objectives. As I said, the matter was raised at Committee stage. The Minister then said, while recognising that the environmental implications of the road schemes are significant:

341
"the right time for these matters to be debated publicly is at the public inquiry, which will thoroughly scrutinise and explore the road scheme as a whole, with the toll order. Wherever required by the Highways Act and the European Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment a formal environmental statement will be published with the draft special road scheme and toll order".—[Official Report 4/12/90; col. 108.]
If I may say so, that reply was not wholly on all fours with what the Minister had to say earlier this afternoon. I was led to suppose that the Government's policies in this regard were dictated by the regulations of 1988. Apparently that is not so; the situation is wider. We await with interest what the Minister has to say in order to discharge his responsibilities to the House in that regard.
However, the Minister's reply at the Committee stage gave rise to more questions than answers. First, the reply assumes that it is acceptable to leave the assessment of the environmental implications of a concession road to the special road scheme order and toll order stage. Secondly, it assumes that the procedures that currently prevail for environmental assessment under the Highways Act are adequate. I submit that that is not the case. The approval process for a concession road looks set to be extremely confusing, particularly for outside organisations which might attempt to monitor and influence progress. The normal process of planning consent and, in certain cases, a special road scheme will be supplemented by the concession agreement and toll order.
When we debate the proposed new clause after Clause 6—that new clause concerns publicity for toll orders—we shall be able to discuss how the process is to work in rather more detail than I propose to go into now. However, it is relevant now to point out that on the basis of the Bill, and on the basis of assurances that have been given by the Minister, the completion of the concession agreement will represent an important stage in the formulation of proposals for a concession road. This amendment would ensure that environmental considerations were properly addressed at that formative stage. That is important because effective environmental policies rely on environmental issues being addressed at an early stage in the planning process. That point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when we debated this matter in Committee. He referred to it today as well.
Another argument that could be used to support this approach is that Clause 1(4) makes provision for compensation to be paid to a concessionaire where a special scheme for authorising a road,
"is not made or confirmed".
Therefore early assessment of the environmental implications of a road should reduce the chances of such compensation being rendered necessary.
However, the key aim of our intentions is to address the defects in the procedures prevailing now for appraising the environmental consequences of road schemes. It is important to make the following point in that regard. These defects are much more significant in the case of concession roads than in relation to roads financed in the normal way. I believe
342
that point gave rise to some of the concern that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is absolutely central to the whole raison d'etre of both local highway authorities and the Department of Transport to balance competing priorities and objectives in their planning processes. That is not the case in relation to the promoter of a concession road. His overriding objective is to secure a return on investment.
The defects which we are attempting to tackle by this amendment may be summarised in the following way. First, it is important that assessments should relate to the transport needs that the road is designed to meet, complemented by an assessment of the extent to which those needs could be met in other ways, by, for example, the provision of additional public transport facilities or the use of other traffic measures. Secondly, it is important to ensure that environmental factors are given at least equal priority with, for example, time savings. The latter are given great and perhaps undue weight in current assessment criteria compared with environmental benefits as a whole. Thirdly, there is the need to recognise the fact that the provision of additional road space can of itself generate additional traffic. It is essential that this traffic generation factor, as evidenced by the M.25, should be taken into account in the process of appraisal.
Fourthly, it is important to assess the impact of a proposed new road in relation to national targets of, for example, carbon dioxide emissions. The amendment provides for the factors set out in Clause 1(3) to be amended as experience is obtained and environmental policies are developed. Our amendment has that flexibility. The amendment would provide a way of ensuring that concession roads contributed to, rather than undermined, national environmental policies.
As I have already said, I recognise that this is a more radical approach than that which was deployed when we discussed the first amendment. Nevertheless I hope the Minister will be forthcoming. He may not be able to refer, at such brief notice, to the legal precedents that have been demanded by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for some of the propositions that the Minister has advanced. I hope that we can come back to that point. My propositions are perfectly respectable. I should add that they come from other sources apart from myself. As I said earlier, a wildlife body and a local authority association have produced remarkable documents which I commend to the House in general but especially to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the comprehensive review of this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has given. However, I should underline the fact that the whole question of CO2 emissions is one that needs to be taken more seriously than has been the case in the past. It must be acknowledged—the Government's White Paper acknowledges this fact—that something like 20 per cent. of total CO2 emissions come from

343
transport sources. Those emissions contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. We should be chary about excluding a small sector from the stringent environmental requirements imposed on public highways. I should like to see the amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I support the principles behind Amendments Nos. 3, 40 and 179. Once again the role of environmental assessment in determining both public and private projects has been raised. I was pleased that the Government recognised the importance of environmental assessment during our recent debates on the planning and compensation Bill. I hope that my noble friend can be helpful to us today. The range of matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is immense, but many of the points need careful consideration. We need a clear reply from the Government on whether environmental assessment will apply to all privately funded roads.
In Committee my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated that privately funded roads would be subjected to the same scrutiny as public roads. However, my noble friend the Minister is aware that I am not convinced that the present arrangements for environmental assessment are terribly clear, even for public roads. We must be certain that the environmental assessment of privately funded roads forms an essential component of any such proposal. I hope the Government accept that there is concern over the implications of privately funded roads and the countryside. The example of the east coast route, mentioned when we discussed Amendment No. 1, is a good one. We need a clear response that recognises these concerns and secures environmental protection within the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, as they have expressed them, but I have not really ascertained whether the terms of the new clause are the best way of trying to achieve them. Let me take the question of atmospheric pollution caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles and its influence on the greenhouse effect. To introduce that issue somewhat indirectly and selectively through this amendment, and in relation simply to the privately funded new roads, is too narrow a way of dealing with what is really a very broad and fundamental issue. If the issue is to be dealt with—I realise there is controversy about that—it should be dealt with in the broadest possible way so as to make any solution effective. That is one doubt that I have about the new clause and the reasons put forward for it.
Then I have a purely legislative doubt. In subsection (3) we find that the Secretary of State is to make regulations to pursue certain detailed objectives, which are set out. It is a valiant attempt to cover the matter but the details in paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (3) should themselves be the subject of secondary legislation rather than being written into the Bill. One is not sure that they are exhaustive, and they are very detailed. It would be better to avoid going into such detail in the Bill.
344
Somewhat reluctantly, I find myself unable to support the new clause. I say that with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because I respect the purpose that he has in mind.
4 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can understand the considerations that led to the amendments but I cannot commend them to the House. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 3 and 179, which have difficulties of their own unconnected with the proposed new clause. They would require us to follow a very different procedure in awarding concessions than the one we have followed up to now. Frankly, I do not think that the procedure would work.
I must stress one point. We must beware of any change in procedure which would lengthen the time between publishing draft schemes and others and the start of construction. Such delays merely prolong the period of blight and uncertainty for those whose properties may or may not be affected by the scheme. So we must go into a public inquiry with a concessionaire fully committed and ready to build and operate the road if the proposals before the inquiry are approved. In all, or virtually all cases, there must be a competition to select a concessionaire, so it must take place before the publication of the draft scheme. Indeed, the concessionaire will normally design the scheme, so the competition must take place some time before. Moreover, it is not fair to the tenderers who are not selected if they are kept waiting too long before a result is declared.
Noble Lords opposite may have some misunderstanding about the nature of a concession agreement. Anything in the agreement which specifies work to be done after obtaining authorisation to build the road must be conditional on that authorisation being obtained, and there must be provision in the agreement for what will happen if the scheme is abandoned or modified as a result of the statutory process. However, if, as the amendment requires, the highway authority submits the scheme to public inquiry without a clear undertaking by the private sector promoter to build the road and possibly without even a fully worked up design for the road, it would, frankly, be wasting the time and money of all concerned, including the objectors.
I turn now to the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 40 in which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as he said, seeks to extend the debate to road-building in general and connected environmental problems and to various matters concerning CO2 emissions and other aspects, as my noble friend Lord Renton said. I accept fully the importance of assessing new road proposals, from the environmental as well as the economic point of view, before the decision to build them is taken. That is important for conventional as well as for concession roads, and for local as well as trunk roads.
I must emphasise that toll roads will be treated like any conventional road. That means that they will be subjected to the same strict methods of assessment as

345
are currently applied to trunk roads under the existing procedures. Those methods, including cost-benefit analysis and the Manual of Environmental Appraisal, are well established, sound methods that fully implement the requirements of the European directive on environmental assessment. That directive is binding on all our road schemes likely to affect the environment, a fact not recognised by the amendment, which seeks under subsection (7) to exclude from the directive schemes covered by the amendment.
The amendment attempts, with fair success, to set out a list of matters to be covered in an assessment. However, it does not discriminate between matters relevant to particular roads and those relevant to the programme as a whole. It treats alike small and large road improvements. It omits many issues which seem to be at least as important as those included. I see no reference to safety, for instance. New and improved roads are safer than old ones built to old standards, and road improvements save lives. I see no reference to economic development. Noble Lords will be aware that parts of the country where jobs are scarce seek road improvements to attract business and industry. I see no reference to by-passes and the enormous improvement they can make to living conditions of people in towns and villages. All those matters and more are already assessed under the existing procedures.
My noble friend Lord Norrie mentioned the proposals for a new East coast motorway. We in the department have not yet had those proposals put to us formally. However, provisions in Section 106A of the Highways Act 1980 and the regulations made under them will apply to any concession roads because they will be public highways and not private roads. They may be privately financed but they will be public highways.
The amendment appears to be an attempt at a general amendment to existing highways legislation. I do not believe that it would be an improvement on the existing procedures. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I do not believe that this Bill is the right forum for making sweeping amendments of that sort to our highways legislation.
I fear therefore that I cannot accept the proposal to prevent the award of concession agreements before schemes have been made or to insert a new environmental provision into the Highways Act.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his support. I turn immediately, but briefly, to the criticisms levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The list that is included is not, as he inferred, exhaustive. The phrase included in the second line of subsection (3) of the proposed new clause is:
"shall include in accordance with regulations".
If the Government were to accept the principles which we have set out in the proposal, or if the new clause were successful, I should be prepared to accept their being specified in the regulations.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. There was not a hint in what he said of his questioning any of the assumptions which
346
currently prevail. It appears that they are absolutely perfect. I cannot accept that, for the reasons to which I alluded earlier. The noble Lord then went on to say that the provisions that we have inserted in subsection (3) were not sufficiently wide-ranging. He went on to criticise them because they did not refer to questions such as safety. If it were necessary to introduce such a provision it would be possible to do so within the terms of subsection (3), for the reasons that I have indicated.
I am not satisfied that the Minister has done more than to throw up a red herring, because questions of safety would be dealt with in any event in procedures that currently prevail and with which we have no quarrel. To some extent we would be supplementing procedures covering such issues.
There is no reference to economic development and safety because we are dealing primarily with an environmental assessment. The Minister can go on to widen the matter and raise questions affecting, if he wants, the balance of payments, but it would not be terribly helpful. We are talking about an environmental assessment. I believe that the other criteria to which he made reference would stand.
I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. As I indicated, he does not seem to perceive that there is any room for improvement in the present procedures whereas I believe that there is every room to consider change and to undertake change very rapidly indeed. I do not accept that this is the wrong vehicle to do that and because the Minister has been so negative I feel that I must take the opinion of the House.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Blease, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jeger, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kagan, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kennet, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Devonshire, D.

Meston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

347

Rea, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Richard, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

Rochester, L.

Underhill, L.

Sainsbury L.

Varley, L.

Seear, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stallard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Stedman, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Knights, L.

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V

Luke, L.

Bauer, L

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lytton, E.

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boardman, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Bridges, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Moyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Caithness, E.

Norfolk, D.

Caldecote, V.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Northbourne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pender, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pennock, L.

Cockfield, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cox, B.

Quinton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Richardson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Downshire, M.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Effingham, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sandys, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Elton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Terrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Teviot, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hemphill, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Waddington, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) A concession agreement relating to the design and construction of a special road shall provide that if the concessionaire fails to complete the road in accordance with the agreement, he shall, without prejudice to any other
348
liability, pay to the highway authority such amount as may be determined in accordance with the agreement in respect of costs incurred by them.
Those costs shall be taken to include the relevant administrative expenses of the authority, including an appropriate sum in respect of general staff costs and overheads.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 18. These amendments stem from the promise that I made at Committee stage to the effect that I would consider further whether to provide in the Bill for indemnifying the highway authority for its costs if a concessionaire abandons a project after an agreement has been made. One of the amendments is in my name, one in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, and the third, to Part II, in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
The amendments to Clause 1 differ in three significant respects. First, the noble Lords opposite have included the words "maintenance, operation or improvement", although they are not in subsection (4), which is the amendment's mirror image. I do not think that this imbalance is desirable. What we are concerned about is failure of the concessionaire to get the road built not with shortcomings thereafter, which are dealt with, for instance, in Clause 2. The use of the words "fail to complete" in my amendment emphasises the nature of the concern while "decides not to proceed with" is a little ambiguous.
Secondly, my amendment provides in terms that the highway authority's costs should include its internal administrative expenses. Noble Lords may recognise a similar form of words, designed to avoid disputes, in Clause 20.
Thirdly, most interestingly noble Lords opposite have protected the concessionaire in circumstances where his failure is a consequence of a failure by the highway authority. That is a very reasonable thing to do, but it is unnecessary. The concession agreement will include in it the obligations of the highway authority, and a failure by that authority would mean that the concessionaire's failure to complete the road would not be "in accordance with the agreement". It is no part of the purpose of this Bill to formulate the detailed provisions of concession agreements. These agreements will, within the constraints of the legislation, be negotiated at arm's length, and I am confident that a highway authority will, in the course of those negotiations, be able to formulate whatever detailed provisions are needed to protect its interests.
But there is very little indeed between us. I hope I can confidently invite the House to accept my amendment and the parallel Scottish one to Clause 24, and I trust that noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw theirs. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister has explained, the amendment in the name of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is included in this grouping. The effect of the amendment would be to require a concessionaire to compensate a highway authority if the concessionaire decided not to pursue proposals for a privately funded road.

349
The amendment makes clear that compensation would not be payable where the concessionaire's decision was the result of a failure on the part of the authority. The Government's amendment as explained to us provides for compensation to be payable,
"if the concessionaire fails to complete the road",
and the noble Lord the Minister said that this was the primary concern.
At present, the Bill provides in Clause 1(4) for a highway authority to compensate a concessionaire if the special road scheme authorising the road is not made, or if the authority decides not to proceed with the road. There could well be circumstances in which plans for a privately funded road are dropped by a concessionaire, but there is no scope in the Bill for compensation to be paid to the highway authority. There is no recognition of the fact that the highway authority's resources would possibly have been deployed in protracted discussions and negotiations with the developer.
It may be recalled that at the Committee stage I proposed an amendment designed to redress this balance and the noble Lord the Minister acknowledged that compensation should be paid in these circumstances. I think that he has so indicated this afternoon. The Minister argued that the amendment was not strictly necessary, because such a provision could be included in the concession agreement. The word "could" is very important. We want to ensure that it is included and that this provision to which our amendment refers is carried.
The Minister went on to say:
"There may, however, be merit, if strictly no need, to have in the Bill the provision proposed in this amendment. I can certainly see that there is justice in having the balance". —[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 120.]
The Minister went on to argue that the amendment tabled was unacceptable, because it would make a concessionaire liable where the decision not to continue with the road had been forced by the highway authority. The Minister added that he would undertake to consider this matter further, and the Government amendment fulfils that undertaking.
There will be quite a number of references this afternoon to the fact that the Minister has carried out the undertakings which he gave at the Committee stage. But without endeavouring to bring an unpopular note into the debate, I only wish—and I am certain that other noble Lords will wish—that we did not have to wait so long for the Scottish Minister and the Scottish Office to bring forward their amendments. The Committee stage was held on 4th December, and it is only this week that we have had a mass of Scottish amendments, so it has given us a certain worry to see where they fit in. I hope that the matter, which is not the fault of the Minister, will be looked at to avoid such a happening in future.
The Government amendment is preferable to that in the names of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in one important respect. It makes absolutely clear that the costs to be paid to the
350
highway authority should cover administrative expenses, including staff costs and overheads, and the inclusion of that fact in the Government amendment is to be welcomed. However, there are two important areas of concern in relation to that amendment.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, refers to circumstances in which a concessionaire decides not to proceed with a proposed road. This mirrors Clause 1(4) which covers a special road scheme not being made, or the highway authority deciding not to proceed with the road. However, the Government amendment simply refers to circumstances in which the concessionaire fails to complete the road. When the Minister replies, will he confirm that the Government amendment is intended to cover circumstances in which a concessionaire fails to begin constructing a road, as well as a failure to complete it, and that that would have legal authority?
The second area of concern relates to the use of the word "costs". Clause 1(4) requires a highway authority to pay "compensation in respect of costs". The amendment tabled at Committee stage used the same phrase in respect of a concessionaire's liability to a highway authority. At that stage, the Minister did not at all query that aspect of the amendment proposed in Committee. The present amendment repeats the phrase "compensation in respect of costs", yet there is no reference in the Government amendment to compensation. At the Committee stage, the Minister accepted the case for balance and we welcomed that, but the existing subsection and the amendment appear to be imbalanced. Will the Minister kindly explain why the Government refer to "costs", rather than to "compensation in respect of costs"?
If the Government amendment is carried, will the Government be prepared, in the light of what the noble Lord has said about balance and the remarks made at Committee stage, to bring forward further Government amendments to cover the points made not only by myself but by himself this afternoon?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I merely want to thank the Minister for having brought forward his amendment at this stage, and also to join with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in saying that it is unfortunate that at the Report stage of a Bill like this the Scottish amendments came through so late. I have every confidence that the amendments in relation to Scottish law will mirror the amendments put down to the English and Welsh parts of the Bill.
But the noble Lord the Minister and his colleagues must realise that we on the Opposition Benches do not have the amount of support and detailed expertise that he has in skimming through complex amendments, and there could be within the Scottish amendments minor points which need to be commented on. So to have only 48 hours' notice of these amendments on a difficult Bill, which has been handled in a complex but perfectly logical way, does not make our life any easier.

351
Having said that, and as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there are features of the Government amendment which take the matter slightly further than the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and myself. But I should like also to underline the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made and to ask the Government to reiterate that the amendment covers those cases where a concessionaire fails to start the construction of a road, as well as his failure to complete it. Also, will the noble Lord give us a clear answer on the question of costs and compensation? With those words, I once again thank the Minister for having taken this matter seriously and for coming forward with an amendment which I am sure will be acceptable to your Lordships.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have welcomed the Government amendment. I am also grateful that they have acknowledged that we have fulfilled the undertaking that we gave at Committee stage. Obviously, I should like to look in more detail at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made before replying to them today.
The amendment is intended to be a mirror image of subsection (4) and, as far as possible, it is so. Clause 1(4) refers to "compensation in respect of costs" but the amendment refers to an "amount" in respect of costs in each case to be determined in accordance with the agreement. I assure noble Lords that the differing terms have exactly the same effect. I shall read the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and if I can clear up any further uncertainty I shall write to him.
I apologise for the fact that the Scottish amendments were tabled a little late. I suspect that was because the English draftsmen were working hard to keep to the undertaking to table certain amendments. We then asked the Scots to make mirror images of them. I am certain that they are mirror images, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. However, I shall take on board the point that was made and hope that noble Lords will agree to our Amendment No. 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each calendar year lay before Parliament a report stating—

(a) the number of concession agreements entered into by him during that year, and

(b) the number of new roads opened to public use during teat year for which he is the highway authority and which at the time of their opening were subject to a concession,

and containing such other information relating to roads subject to a concession as appears to him to be appropriate.
The report shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. I hope that the amendments will commend themselves to noble Lords who, in Committee, expressed the fear that Parliament would not be kept informed about the making of concession
352
agreements and the roads built in accordance with them. Although I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to make regular reports on the progress of that policy, there is something to be said for having such arrangements formalised in a statutory requirement so that they are not overlooked. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for carrying out an undertaking that he gave in Committee. The Government amendment implements the commitment that he gave to consider producing a report to Parliament at regular intervals on roads proposed under the Bill. He may recall that in Committee a detailed amendment was tabled seeking parliamentary scrutiny of such matters.
The amendment appears to be useful so far as it goes. It will ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of Part I, albeit minimal. Central to the extent to which it proves effective will be the type of information that the Secretary of State includes in his report. Will the Minister explain what is meant by the phrase:
"such other information relating to roads subject to a concession as appears to him to be appropriate"?
The provision could be helpful but we need an explanation of those words.
The primary aim of the amendment proposed in Committee was to ensure that the concession agreements were published and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The publicity aspect is being pursued at this stage in another amendment. Parliamentary scrutiny is raised again in relation, for example, to lorry-only roads. The amendment should be welcomed as a useful step in the right direction but I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the words to which I have referred.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we intend to give as much information as might be thought to be helpful to Parliament. An example of a case in which "such other information" would apply is a local authority concession road. The Secretary of State will report on Secretary of State roads but we could include information on concession roads which local authorities have undertaken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) A concession agreement shall provide that the costs of policing the special road, and of the provision of fire or ambulance services to any point on the road, shall be borne by the concessionaire.
(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the costs of the services referred to in subsection (5) above shall be determinable according to a formula issued and from time to time revised by the Secretary of State after consultation with such persons, including persons representative of local police authorities, as appear to him to be concerned.
(7) Any dispute as to the application of the formula referred to in subsection (6) above in any particular case shall be referred by the Secretary of State to arbitration, and the determination of the arbitrator shall be final.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Minister did not consider me discourteous in failing to echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for

353
tabling Amendment No. 5. I was distracted at the moment when the Minister rose to speak but he has my thanks.
In Committee I raised the question of the cost of policing on the roads now under discussion. We have returned to the subject following the Minister's response. He said that it was the Government's intention that:
"when a promoter puts forward a proposal for a road which is not in the highway authority's existing programme, and which it would not itself have provided, it should be made clear from the beginning—for instance, in the tender invitation document—that policing costs will fall to the concessionaire. I do not think that it would be fair to the concessionaire to leave entirely to the police authority determination of the amount that should be paid, as this amendment seeks to do. Some form of a formula or provision for arbitration might be required. I do not believe that any provision in the Bill is needed for that. However, there are some implications for the rule of contract and if a provision would be helpful, I shall certainly come back to it".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 122].
We awaited a Government amendment with interest but none was tabled.
Our amendment extends the argument to cover not only the police but the emergency services. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that I put before the House at the previous stage. It also meets two points raised by the Minister in Committee. It refers to the adoption of the formula approach and includes provision for arbitration. There are serious anxieties about two points made by the Minister in Committee. First, he attempted to differentiate between concession roads that form part of a highway authority's own plans and those which do not. He argued that the concessionaire should meet policing costs in respect of the latter but did not mention it in respect of the former. There is a strong argument that roads which do not form part of the authority's plan should not be built, but the reality is that all concession roads will be built for profit. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate that policing should form an element of the cost to be met by the concessionaire, whatever the status of the road in terms of the authority's policies. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, argued that this issue should be handled through the invitation to tender, but no reference was made, for example, to the concession agreement.
Will the Minister explain why he considers that issues such as long-term maintenance should feature in the concession agreement but not the vitally important subject of policing costs and other services? The principle of what was discussed in Committee was broadly accepted by the Minister and I am sorry that he has not brought forward an amendment to cover the point. It is an important point and I hope that this afternoon he will give a favourable response. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am surprised that the Minister has made no provision for arbitration in this regard, although he has met the Opposition's anxiety in Part
354
III. I am grateful to him for that and shall no doubt say so later. It is strange that there should be such a dramatic inconsistency in that respect.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about the inconsistency in some of the other arguments that were adduced by the Minister in Committee; for instance, the question of differentiating between concession roads forming part of a highway authority's own plans and those that do not. Why is the concessionaire required to meet policing costs on roads which do not form a highway authority's own plans but not in respect of those which do? The Minister should be pressed about those matters.
During the debate that took place on 4th December the noble Lord, Lord Harris, argued strongly that matters other than the matter of arbitration—he was not at one with us on that point—should be addressed on the face of the Bill. I think that the noble Lord is right about that. There should be an element of transparency in relation to the public. The public are entitled to information about such matters and cannot go scrabbling through tenders and agreements. The public ought to have information of that kind before them, which is not presently the case. Consequently the Minister needs to address those matters cogently.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my learned friend will reject the amendment. If a concession road is part of the highway authority's plan, I can see no reason why an extra charge should be imposed on the concessionaire in respect of policing. From a long term point of view the cost of policing is not being increased; the road is simply being financed in a different way. An extra charge would put an unnecessary burden upon the concessionaire.
Equally, whether a road is or is not a part of a highway authority's plan, why should ambulance charges be imposed upon the concessionaire? The ambulance service exists to help people who are hurt or in trouble, wherever they may be and whatever happens to them. Such an experience is no more likely to happen to someone because there is a concession road than if there is not. Indeed it would be less likely to happen because the more roads there are, the more the traffic will be dispersed and less intense. If anything, there is likely to be less call for ambulances as a result of the construction of the road.
The proposal in the amendment is one among a large number of amendments that have been put forward by the Opposition, all of which seem to be designed to make the building of concession roads less attractive. Toll roads do not come within the ideas of the Opposition. They do not like them because they do not like private enterprise proposals. For that very reason, we should be careful not to discriminate against them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is unusual for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to engage in fallacious arguments of that kind—at least I hope that it is; I have not been in the House long enough to know.

355
Our concern is not to defeat the whole proposal; our concern is to ensure that such roads are compatible with good safety and environmental policies and are equitably financed. This is one element of financing about which we take the view that policing costs should fall on the concessionaire. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to disagree about that matter, but I do not think that he is entitled to introduce the bogus arguments to which he sought to refer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has never, in my experience, indulged in fallacious arguments before this afternoon, but he has done so now. It is untrue to say that the amendment is concerned with safety. It has nothing whatever to do with the provision of ambulances, which are provided in any event. It is concerned with the costs of providing the ambulance service, and that is quite distinct from any question of safety.
The noble Lord does not seem to have applied his mind to the fact that the ambulance service is paid for out of central and local taxation and that it is designed to help all of us if we are hurt or in trouble. The cost is not being extended by the construction of a toll road. As I sought to argue, the cost may be diminished because of the greater dispersal of traffic.
For that reason this is a bad amendment. It is not, as the noble Lord seems to think, equitable; it is inequitable and seems to be designed, as so many of the amendments of the noble Lords opposite are designed, to make the provision of toll or concessionary roads less attractive, and therefore less likely to be constructed.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I apologise for not being present at the Second Reading or the Committee stage of the Bill. I am prompted to intervene this afternoon because I am concerned about the wider implications of the amendment, should it be accepted.
Clearly, police powers, duties and responsibilities in general extend equally to private areas as they do to public areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that that situation applies equally to the ambulance service. I should like to go further and state that it applies equally to the fire service. No one suggests that when a new shopping centre or theatre is erected the policing of it, or the providing of an ambulance or fire service, should be charged to the builders. It matters not whether their services are required on a motorway or on a private housing estate: when called for, they are bound to respond, without charge. I can see no justification for making special provision for toll roads. If it is appropriate to make a charge for services in relation to toll roads, what is the position in regard to motorway service areas or Football grounds?
The police discriminate between public and private areas only in so far as uniformed patrolling is concerned. All other services are extended equally, whatever the nature of the area. However, by tradition they have only routinely patrolled areas to which the public have an unrestricted right of access. There are
356
good reasons for that situation, if only because much of the law relating to public order and nuisance, which are the kind of events with which police patrolling is designed to deal with, does not extend to private places. The public may enter private places only with the owner's permission, unless the circumstances justify the use of powers of entry that are authorised, for example, by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Where does that leave toll roads? At the Committee stage the Minister indicated on several occasions that toll roads will be highways. He has repeated that point today. He indicated that all the law relating to other highways will apply equally to toll roads. I assume that that is the effect of Clause 22(3) of the Bill. If that is the situation, will not the police in any event have a duty to patrol them and enforce the other highway laws whether or not the concessionaire has to pay for the services? If that is the correct situation, which I challenge, what will be the position in regard to existing motorway service areas?
It has been suggested that policing toll roads could be compared with policing football matches. However, the police officers for whom football clubs pay are there to discharge the responsibilities of the football clubs, for example by preventing incursions into the football pitch, marshalling and controlling spectators, searching, and the ejection of trespassers. In any case the provision of police officers at football matches is within the discretion of the local chief constable. I cannot see why such a position should exist in respect of toll roads. The police will be required and there should be no question about any local decision that they are not.
The arrangements for policing airports may be a better parallel, but I suggest that that would require a specific statutory provision. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who suggested that that should be written upon the face of the Bill although, as I have already indicated, I do not believe that there is a case for it at all. It certainly should not be left to a clause in a concessionaire's agreement.
I believe that these roads are much better compared with the walkways through, for example, private areas designated under the Highways Act. No one has ever suggested that police patrolling those areas should be paid for. Clearly, the arrangements for policing those roads have much wider implications than appears at first sight. They need to be discussed in much greater detail than appears yet to be the case with police authorities as well as with the Association of Chief Police Officers, if indeed it is felt that a charge should be made at all. I do not believe that I could support the present amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss the position of the fire or ambulance services today; nor do I intend to become involved in an interesting ideological dispute with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose contributions we always enjoy. Apart from anything else, that would be pointless because I have no ideological difficulty about toll roads. I have often wondered why we have not had toll roads in this country. I am not opposed to the principle. I am merely anxious about

357
one issue; namely, whether it is appropriate to have a public subsidy for the concessionaires. The issue is whether the concessionaire should be required to pay the full economic cost. That is not to discourage him from becoming involved but simply because I see no conceivable ground for subsidies of that character.
I very rarely disagree with my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Knights. Unhappily on this occasion, I do. The Minister has already told me in a letter, for which I am grateful, that this matter has not yet been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Therefore, I have no idea what would be their collective view. However, a number of chief police officers have approached me over the past few weeks to express serious anxiety as to whether they are to be required to provide quite substantial additional resources to police roads constructed at the behest of concessionaires.
It is not surprising that they should express such anxieties given the fact—and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will recall this matter because we discussed it at Question Time on Tuesday—that, as a result of the pressure on police budgets and the risks of rate capping, there is an imminent prospect of a reduction of over 1,500 officers in the six largest police forces in this country, an abandonment of their capital programmes, no new police cars, and so on.
If they are to be required to provide police cover for new roads constructed as a result of pressure from concessionaires—and as I have already indicated I have no objection to that in principle—I can see no reason why they should be subsidised in this way, particularly at a time when there is such immense pressure upon police budgets. People will not understand a situation in which there is a risk of fewer police officers on the streets and yet a public subsidy to private concessionaires. I believe that people will find that very difficult to understand.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why he believes that the police should not be paid for policing a concession road which is within the highway authority's plan but only if it is a concession road not paid for by public funds by the highway authority?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, had the noble Lord had the good fortune to be present at our last discussion on this matter, he would have heard the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, deal with that question. He made it clear that the Government saw a difference between those roads that were in a highway authority's programme and those that were not. I merely draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to Hansard on 4th December at col. 122.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the problems relating to this issue, some of which were touched upon during our discussions in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to the position of football grounds. I do not propose to take issue with him because I thought that the answer to his anxiety was dealt with by the Minister. He indicated that the
358
Government consider that there is a relationship between the approach on this matter and the question of football grounds. Therefore, in so far as there is a dispute, it is between the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and the Minister.
Perhaps I may take the other examples which were not dealt with. First, perhaps I may deal with the question referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon; that is, the question of airports and the British Airports Authority. The Minister dealt with that matter and I should say to him that when the British Airports Authority police was wound down following the 1974 Act and responsibility was passed to the Metropolitan Police, Sussex police, West Midlands police, Greater Manchester police and so on, there were two requirements: first, that the airport user should pay, which was challenged by nobody; and, secondly, that if there was a dispute as to whether the claim by the police was reasonable or unreasonable, there could be a form of arbitration. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to that in Committee. However, if matters of this sort are going to be dealt with, they should be dealt with on the face of the Bill and not in some form of private contractual arrangement.
I referred on the last occasion to the Channel Tunnel. In that case the concessionaires must pay the full economic cost to the Kent Police Authority. There is no question of a public subsidy. The cost is massive and over 200 police officers in the new Kent Constabulary will have to be paid for by the concessionaires. There is no question of a subsidy.
As regards London Underground, for which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is departmentally responsible, London Transport has to pay. Very recently a number of officers from the Metropolitan Police have been added to the strength of the British Transport officers working on the London Underground. London Underground has to pay for that as well. Again, there is no question of any form of subsidy.
There is then the interesting question of large private shopping areas on which there has in the past been disagreement between some chief police officers and others. When those were constructed it was argued that tens of thousands of people would go there at weekends. Who was to pay for the security cover? Initially one or two chief officers agreed to provide that cover but, having estimated what were the full implications as regards their resources, they drew back. In the overwhelming majority of cases—I do not suggest all—the concessionaire, constructor or developer must pay the full cost of providing security cover.
On this occasion all I am saying is that, putting on one side the ambulance and fire service situation, which is a different matter, although it is dealt with in this amendment, I believe that, as regards the police, there must be a clear indication that their costs will be met, particularly when the highway concerned is not in the highway authority's programme. That was the position of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, when he last discussed the matter.

359
Speaking for myself, if someone is in the business of constructing a road for private profit, then I hope that he is commercially successful. I have no ideological opposition to that at all. However, I am strongly opposed to the public being required to meet police costs in matters of this sort. In my view they should clearly rest on the developer of the road. I should be very disappointed if at the end of the discussions in both Houses of Parliament there were not a clear provision in the Bill to that effect.
5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on the amendment. First, I recognise that in moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has attempted to meet one of the points I made against a similar amendment at Committee stage, which was that if and when a concessionaire did pay the policing costs of a concession road it would not be fair to leave determination of the amount to the police authority. But I trust still resist the amendment.
Perhaps I may reiterate what I said before, since its implications may not have been fully comprehended. Concession roads under the Bill will be highways. The Secretary of State or a local highway authority will be the highway authority. They will not be privately-owned; Clause 1(3) of the Bill makes that perfectly clear. The public will have their common law rights to use them as highways, subject of course to their paying the toll. So the general presumption should be that these highways will be policed in the usual way. I think I can give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Knights.
However, there may be an exception. I return to what I said at Committee stage, which has been raised again by noble Lords, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, this afternoon; that is, that there could be a case for distinguishing between roads which are in a highway authority's programme and would be provided by the authority whether or not there were a concession and ones which would not have been provided at all but for the initiative of a promoter. There may be a case for the cost of policing the latter category to fall to the concessionaire. If this is to happen, that should be made clear from the beginning; for instance in the tender invitation document.
A number of noble Lords have raised the subject of discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers. This would be an issue of government policy on the financing of police services, about which my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary are in contact. It is not an operational matter. The policing of concession roads will be at the total discretion of the chief constable.
However, I cannot accept a requirement on this subject in the Bill; nor does it seem to me that the extension noble Lords now propose to fire and ambulance services has anything to commend it. Fire and ambulance services on concession roads are provided to the people who need them—usually, I fear, those involved in accidents—and paid for out of
360
public funds, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. It would be quite unacceptable to treat concession roads exceptionally and charge those costs to the concessionaire.
If an accident occurs which requires the assistance of the ambulance service, whether it is on a privately financed toll road or a public highway, the costs of that attendance will always be met by the local health authority concerned. No one would ask a factory owner on whose property a serious industrial accident had taken place to meet the costs of providing ambulances. That might imply that he would also have to pay for the hospital treatment of those injured. That requirement in this amendment would be wholly unreasonable and would be without precedent.
Similarly, incidents on these roads would be treated in exactly the same way as accidents on any other roads so far as the costs of the fire service are concerned. Fire authorities' statutory duties in the Fire Services Acts of 1947 and 1959 do not make any distinction between fires which occur on different types of road, publicly or privately financed. Fire authorities will thus have a duty to attend fires on privately funded roads in the same way as they have a duty to attend any other fires.
For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment, but if he does I hope that noble Lords will not accept it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have no intention of pressing this to a Division at this stage. I have no doubt it is a matter that will be returned to when the Bill proceeds on its way in another place.
In a situation like this it is difficult to have to go back to the Second Reading and Committee stage arguments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just taken us. I think my noble friend Lord Harris has dealt with most of the points, but I should like to reiterate that, like him, at no stage have I objected to the principle of privately funded roads. I have said that at every stage of the Bill, and I think it is unfortunate that that accusation should be made against those on this Bench who are moving the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the accusation was not levied at those on that Bench; it was levied at the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that, but he should try to distinguish between the two Benches. They are quite distinct in their own ways, although they overlap occasionally when they find themselves in opposition to the Government. They are not the same thing at all. But I am grateful for that reassurance. The Labour Party Front Bench can speak for itself, as indeed it has done.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, have been better dealt with by my noble friend than they could be by me. In relation to what was said by the noble Lord and by the Minister about access to business premises, such premises will be paying business rates. These will fund the services about which we are talking. It may be that the argument for fire and ambulance is not as cogent as the one for

361
police in relation to the amendment, but I believe that there is still an argument there. When people are doing their sums in relation to setting up concession roads, the true costs of running them should be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made the point that there will be no additional strain on the police force, for instance, because traffic will be dispersed. There are two views about that. There are those who believe, as I do, that traffic expands to fill the road surface available for its use. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but there is reliable evidence to show that, particularly in America where vasts highways have been built, the traffic expands to fill the space available.
The fact that traffic is dispersed means that there is a wider area for the police force to cover, and there will have to be extra resources to cover those roads, the requirements of which cannot be covered by their existing resources. I think that is a valid argument.
The Government conceded at the last stage—and this has not been retracted today—that in relation to roads which are not in the highway authority's existing programme they would accept that there should be some cost to the concessionaire.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read what I said more carefully, he will see that we have not yet made up our minds on this subject. We merely said that there might be a case for that.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I find that disappointing because in the quotation which I gave before, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has drawn my attention again, the Minister said:
"We have always made it clear that a concessionaire should meet all the costs of operation of a road, in return for the right to toll it".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 122.]
Indeed, earlier in the same paragraph he said:
"Our intention … is that when a promoter puts forward a proposal for a road which is not in the highways authority's existing programme, and which it would not itself have provided, it should be made clear from the beginning … that policing costs will fall to the concessionnaire".
Those are the words of the noble Lord the Minister, and I hope he is not stepping back from that position.
Nevertheless, this is not the time to press the matter. I hope that the Government will look at it again as I believe it is something that should be on the face of the Bill. I am sorry that they cannot accept that today; but it will be returned to at a later stage.
Finally, perhaps I may say that once again we are in a transport debate. I am on my feet and the lights are going out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) A concession agreement relating to the design, construction, maintenance, operation or improvement of a special road shall provide that, subject to subsection (6) below, if the concessionaire decides not to proceed with the proposed road, the concessionaire shall pay to the highway authority such compensation in respect of costs incurred by it as may be determined in accordance with the agreement:
362
(6) Compensation shall not be payable under subsection (5) above if a decision by the concessionaire not to proceed with the proposed road is the result of a failure of the highway authority to meet its obligations under the agreement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was included in the debate on government Amendments Nos. 4 and 18. If I remember correctly, I think the Minister said that he would keep in mind the points that I made in the course of my remarks. Therefore, I shall move the amendment but it is not my intention to press it to a vote. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the criteria and procedure for the designation of streets with special engineering difficulties are prescribed in regulations. Those requirements will take into account what features a responsible highway authority might reasonably be expected to be aware of. It would be unreasonable to hold the highway authority responsible for damage which occurred as a result of undertakers' works being carried out in the street which had not been designated but which had special engineering difficulties by reason of a structure which had not been drawn to the attention of the authority. The existing law on liability, however, should be adequate to deal with any such cases and we do not consider that a specific protection is necessary in Clause 56. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that that explanation will satisfy those who have drawn the matter to my attention and expressed profound concern about it. I had hoped that the Minister would extend the approach that he made in the course of the Committee stage in order to address these anxieties. I do not know whether he is aware that the anxieties have arisen. I hope the Minister will confirm that discussions will take place within the HAUC on these issues. That would not have to occur if the matter were absolutely straightforward. I hope the Minister will reflect further on the situation and, if necessary, undertake to return to the matter later rather than simply observe that there is no case for the amendment or for the kind of anxieties that have been addressed to me.
I did not intend this amendment to be a definitive one, or one on which to divide. I simply wished to explore some further thinking with the Minister. With respect, the Minister has not satisfied me in that regard. I am not asking him to go into the matter in any great length but I hope he will agree to consider carefully the representations that have been made on this matter, that he will look carefully into the discussions which take place within the HAUC and, in the light of that, make a judgment on whether it is necessary to return with further amendments at a later stage. Obviously I do not mean within the time prescribed for deliberations within this House.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that as the noble Lord describes this matter as being of profound concern to local authorities I can do no less than take his advice and take a further look at the matter. However, if it is a matter of profound concern to local authorities I should like to know what they are really worried about.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Traffic-sensitive streets]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 32, line 18, leave out from ("48") to ("may") in line 19 and insert (", 49 or 51 (notices required to be given in respect of street works)").
Page 32, line 20, leave out ("works proposed to be executed") and insert ("street works").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 114 [Traffic-sensitive roads]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 99 and 100:
Page 64, line 18, leave out from ("105") to ("may") in line 19 and insert (", 106 or 108 (notices required to be given in respect of road works)").
Page 64, line 20, leave out ("works proposed to be executed") and insert ("road works").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Safety measures]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 32, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In discharging his duties under section 58(1) an undertaker shall ensure that such steps are taken as are reasonably required to promote the interests and safety of disabled persons; such steps shall include the provision of audible or tactile hazard indicators, solid barriers of not less than 1 metre in height, and a ramped or level passageway of at least 1.2 metres in width and other measures as may be appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 101 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 102. These are probing amendments. This clause deals with safety measures at street works. At the previous stage of the Bill the Government introduced an amendment to deal with the needs of people with disabilities. I am most grateful for that amendment. However, I wish to know how the Government are to ensure that safety arrangements are made for people with disabilities. Will my noble friend undertake to ensure that such measures are included either in regulations or in guidelines? Will disabled people or their representatives be consulted on what is needed? Will the regulations or guidelines be reviewed from time to time, as necessary, to take note of what is learnt over the years on the needs of people with disabilities? I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I remind the House that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 102. It should refer to line 10 of page 33 and not line 11.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee I explained that we take the view that detailed requirements on the signing, guarding and lighting of works are properly matters to be dealt with in directions and codes of practice rather than in primary legislation. Subsection (3) of this clause provides that an undertaker which complies with the relevant code of practice shall be taken to have complied with the requirements for the guarding, lighting and signing of works under subsection (1).
It is our intention to base the code of practice giving practical guidance to undertakers on the requirements of the revised version of Chapter 8 of the department's traffic signs manual. The new Chapter 8 will include a general requirement for pedestrian barriers to be between 1 and 1.2 metres high with upper and lower rails, the latter being a tapping rail to assist blind people with sticks. There will be a requirement that temporary pedestrian ways should wherever possible be at least 1.5 metres wide and never less than 1 metre wide.
It would not at this stage be appropriate to make the kinds of audible or tactile hazard indicators that are currently available a general requirement for use at all works. However, the highway authorities and the utilities will keep under review the types of devices that become available and consider their possible application. The lesson we have learnt from the operation of the 1950 Act is that detailed requirements spelt out in primary legislation all too often become inappropriate to changing circumstances. They lack the flexibility of secondary legislation and codes of practice. That was a point that my noble friend himself made when moving the amendment.
Of course the Department of Transport would welcome the further involvement of organisations representing blind and disabled people in the development of the relevant codes of practice. I am happy to reiterate my earlier undertaking that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consult such organisations before issuing or approving a code for the purpose of Clause 58.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept that it is unnecessary and could be undesirable to add specific requirements of this type on the face of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, those noble Lords who added their names to the amendment will agree with me that my noble friend has given a most helpful reply. I for one am grateful to him and accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 33, line 39, leave out ("24 hours") and insert ("such period as the authority may reasonably require").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 103 in my name and that of the noble

437
Lord, Lord Tordoff, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend the Minister and his officials for the many consultations that have taken place on a number of matters contained in this part of the Bill.
The clause deals with the speedy dispatch of works. Nevertheless, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, 24 hours is insufficient. It would therefore seem to be unreasonable that the full provisions of the clause should then be imposed. In extending the period in which repairs may take place, the amendment provides for an element of consultation between the authority and the undertaker.
That does not mean that the period will be 10 days or 12 hours, for example. It merely provides that a period of consultation shall take place as to whether 24 hours is reasonable. That should not impose any great hardship on any of the bodies concerned.
I hope, therefore, that the amendment will commend itself not only to my noble friend the Minister but also to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, Clause 59 provides for a street authority to issue a notice requiring a utility to take action to limit the extent to which a street work causes an obstruction. Subsection (4) enables a street authority to act itself if a utility fails to comply with a notice within 24 hours.
The amendment now before us would delete the reference to 24 hours and replace it with the phrase:
"such period as the authority may reasonably require".
In the case of a serious obstruction, speedy action is necessary in order to ensure that the obstruction and any potential road safety hazard which may arise from it is removed as soon as possible. On that basis it would seem that the reference in the Bill to 24 hours should be retained.
I wonder whether the Minister would consider a possible compromise, namely, that the Bill be amended at a later stage to include words on the lines of: "24 hours or such a longer period as may be specified in the notice". That would enable the highway authority to specify a longer period of notice if it felt that it was reasonable to do so. Perhaps the Minister would consider such a suggestion at a later stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this amendment could have the effect of diluting the present requirement on undertakers to remove an unnecessary obstruction within 24 hours of receiving a notice to that effect from the street authority. It would substitute a power enabling the street authority to specify a reasonable period within which the obstruction is to be mitigated or discontinued, as the case may be, following which the street authority itself would be able to take the necessary steps at the undertaker's expense.
Clause 59 in effect simply provides for the general application of the procedure which currently applies within London. This provision covers a variety of instances where undertakers cause an obstruction in the street. These could result in danger or disruption to road users and it is important that the street
438
authority should be able to require their removal within 24 hours. By removing any reference to a specific period the amendment would introduce scope for conflict and confusion. Therefore I have to say that I find this amendment unwelcome and I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw it following my explanation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested that some compromise might be available between the highway authorities and the utilities, and of course we should be prepared to look at that if such a compromise could be agreed between them and, at the same time, as I said on an earlier amendment, if it was agreeable to the Government. Obviously we shall have to see what happens about that. In the meantime I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall of course withdraw the amendment. I am disappointed that my noble friend should find the general suggestion unwelcome. However, his remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, give comfort that the kind of consultation that has been taking place may continue and such compromise may in fact be found whether it is mine or another one. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must remind the House that if Amendment No. 104 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 105.
Clause 60 [Qualifications of supervisors and operatives]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment 104:
Page 34, line 19, leave out from ("the") to ("conferred") and insert ("circumstances in which a qualification may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall at the same time speak to Government Amendment No. 106 and Amendment No. 105 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff.
These are minor amendments which make clear that regulations made for the purpose of Clause 60 may include provision as to the circumstances in which a qualification as a supervisor or operative may be conferred. It replaces the reference to training to be undergone, which is inappropriate, given the nature of the assessment procedure likely to be prescribed. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out during our debate on this clause in Committee, it is a usual requirement of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications that assessments for qualifications of this sort should be open to all, whether or not they have followed an approved training course.
The amendment would enable the provisions to apply to whatever method of assessment or training may be adopted now or in the future. In the light of this amendment, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, will not need to press further their own amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the steps that he has taken in relation to this matter in consequence of the debates that we had at Committee stage. As he said, at that stage we highlighted the conflict between Clause 60(4) (b) of the Bill, which would have enabled the Secretary of State to specify training requirements, and the policy of the NCVQ that assessments should be open to anyone regardless of the training undertaken.
The Government, having reconsidered their position, have come forward with an amendment which I think is perfectly acceptable. Certainly it is acceptable to me and I think to the local authority associations. I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am unable to call Amendment No. 105.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Clause 117 [Qualifications of supervisors and operatives]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved amendment No. 106:
Page 66, line 25, leave out from ("the") to ("conferred") and insert ("circumstances in which a qualification may be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Duty of undertaker to reinstate]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 35, line 13, leave out from ("practicable") to end of line 15 and insert ("and shall carry on and complete the reinstatement with all such dispatch as is reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110.
These amendments are necessary in order to clarify the extent of the duty on undertakers to reinstate the street as quickly as possible. The first amendments place a duty on undertakers carrying out street works to carry on and complete the reinstatement with all such dispatch as is reasonably practicable. This puts beyond doubt that it is an undertaker's duty not only to begin the works but also to complete them expeditiously.
The second amendments replace the saving contained in the present subsection (2) with a statutory defence for the undertaker in any proceedings brought under this clause. In doing so, it places the burden of proof on the undertaker. In a prosecution, it will be for him to show that any delay in reinstating the street was in order to avoid hindering other works. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 35, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) In proceedings against a person for an offence of failing to comply with subsection (2) it is a defence for him to show that. any delay in reinstating the street was in order to avoid hindering the execution of other works, or other parts of the same works, to be undertaken immediately or shortly thereafter.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Duty of undertaker to reinstate]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 67, line 16, at end insert ("and shall carry on and complete the reinstatement with all such dispatch as is reasonably practicable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 67, line 29, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("( ) In proceedings against a person for an offence of failing to comply with subsection (2) it is a defence for him to show that any delay in reinstating the road was in order to avoid hindering the execution of other works, or other parts of the same works, to be undertaken immediately or shortly thereafter.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Materials, workmanship and standard of reinstatement]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) He shall ensure that when reinstatement takes place, this includes any reinstatement of any existing measures for disabled persons and that reasonable steps are taken to ensure the safe and convenient passage of disabled persons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 111, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 112. When streets are reinstated, existing access provision for blind people and wheelchair users must be put back. At Committee stage we had raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as has already been mentioned today, the question of provision not being reinstated outside this Palace. We understand that, after considerable pressure from my noble friend and his department, the City of Westminster is now to replace that.
Street works should not result in a deterioration of access to the street. The amendment does not impose any new duties; it simply states that access provision that previously existed must be replaced. Dropped kerbs and tactile markings are vital for the independent mobility of blind people and wheelchair users, enabling blind people to know where the end of the road is and wheelchair users to cross the road. The Bill must clearly state this.
The type of battle that has recently taken place between my noble friend and the City of Westminster is absolutely absurd, and it ought not to be allowed to take place, possibly thousands of times in a year in various places up and down the country. This amendment should be placed in the Bill to make certain that this is a matter of law. The amendment may need to be improved slightly to allow for improvements in the measures for disabled people, when they have been removed and been reinstated, because we do not want a downgrading through a lack of putting in improved facilities, purely because on the face of an Act of Parliament it has to be reinstated exactly. But with that one exception I hope that the House will support what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I certainly support the amendment. It is a somewhat limited amendment. I am not at all sure that one ought not to go

441
considerably further. When street works are undertaken, if there is no adequate provision for the disabled at that stage, it sometimes could be a convenient opportunity to make such provision. But that is not what the amendment does, and that is why I say that it is somewhat limited.
None the less, what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, again on issues affecting the protection of the disabled, is germane to their requirements. It is something towards which I hope the Minister will be well disposed, and certainly the noble Lord has the support of the Opposition in this regard.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for raising this matter, and I say that purely from an anecdotal viewpoint. I admit that it is not very good evidence to put before your Lordships' House. But my noble friend the Minister will recall that I introduced the tactile pavement crossing in Parliament Square some years ago, when I was in a similar, but, I hasten to add, greatly junior, position to that of my noble friend the Minister.
I understand that the reconstruction of the square will obliterate the crossing which I and my then honourable friend in the Department of Health and Social Security opened many years ago. Anecdotal evidence is not good but one has a sentimental attraction to the retention and a recognition of the need to retain that crossing and many others which may be lost by road and pavement improvements.
I hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically at the purpose of my noble friend's amendment; that is to ensure the retention of proven tactile and other crossings to aid the disabled.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise for pre-empting the discussion when debating an earlier amendment. I did so because I was not sure that we would reach this amendment tonight. I wished to take the first opportunity to thank the Minister for the work that he and his department have done in persuading the Westminster Council to reinstate the tactile pavement.
The amendment is worthy of consideration either in its present, or some other form. Perhaps the Government will say that it is a case for codes of practice. I do not agree with that view. It is an important matter of principle. The provision would provide reassurance to all disabled people, particularly the visually impaired, and therefore should be put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we discussed the matter in Committee. As I explained then, advice on the proper restoration of special surfaces by undertakers will be included in the codes of practice to be issued or approved by the Secretary of State, giving practical guidance on the materials, workmanship and standards of reinstatement to be observed under Clause 64. Such matters are best left to codes of
442
practice. My noble friend pointed out that improvements can be made but tying us to what is written on the face of the Bill could be of disbenefit to the people affected by the amendment.
I can only repeat my assurance that organisations representing blind and disabled people will be consulted before any regulations or codes of practice on standards of reinstatement are prescribed by the Secretary of State. That may be an ongoing matter as new regulations and codes are introduced. If representations are made for a better standard, that may be taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Lucas spoke of the crossing adjacent to the Palace of Westminster. He may not be aware of the fact that it has featured in our debates in Committee and at this stage. I was unaware that he had instituted that crossing and I am sure that all noble Lords are pleased to know that. However, I must disappoint him slightly because that roadwork is not affected by the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I realise that my noble friend is not unsympathetic, but he is not prepared to go as far as I should like. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that we should take the opportunity to improve the facilities for disabled people. I entirely concur, but we must not forget able-bodied people. The opportunity should also be taken to improve facilities for them. Sometimes an elderly person may find the step down from the pavement to the road quite daunting. Those matters can be looked at at the same time.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was instrumental in ensuring that we have tactile paving outside. For that facility blind disabled people in particular are most grateful. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is missing an opportunity to make all disabled people grateful to him by not including this measure in the Bill. Codes of practice are all very well, but they are not binding. This is so important that it should be on the face of the Bill.
I shall, however, read with care what the noble Lord has said so that I have the matter completely clear in my mind. I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading, if necessary, because I am not entirely satisfied with what my noble friend has said. It may not be his personal decision, but the matter should be looked at again. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.112 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Powers of street authority in relation to reinstatement]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No.113:
Page 36, line 35, leave out ("causing") and insert ("likely to involve a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment and Amendment No. 114 is to enable the street authority to carry out works on a defective reinstatement where the reinstatement was likely to involve a danger of injury. It may well be that the original drafting covers the point. But we are seeking to anticipate the problem rather than react to it once

443
an accident has occurred. I hope that the Minister can say that the Bill as drawn will enable a local authority to do precisely that. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the amendments together would significantly change the scope of the street authority's powers where an undertaker appears to have failed to comply with his duties to reinstate the street properly, whereas Clause 65 as presently drafted empowers the street authority to take action where a defective reinstatement is causing dangers to users of the street. The amendments would enable the street authority to act where a failure seemed to it likely to involve a danger of injury.
The first amendment would shift the primary burden of responsibility for properly reinstating the street away from the undertaker. As presently drafted, the undertaker would clearly be responsible for taking action to rectify a defective reinstatement, thereby preventing a dangerous situation from arising. It would be for the authority to act in default only where danger was present. To accept the amendment would remove the incentive for undertakers and might in practice introduce doubt as to their responsibility for keeping their reinstatements in a safe condition.
444
The second amendment would insert a reference to a danger of injury. That would also be unwelcome since it would exclude danger other than that to life and limb—for example, a danger of damage to property—from the circumstances in which the street authority could act. For those reasons we do not consider that the amendments are desirable. They would present a major upset to the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not able to accept the draconian interpretation of the amendments by the Minister. I am not proposing to divide the House at this stage, even though that may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who had expected me to do so. I am disappointed that the Minister has been negative and that he thinks that the amendment is likely to weaken the purposes of the Bill. However, I shall reflect on what he has said. No doubt the matter can be reverted to, not necessarily in this House but at a later stage in the conduct of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.114 not moved.]
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]

  Terms of Concession Agreements
  .—(1) A concession agreement shall require the concessionaire to—

  (a) ensure that any special road authorised under the provisions of this Part is designed and constructed in accordance with current standards approved by the Secretary of State;

  (b) submit the design of the road for safety audit by the highway authority; and

  (c) make arrangements for winter maintenance and other emergency clearance operations to be undertaken in accordance with current standards approved by the Secretary of State;

  (2) A concessionaire shall in accordance with the terms of the concession agreement secure the provision of service and refreshment facilities along the road in accordance with current standards approved by the Secretary of State.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment appears in the Marshalled List in the names of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The effect of this amendment would be to require concession agreements to impose a series of duties on a concessionaire. At Committee stage the Minister made an important statement in relation to the status of roads developed under the provisions of this part of the Bill. He said:
  "Let me remind your Lordships that concession roads under the Bill will be highways. They will not be privately owned".
  The Minister reiterated that point this afternoon. He continued:
  "Clause 1(3) of the Bill makes this crystal clear. The public will have their common law rights to use them as highways, subject, of course, to their paying the toll".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 121.]
  As these roads will be highways, the public have a right to expect that they will be constructed and maintained to the same standards as publicly built roads and that the same facilities will be available. A number of these issues were addressed at Committee stage, but it is unclear from the Minister's response which document associated with a concession road should deal with these matters.
  In response to an amendment requiring schemes to be in accordance with local planning policies and that concession agreements should cover road design, the Minister said that all the matters would be addressed before the road was built—
  "some before the signing of the agreement, and some during the authorisation procedure after it".
  The Minister added that no inspector, following a public inquiry into a special road scheme,

  363
  "would recommend the making of a scheme which did not contain adequate provisions as to the design of the road". —[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 132.]
  The Minister continued by saying that the concession agreement rather than the road scheme was the document in which maintenance issues should be addressed. This amendment is intended to deal with a range of requirements which have not previously been considered during the debates in your Lordships' House. These are the design and construction of the road in structural as opposed to locational and layout terms; the need to ensure that designs are subject to a safety audit; the importance of arrangements for winter maintenance and the clearance of accident debris and the provision of adequate service and refreshment facilities.
  Should the Minister not find it possible to accept this amendment in the form in which it is worded, will he confirm two points? Will he confirm, first, that these are legitimate requirements to impose on a concessionaire? Secondly, will he indicate whether they should be dealt with in the concession agreement or in the special road scheme? As I have made absolutely clear, there is confusion as to exactly which document these matters are concerned with. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish to raise a question concerning subsection (2) of the new clause where it states that it is the intention to make it compulsory for the concessionaire to provide service and refreshment facilities. I was responsible for the original motorway programme, which I announced to another place on 2nd February 1955. Those initial steps in the motorway programme did not require the provision of either refreshment or refuelling capacities. The roads were built and shortly after various enterprising people applied for concessions to operate the services. That is the practical way to deal with the matter, as is happening with the toll roads. Therefore, whatever my noble friend may say about the first part of the amendment—I agree it appears to be innocuous on the face of it, though perhaps unnecessary—subsection (2) seems somewhat oppressive and quite unnecessary.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I apologise for delaying your Lordships for a couple of minutes on subsection (2) of the new clause. It looks reasonable enough in itself when it calls for the provision of service stations and places of refreshment. With due respect to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we already have on our motorways hideous monopolies providing ghastly plastic food. Over and over again Ministers at the Department of Transport have struggled with this difficult problem. Not everyone wants to open these facilities for road users unless they are in a monopoly or dominant situation. I hate to think that this new clause will once again open up the floodgates to the practice of a monopoly and possibly a duopoly. The concessionaires might be opening up their own refreshment facilities—they would probably have to.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, they would have to.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, they would have to. They would perpetuate the existing monopoly situation and make it much worse by creating a duopoly.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Baroness's interpretation of the new clause. However, as I read it, it does not say that the concessionaires have to provide; the amendment simply says that they have to "secure the provision". That means they can tender for it. That may be a misinterpretation of the amendment to which I have put my name, but that is how I read it.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the current standards are? I believe that on the M.25 there are only two service areas which are approximately 60 miles apart. I know that one of them is not open 24 hours a day. It can be dangerous for people to drive when they are tired and in need of refreshment. For some people with a medical condition it is absolutely essential that they have food when they are beginning to run out of energy, otherwise they become a danger to other people.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have some degree of sympathy with the intention behind this new clause, but I do not think the clause itself is either necessary or necessarily helpful. All the issues covered by subsection (1) of the clause will no doubt be dealt with in any concession agreement. Of course, roads intended for public use must be designed to the appropriate safety standards for the traffic that will use them; of course, there must be adequate arrangements for winter maintenance. But the clause would restrict us to roads which comply with an existing departmental standard.
  That is all very well so long as the roads in question conform to existing types, such as motorways. But all kinds of roads may be authorised by the Bill, including some which are quite new concepts in this country, such as roads designed for lorries only or for cars and light vans only. In such cases, many features of existing motorway standards, which assume high levels of heavy goods vehicle traffic, would be inappropriate, but no other standards would quite fit either. There would be no alternative to approving the design for such a road on an individual basis. There would be no current standard to apply, but the concession agreement could still require the detailed design to be approved by the Secretary of State or the local highway authority.
  Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others, I have doubts about subsection (2). The Department of Transport has an established policy on the provision of service areas on its motorway network. For some concession roads it may well require concessionaires to provide service areas on similar lines, though always subject to planning approval. But to suggest that every concession road must have facilities of this kind is clearly absurd. Some will not be long enough to justify them—for example, estuarial bridges and tunnels—and for concession

  365
  roads which are not built as motorways there is no standard to follow, although the department publishes advice on the need for facilities on its all-purpose trunk roads.
  I turn to the question of motorway service areas, to which my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes referred. I do not wish to enter into comments on the standard of the food therein, but where it is appropriate to enforce the conditions we normally apply to the providers of motorway service areas—the requirements about which my noble friend Lord Swinfen asked: I refer to 24-hour opening, facilities for heavy goods vehicles, facilities for disabled and so forth—it will be perfectly possible to do so through the concession agreement whether the services are provided by the concessionaire or by a sub-contractor. The amendment is probably clear on that, though that is for the noble Lord to answer.
  My noble friend asked specifically about the M.25. I know it is our proposal that there should eventually be four motorway service areas at each corner of the M.25, if a circular road has such things. I cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he clear up a point he made about subsection (2). He implied that it suggests that there should be provision of service and refreshment facilities along every road. With respect, I do not see that it reads that way. It says,
  "in accordance with current standards approved by the Secretary of State".
  If the Secretary of State has no approved standards for other than motorways, presumably no standards will be applied to concession roads which are not motorways. I hope the noble Lord understands what the amendment is getting at: standards on the concession roads should be no lower than the already low standards that exist on motorways.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot add to what I have already said on the amendment.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. Subsection (2) states:
  "A concessionaire shall in accordance with the terms of the concession agreement".
  We have been told repeatedly by the Minister that matters can be laid down in the agreement. He said that he had some sympathy with the terms of the amendment and that those matters could no doubt be dealt with in the concession agreement. It is the words "no doubt" which concern us. We want to be sure that these matters will be dealt with in the concession agreement. That is the difference between what the Minister just said and the wording of the amendment. Subsection (1) states:
  "A concession agreement shall require".
  No doubt is expressed there, yet the Minister has expressed some doubt in saying that "no doubt" these matters could be dealt with in the concession agreement.
  I was interested to hear the discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, on the present
  366
  provision of service stations. The M.25 has been mentioned. We know that haulage associations in particular have expressed concern about the lack of service provision. I happen to live near the M.11 and I can assure the House that the same position applies there. On great lengths of road there is no provision at all. Such provision should be laid down in the terms of the concession agreement. The conditions of them should be laid down by the standards as approved by the Secretary of State. I do not understand why the Minister cannot accept the amendment. I shall not withdraw it but I shall not press it to a Division.
  On Question, amendment negatived.
  Clause 2 [Exercise of highway functions by concessionaire]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
  ("( ) The highway authority may recover from the concessionaire the costs incurred by them in exercising in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) (a), (b) or (c) a highway function exercisable by the concessionaire.
  Those costs shall be taken to include the relevant administrative expenses of the authority, including an appropriate sum in respect of general staff costs and overheads.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 11, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff. I trust that the noble Lords will approve my amendment as they have put down a similar one.
  During the debate in Committee I undertook to consider whether there should be an amendment to entitle the highway authority to recover costs in exercising the highway functions normally exercisable by the concessionaire in the circumstances specified in Clause 2(3). The amendment in my name achieves that purpose and I trust will commend itself. The Opposition amendment is similar but goes further than we are prepared to go. One can argue that where a concessionaire is given a function but, in the event, the highway authority has to do it for him that the concessionaire should pay the costs that fall on the highway authority. We accept that. We have provided for it in our amendment. But the other amendment goes further, in paragraph (b), to say that if a function is withdrawn from the concessionaire entirely the concessionaire should still be required to pay for the highway authority to carry it out. In our view that is going too far.
  It is particularly odd because the functions which the concessionaire is required to exercise are subject to negotiation in the first place. The concessionaire might be reluctant to take on so many functions if he knew he was committed to paying for them throughout the life of the concession, even if they were carried out for most of the time by the highway authority without the concessionaire having any control on the cost.
  Paragraph (c) of the amendment is even odder. It requires the concessionaire to pay for routine inspections. These are carried out by the highway authority in the interests of the road user but in the

  367
  long-term interests of the highway authority for the road when the concession is terminated. They do not necessarily benefit the concessionaire. Clearly, if the concessionaire asked the highway authority to inspect a particular structure he might be required to pay for the extra service; but inspections carried out by the highway authority on its own behalf are a different matter. The concessionaire will not be calling the tune on those. They are not carried out for his benefit. I suggest that it would be wrong to expect him to pay the piper. I therefore commend my amendment to the House and hope that noble Lords will not wish to press theirs.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for putting down his amendment. It fulfils an undertaking which he gave in Committee. We should have preferred the matter to go wider; hence, we have put down our own amendment. The Minister has dismissed it out of hand, which is odd, to use his own term.
  Our amendment encompasses his. We have no quarrel with that. What we have done is to add to it. We think the authority should be able to recover the costs of routine highway maintenance inspections of a concession road and the costs of exercising highway functions consequent on the withdrawal of responsibility from the concessionaire under Clause 2(4).
  When the matter was discussed in Committee the noble Lord made it absolutely clear that concession roads would be monitored by the highway authority, which would,
  "have access to the road with devices such as the high-speed road monitor".
  He was asked to indicate whether authorities would be able to recover the costs of highway inspections. He said:
  "I am not certain that I can give the noble Lord an answer to that question at this stage of the proceedings. I suspect that there is somewhere in the Bill a provision which somehow escapes my attention at present. However, I shall return to the matter at a later stage".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; cols. 140–141.]
  That was an odd remark to make; but, there it is, it is on the record and the Minister will now have an opportunity to indicate whether those suspicions were well founded. Clause 2(4) asserts that a concession agreement may provide for, a concessionaire's authority to exercise a highway function to be withdrawn. Presumably that would occur if a concessionaire failed to exercise the function properly. If, as the Government accept, a highway authority should be able to recover the costs of exercising highway functions on a one-off basis—that would happen under Clause 2(3)—surely it should be able to do so when the concessionaire's authority is permanently withdrawn. I shall not press the matter today, but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to those points.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in regard to the first point, I certainly did say that I would look into the matter before we reached this stage of the Bill's proceedings. I have done so and have given my answer. I apologise if I said something which was not quite right. However, on reflection, I have found out —as I said I would—what the position is.
  368
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 12:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
  ("Arbitration of cost.
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent person to determine disputes as to costs arising from any concession agreement under section 2 above, where any such agreement does not contain alternative provision in respect of arbitration.
  (2) Any determination made by the person appointed under this section shall be published.
  (3) Any determination made by the person appointed under this section in connection with a concession agreement shall be regarded as final.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We seek to discover from the Government what their thinking is on the whole issue of arbitration concerning Parts I and II of the Bill to which I alluded earlier. The matter has been taken on board by the Minister in relation to Parts III and IV. Therefore, there appears to be something of an inconsistency in approach. However, perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify the position.
  As I said before, I believe that the Government should be commended for having responded positively to the request we made to deal with matters in this way under Parts III and IV. However, does the Minister not concede that disputes could arise under Parts I and II in relation to payment of costs and compensation? For example, a provision in Clause 1(4) provides for compensation to be paid to a concessionaire. There are several other matters which are dealt with in that way in the first part of the Bill.
  The Minister has accepted the principle that in certain circumstances the concessionaire should bear the costs of policing a concession road. There is no provision in this part of the Bill for arbitration. As he has addressed the issue so properly in Parts III and IV of the Bill, I believe that he should now explain why he has so significantly refused to do so in relation to Parts I and II. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must confess that I do not think there is much to commend this amendment. The principle behind arbitration is that it should be independent. Where an arbitrator has to be appointed he should be acceptable to both parties or his appointment must be in accordance with a formula in the agreement. As the Secretary of State would be one of the parties in many instances, he should not have the power to make such an appointment unilaterally. Where he is not a party to the agreement it would be wholly inappropriate for him to interfere with its operation.
  We expect that any concession agreement will contain an arbitration clause covering such matters as befit arbitration procedure. Further, it has always been our intention that a concessionaire should bear a proportion of the costs incurred by the highway authority in taking a special road scheme through statutory procedures. The House has already debated and agreed to an amendment tabled in my name which

  369
  will ensure that where either party fails to meet its obligations under the terms of the concession agreement it shall reimburse the other party a proportion of the costs incurred. In short, arbitration is a matter for individual concession agreements; it is not a matter in which the hands of the parties should be tied by a provision in the Bill.
  There is a difference between Parts III and IV of the Bill. It is true that there are provisions to provide for arbitration there, but they concern the settling of disputes where one party has a right to carry out works at the expense of another. That is a very different situation the one arising between the highway authority and the concessionaire envisaged under Parts I and II of the Bill. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I am being a little obtuse, but I find that explanation rather strange. It is perfectly true that arbitrators need to be independent. That is the purpose of the procedure. However, I do not understand the explanation. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it in terms not displayed in the brief. Perhaps he could outline in his customary comprehensible style the point that he is trying to make.
  Leaving aside what the Minister is being asked to say in this regard, it is a fact that there can be disputes over costs. Therefore, we must have a proper method of dealing with such disputes so that they are settled by an independent person along the lines set out in Clause 92. Clause 92 provides that:
  "Any matter which under this Part is to be settled by arbitration shall be referred to a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties concerned or, in default of agreement, by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers".
  Why can we not have such a provision in this part of the Bill? I fail to understand the rationale, although it is possible that I have simply missed the point.
  It seems unacceptable in many ways that the Minister is content to rely more and more upon the concession agreement. When he refers to those agreements in the way that he has, it means that the public will not really know what is going on. All this is highly relevant to an amendment which we shall be discussing shortly—namely, Amendment No. 17—which deals with publicity. I trust that the Minister will be able to explain the matter in more simple terms so that I can understand the point that he is trying to make.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that I can explain the matter in simpler terms. So far as concerns the independence of the arbitrator, the noble Lord seeks by way of his amendment to have an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State. My argument is that it is not right for one party to the arbitration, or possible arbitration, to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord read out the way in which an arbitrator would be appointed under Part III of the Bill. Of course, that is a different procedure.
  There must be a proper method of settling disputes
  370
  involved in each concession agreement. There will not be individual agreements between each of the many parties in the street works part of the Bill. That is the difference between the two parts. I do not think that I can go any further on the matter.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in that case, would the Minister have been prepared to accept the principle of the appointment of the arbitrator being undertaken by joint agreement between the Secretary of State and the concessionaire?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would have helped, but it would still not have gone far enough to answer the second part of my argument. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may point out that of course I should have made that clear.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Leasing of land to concessionaire]:
  Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 3, line 29, at end insert:
  ("(1A) Any lease of land granted under subsection (1) shall be for highway related functions only. For this purpose 'highway functions' has the same meaning as in section 2(2) of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 seeks to limit any lease of land by the highway authority to the concessionaire to land required for highway-related purposes. An amendment in similar terms was introduced at Committee stage, but was not pressed. During that debate the Minister made the point that the amendment was unnecessary. He said that it was only possible for a local highway authority to acquire land for highway purposes under compulsory purchase schemes, at least in relation to a new road. Thus it would not be possible to acquire for other purposes land which could then be leased to the concessionaire.
  That line of argument is correct. But it does not cover all the options. The amendment as drafted would not seek to prevent highway authorities from acquiring land compulsorily and then leasing it to the concessionaires for non-highway purposes; but to prevent them from leasing for non-highway purposes land that was acquired voluntarily or was already within their ownership.
  I am sure the Minister will agree that the Government lose few opportunities of saying that local authorities own large areas of land, some of which are not in use. Much of that land may be unused due to inadequate access. Alternatively, it could have low value uses and the existence of a new road scheme giving access to it could greatly increase its value. The Government have strong powers to insist on the disposal of land by local authorities. Therefore in some circumstances, for new developments associated with a new road, the local authority could lease land which it already owns.
  That opens up the possibility for undesirable developments; for example, for the highway authority to lease land for developments such as an out-of-town shopping centre accessed solely by the new road. That

  371
  was mentioned during the debate on a similar amendment at Committee stage. It was also said that for the developer the development and the new road could be seen as a package. The developer could cross-subsidise the road and, in return, become a limited monopoly. Such developments may well be against existing development plans, both for the protection of existing town centres and for the protection of green belts, whether formal or otherwise. Developments in that category are not limited to retail centres; they may include housing or leisure facilities.
  During Committee stage I elaborated these points. It is not my purpose to repeat my remarks this afternoon. On that occasion I concluded:
  "It is not the purpose of the amendment to prevent development or even to prevent the kind of development described above in cases where it is sensible. It will, however, ensure that the Bill is not used to support undesirable development either directly or indirectly and it leaves each case to be judged on its own merits".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 221
  I hope the Minister will consider carefully not only what was said at Committee stage, but also what is now being said, and look favourably upon the terms of the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not follow why the noble Lord says that the amendment leaves each case to be decided on its merits. It appears to inhibit entirely and in all circumstances the lease of land for other than highway purposes.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am surprised to see the amendment tabled again at this stage of the Bill. I answered at Committee stage with a clear-cut undertaking that the position in the Bill is watertight. Any lease of land granted under Clause 4(1) must be related to the concessionaire's functions under the agreement, and those functions are listed in Clause 1(1).
  If the noble Lord looks at those functions he will see that they are very clearly stated. They are,
  "design, construction, maintenance, operation or improvement of a special road".
  I assure the noble Lord that there is no danger of local authorities, highway authorities or concessionaires using this procedure in the way the noble Lord fears. The provision must and can only be used for highway-related purposes. I have looked at the matter since Committee stage and the position is watertight.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister says he is surprised to see the amendment tabled again. The reason is that serious consideration was given to what the Minister said at Committee stage and, because some aspects seemed to be unclear or unsatisfactory, an amendment in similar terms was tabled for this afternoon.
  Once again I shall look carefully at what the Minister said. He has repeated that the matter is watertight. I hope that explanation also satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If it is watertight, and what we are suggesting cannot occur, there is no point in pressing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 5 [Transfer or termination of concession]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment no. 14:
  Page 4, line 5, leave out ("not be assigned") and insert ("be assigned with the consent of the highway authority; and references in this Part to the concessionaire shall be construed as references to the person for the time being entitled to exercise those rights.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 41.
  The amendment to the first subsection of Clause 5, and the amendment to the first subsection of Clause 31, are designed to allow the rights of a concessionaire under a concession agreement to be assigned to a third party, but only with the highway authority's consent. Clause 5 relates to concession roads in England and Wales; Clause 31 to concession roads in Scotland.
  Our intention behind these amendments is to ensure that the framework established by means of the concession agreement between the highway authority and the promoter of a scheme is not so rigid as to discourage potential promoters and investors from coming forward with ideas and finance for the schemes. The difficulty of not permitting the assignment of rights is that it would restrict the private sector's ability to sell on their rights over a concession road. Ideally we should like to see investors bringing finance to these schemes, much as they finance other industrial undertakings, the trading in which is commonplace. If we insisted that a promoter could never sell the business that he had created, we would be preventing the private sector from making sensible decisions about the allocation of its resources, and removing the cutting edge of the market which leads to efficiency of provision.
  The right to collect tolls represents the value of the asset to the investors, who will be keen to protect their considerable investment in the enterprise. The ability of the concessionaire to sell that asset on to a new concessionaire, who would be under the same obligations to the highway authority and to the public as the original concessionaire, will make these projects more attractive and more marketable than otherwise. I should stress that all the concessionaire's liabilities and duties under the concession agreement will pass along with the right to charge tolls. The needs of road users would be unaffected by the change of concessionaire, except positively, to the extent that the new concessionaire might bring extra efficiency into the provision of the service in order to recoup his investment.
  We accept that there may be a need for control by the highway authority, and that is why we have provided that the highway authority's consent must be obtained before assignment is allowed. The highway authority will need to make sure that the party to whom the rights are assigned is reputable and competent to take the original concessionaire's place. The third amendment in the group is consequential.
  With that explanation, and the assurance that the highway authority will have a right of veto, I beg to move the amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I want to underline a point made by the noble Lord regarding the highway authority being under a duty to ensure that the concessionaires are reputable people. That is not stated on the face of the Bill. Perhaps there should be a provision in the Bill to indicate the conditions under which consent may or may not be given by the highway authorities.
  It is a pernickety point and I cannot think immediately of a situation where the procedure could go wrong. However, I am not clear what are the parameters within which the highway authority would operate.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, by requiring the consent of the highway authority the amendment goes a long way to meeting any anxieties which the noble Lord may have. I do not know whether it is a good idea to include specific conditions. Obviously the highway authority would not hand over a concession road to somebody of ill-repute, if that is the word the noble Lord had in mind. We have covered the situation pretty clearly by requiring the highway authorities concerned to do this.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister kindly confirm that I heard him correctly in his original statement? Did he make it absolutely clear that there is complete discretion on the part of the authority as to whether or not to give consent? I believe he used the words that they had the power of veto if they so desired. Is that correct?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, yes, there are no conditions on that.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("may") to ("charge") in line 18 and insert (", for a period of not more than two years until a new appointment or an extension toll order takes effect or the toll period ends,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 23, 27, 33, 42 and 43.
  This group of amendments concerns a subject which has perhaps not been uppermost in our minds before now: what happens when a concession agreement comes to an end, either through the passing of time or prematurely. We already have some provisions in Clause 5 for premature termination of concessions. The highway authority is required to take steps to secure a new concessionaire, but this will not always be possible, especially if the toll period has not much longer to run. Under Clause 5(3), the highway authority can go on charging tolls on the same basis of the former concessionaire until a new concession is let, or until it decides it is impracticable to let one. But that begs the question how, and at what stage, it can be said to decide and how long it can go on hoping that something will turn up.
  Moreover, when a toll road is in use, and people accept the payment of tolls for the benefits it offers, it may not be an unmixed blessing simply to abolish tolls and make the road free to the user. This could simply
  374
  make it as congested as all the alternative routes. As noble Lords are aware, the Government believe in market pricing as an equitable means of distributing resources: it is not simply that they favour the private sector, though the private sector is usually better at acting on market principles. If a toll road has found its market, why should that market be deprived of a benefit it is prepared to pay for by opening it up to those who are not prepared to pay? When the concession agreement terminates, the highway authority will become solely responsible for maintaining and operating the road, which may be a considerable burden on public funds if it is no longer tolled.
  These arguments will doubtless be rehearsed case by case, and very often it will be generally agreed that tolling should cease and the road should become a free facility. But this may not be the right solution in every case; we are talking about events perhaps 30 or more years into the future. The new clauses proposed after Clause 11 and, for Scotland, after Clause 26 therefore allow the alternative possibility of continued tolling by the public sector authority after the concession comes to an end. This will require the making of a fresh order which will be a statutory instrument subject to annulment by either House.
  The amendments to Clause 5(3) and to the Scottish Clause 31(2) will allow an extension toll order to be made also when a concession ends prematurely and it proves impossible to let a new concession. It also solves the problem I posed earlier: what happens if the authority decides it cannot let a new concession and how soon must it decide? As amended, it will have a maximum of two years from the abandonment of a concession agreement to make a new agreement or to make and bring into force an extension toll order, or to cease charging tolls, with no possibility of reviving them. We think two years is a reasonable time, but not over-generous, given that negotiating a satisfactory concession agreement many not be easy, even for a road already in use. The amendment to Scottish Clause 27(4) is also consequential.
  It is intended that where a special road authority has the authority to assign its right to charge and collect tolls to a concessionaire, the right should not automatically revert to it if no assignation is made. As for England and Wales, an extension toll order would be required to authorise the authority to charge and collect tolls. With that explanation, I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that we have not had a great deal of time in which to consider the amendment. While I am grateful for the explanation he has given, I am not totally convinced that I followed everything. Perhaps I may ask him one or two questions arising from what he said or, in some cases, did not say.
  As I understand it, the Government envisage that tolls may continue to be charged on concession roads once there has been a reversion to highway authority ownership. I believe that he said that. He nods his head; therefore my understanding is right.
  What considerations or factors does the Minister believe may have to be taken into account by the

  375
  highway authority when it is decided whether or not to continue to levy tolls on a road which has reverted to that authority? Can the Minister confirm that in the case of concession agreements entered into by the local highway authority, the Secretary of State would leave it entirely to that authority to decide whether or not to continue to levy a toll? Perhaps the Minister will reflect on those points. I wish to reflect upon what he said in introducing the amendment.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly I expect the noble Lord to wish to reflect on the new amendment. As I said when I moved it, this is not a subject where we have given much attention to what would happen when the toll arrangements came to an end. However, during the course of my speech I said that we were talking about matters 20 or 30 years ahead. So I would not wish to be, and one cannot be, too specific about what reasons the highway authority might have for wishing to continue tolling after the end of the concession period. I touched upon one or two in my opening remarks, such as that many road users might wish the tolls to be kept on.
  The noble Lord raised the point about whether the local authority—if it was a local authority concession road—would be able to decide to continue without having to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. It is my impression that the Secretary of State would have control over it. However, in order to make sure that I give the noble Lord a totally accurate reply, I wish to reflect on the matter.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would care to reflect on what has been said in the debate and write to me in answer to certain aspects that were not dealt with after questions that I raised.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 16:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
  ("Restriction of classes of traffic
  .—(1) A concession agreement may, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) below, provide for a special road scheme to prohibit from using the road those classes of traffic defined in classes III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI of Schedule 4 to the Highways Act 1980.
  (2) A concession agreement providing for the prohibition of any other class of traffic than those specified in subsection (1) above; shall come into effect subject to the making of an order by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State, and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We seek in the amendment to make provision for parliamentary scrutiny of a concession agreement which proposes to exclude road traffic other than that which is excluded from motorways. So plans for privately funded lorry-only roads, for example, would be capable of implementation only if an order be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, proposed at Committee stage an amendment which would have
  376
  required all concession roads to be open to motorcycles. The Minister opposed it and said that the amendment would make it,
  "impossible to provide a normal motorway … let alone a car-only or lorry-only road, as is sometimes discussed in the context of private finance".—[Official Report, 4/12/90, col. 135.]
  In Committee we also debated an Opposition amendment which would have required all concession agreements to be laid before Parliament and subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Minister opposed that provision too on the grounds that requiring every concession agreement to go through such a process would lead to further uncertainty and delay.
  In justifying the provisions of Parts I and II the Minister has on several occasions argued that under the terms of the Bill concession roads will be highways and that,
  "the public will have their common law rights to use them as highways, subject, of course, to their paying the toll".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 121.]
  The Minister must concede that the introduction of lorry only roads would represent a significant departure from the principle that he himself has adumbrated. When the Minister was challenged about that point in Committee, he further said on 4th December:
  "I said that there may be lorry-only roads in the future. There will be public highways but it is possible, as in the case of motorways, to restrict certain vehicles from using a motorway".—[col. 137.]
  The exclusion of a range of traffic from a motorway is perfectly reasonable. We accept that. It would be unreasonable for us to assert that a similar approach should not be adopted on appropriate privately financed roads. However, what worries us is the exclusion of additional categories of traffic to create lorry or car-only roads. That would represent a significant departure from the practice which, apparently, the Minister has endorsed. We consider that a proposal to operate a concession road on such a basis would be sufficiently significant in terms of transport policy to warrant parliamentary scrutiny of the project. The Minister must concede that that would be unprecedented. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. Apparently it would apply in the case of a small toll road built for a specific purpose and from which certain types of traffic were excluded. In such a case we would have to go through the whole procedure of affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. I have an affection for the affirmative resolution procedure, as against others, in appropriate cases—the noble Lord knows that—but the provision seems to go too far, particularly as the amendment, as drafted, would apply in the case of the smallest road and the smallest exclusion.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am not at all clear why people wish to exclude additional forms of traffic. I believe that current exclusions are made on the basis of safety, because it is considered that vehicles below

  377
  a certain size cannot be driven safely on motorways. I am not at all clear why there is an urge to exclude various categories of traffic from these roads. I come back to the point that my noble friend Lord Falkland made on a previous occasion when he remarked that the provision seems extremely hard on motorcyclists. They do not cause much trouble on these roads and I do not see why they should be excluded.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when I looked at this amendment I was slightly puzzled as to what lay behind it. It seems to say that all roads subject to a concession should be for traffic of Classes I, II and IV, and any exceptions must be approved by Parliament. That is odd, because I do not know of any motorway which permits traffic of Class IV. However, Classes I and II are very extensive in themselves and cover most categories.
  The amendment is also odd because except in a private or hybrid Bill it is not the function of Parliament to decide what kinds of traffic may or may not use a road. For an all-purpose road, that is done through traffic regulation orders following consultation with representative bodies; for a special road it is a little more formal as the classes of traffic that may use the road are prescribed in the special road scheme, which is almost invariably subjected to public inquiry, but not scrutinised by Parliament.
  In this respect, a road subject to a concession will be like any other special road: the classes of traffic will be prescribed in the special road scheme which will override anything that may be said in the concession agreement. The agreement may specify a particular standard, but this will always be subject to anything specified in the scheme, or in any traffic regulation orders which may later be made. While I agree that there should be public discussion of what classes of traffic may use a concession road, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to achieve that, or that it is the right way to do so.
  I recognise that the main fear of noble Lords opposite is that concession roads will be authorised for certain types of traffic to the exclusion of others. I do not fully understand what is so bad about that. It happens on motorways, as I have said, and many other roads have weight or dimension restrictions of some kind. Perhaps we have appeared too evasive on the subject of car-only and lorry-only roads. Perhaps that is because we are not planning any such roads. However, if the private sector comes up with any viable schemes, as I believe it might at least where cars are concerned, we should certainly look at the proposals with an open mind and with considerable interest. Frankly, I do not understand why the noble Lord is getting so excited. The Government, and transport planners, do not have a monopoly of wisdom. One of the advantages of giving the private sector a wider role is the very fact that it has fewer prejudices and is prepared to work out new solutions to some of our rather old problems.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a point about public highways. A road that is open only to certain classes of traffic can still be a public highway.
  378
  Footpaths and bridleways are highways, but cars are not allowed to use them. The majority of concession roads probably will be designed for the motorway classes of traffic. However, we do not wish to inhibit innovation in the provision of roads. Therefore, on that principle I cannot accept this amendment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I cannot understand that argument. If the noble Lord thinks I am getting excited about this matter he should see me when I am really excited. This matter does not make me terribly excited, but I am a little concerned that the Minister should be so cavalier about it. The provision would only apply to extensions beyond the motorway extensions.
  The Minister says that if we were to have Parliamentary scrutiny of a matter of this kind it would inhibit innovation. That is certainly not the case. Why should it have that effect? I repeat once again the Minister's words. In December last he said that,
  "there may be lorry-only roads in the future. There will be public highways but it is possible, as in the case of motorways, to restrict certain vehicles from using a motorway".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 137.]
  That provision is perfectly all right. All we are saying is that, if that should happen, the public through Parliament should be able to invigilate the matter. I cannot believe that there is anything radical or revolutionary about that process, or that it is likely to inhibit innovation. The Minister was talking about a quite different point to that which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, addressed. The noble Lord said the provision would apply to tiny roads. Perhaps the amendment should have addressed that point. However, that is not the gravamen of what we are arguing here and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows that. We are talking about the broader concepts.
  In my submission the Minister has not been prepared to reconcile himself to some degree of public scrutiny for dealing with what would, on his own submission, be an unprecedented state of affairs. I find it extraordinary that he should be so cavalier about parliamentary scrutiny of a matter of this kind.
  On Question, amendment negatived.
  Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 17:
  After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
  ("Publicity for Toll Orders
  .—(1) Before making a toll order a highway authority shall publish a concession statement as specified in subsection (3) below.
  (2) The highway authority shall at the same time publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the area to which the agreement relates, and in the London Gazette, a notice:

  (a) stating that a concession statement has been published;

  (b) outlining the general route of the proposed road;

  (c) naming places where a copy of the concession statement may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours during a period specified in the notice, being a period of not less than 6 weeks from the date of the publication of the notice; and

  (d) stating that, within the said period, any person may comment on the statement.

  (3) A concession statement issued under this section shall contain:

  (a) any draft special road schemes and orders relating to the proposed road published under the provisions of schedule 1 of the Highways Act 1980;

  (b) a draft of the toll order;

  (c) details of agreements reached between the highway authority and the concessionaire in relation to:

  (i) the payment of compensation to either the concessionaire or the highway authority;

  (ii) the design, construction and maintenance of the road;

  (iii) policing and the provision of other emergency services on the road;

  (iv) monitoring of the performance of the concessionaire in the management of the road;

  (v) the passing of the road to the highway authority; and

  (vi) any other matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 in the names of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, deals with the question of publicity for toll orders. The effect of the amendment would be to require the publication of key documents and proposals associated with the development of privately funded roads in a new document called a concession statement.
  It will be agreed that the planning and approval process for any road scheme is necessarily complex, particularly for members of the public who are unused to legal and bureaucratic procedures. That will be even more so in the case of roads built under this Bill. In addition to planning permission a concession road will also require a concession agreement (under Clause 1), a special road scheme (under Clause 1) and a toll order (under Clause 6). All of those documents have an important role to play and both the special road scheme and the toll order have the merit of being subject to an advertisement, objection and inquiry procedure. As has been explained previously, however, there is some confusion as to which issues are to be dealt with in which document.
  The most confusing document is the concession agreement. The Bill sets out some issues for inclusion in an agreement such as arrangements for compensating a concessionaire (in Clause 1(4)) and the exercise by the concessionaire of highway powers (in Clause 2). In addition, the Minister indicated in response to amendments at Committee stage that other matters such as the maintenance of concession roads should also be dealt with in the agreement. Therefore, at the very least it would be helpful if the Minister would agree to make available a note setting out a comprehensive list of the subjects which will be addressed in concession agreements.
  A second and major difficulty with the concession agreements is that there is no requirement for them to be made public. Indeed, at Committee stage the Minister opposed an amendment which would have required them to be laid before Parliament. The Minister said:
  "I should also emphasise that concession agreements are contracts and will, no doubt, contain material that is properly treated as commercially confidential".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 128.]
  One aim of the amendment is to identify a range of issues to be covered in the agreements which cannot be
  380
  held to be commercially confidential and to require publication of the arrangements reached in relation to them. The issues identified for publication are compensation, design and maintenance standards, policing, monitoring of the concessionaire's performance and hand-over arrangements.
  A further aim of the amendment is to simplify the procedures for commenting on the various documents relevant to the approval of a concession road. The concession statement is designed to be a single document which pulls together the draft toll order and special road scheme, together with those aspects of the concession agreement which are not confidential and on which the public should be able to comment. Clause 6(4) already makes it clear that the toll order should be processed at the same time as the special road scheme. The amendment would help to achieve that objective as well as ensuring that people commenting on the order and the scheme had access to other key information about the arrangements for the planning and operation of the road.
  I believe that if the amendment is accepted the result would be a more informed and effective scrutiny of proposals for concession roads. In no way do we oppose the principle but we believe that there should be a statement clearly laying out the various points instead of a number of separate documents as at present. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are two aspects to the concession statement proposed in the amendment. First, the published concession statement would include information on the scheme, its route and the toll order and would require the highway authority to invite comments from any person on those matters. The principle behind that aspect is quite reasonable and all of that information is required to be made available and open to public scrutiny in any case. The procedure in Schedule 1 to the Highways Act contains requirements to publish details of orders for road schemes which are more rigorous than those suggested in the amendment.
  I also refer the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to Schedule 2 to the Bill which will introduce similarly rigorous requirements for toll orders. We are as keen as the noble Lords opposite to ensure that local interests are fully protected and local people have the opportunity to voice their concerns. However, the Bill as drafted contains sufficient provision for that.
  The second aspect is the publication of information on the concession agreement itself. As I said during Committee stage, concession agreements will be contracts and will contain information which is commercially confidential. I accept that the amendment requires only certain information about the agreement to be made public. However, I wonder what could be achieved by publication of those details. Compensation to the concessionaire or the highway authority is a matter for an agreement between those two parties. Both can be expected to ensure that they are properly protected because it will be in each one's

  381
  interest to do so, particularly as we now have provisions in the Bill for the concession agreement to allow for compensation of either party.
  Highway authorities will no more neglect their duties as highway authorities on signing a concession agreement as regards design, construction, maintenance or monitoring of the facility than if they were paying contractors to undertake the work in the conventional way. I have never heard it argued that details of contracts made by highway authorities should be published and commented on by the public. I therefore see no reason for requiring that of concession agreements.
  I should also like to remind the Committee of the amendment which we have put down to Clause 1 requiring the Secretary of State to publish in an annual report to Parliament details of concession agreements which he has entered into during the course of the previous year. In no sense do we object to the principle that the public should be consulted on and Parliament informed of such road projects but rather to the way in which the amendments appear to wish to make the procedures so arduous as to discourage private sector participation.
  I must therefore strongly resist the amendment as superfluous and burdensome. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. However, there are a number of points which require careful consideration. The amendment is detailed in many respects, and there are points which I believe are worthy of consideration by the Committee. The Minister referred to the report to Parliament. However, at Committee stage he was not very happy with that situation but agreed to look at the matter. I am very pleased that he brought forward an amendment today.
  There are aspects of the amendment which deserve serious consideration, and I should like to test the feeling of the Committee.
  On Question, amendment negatived.
  Clause 24 [Toll Orders]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 15, line 9, at end insert:
  ("( ) Where a roads authority enter into a contract such as is mentioned in subsection (7) above and the person who has contracted to design or construct the road fails to complete the road in accordance with the contract he shall, without prejudice to any other liability, pay the authority such compensation in respect of costs incurred by them as may be determined in accordance with the contract.
  Those costs shall be taken to include the relevant administrative expenses of the authority, including an appropriate sum in respect of general staff costs and overheads.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 15, line 15, at end insert:
  ("( ) In respect of any calendar year during which—
  382

  (a) the Secretary of State enters into a contract for the design and construction of a road which is to be subject to a toll order,

  (b) there is opened to public use a new road subject to a toll order for which the Secretary of State is the roads authority,

  the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report stating the number of such contracts entered into or, as the case may be, the number of such roads opened during the year and containing such other information relating to such contracts or roads as appears to him to be appropriate.
  The report shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 20:
  After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
  Extension toll orders
  (" .—(1) Where a toll order authorises the special road authority to assign their rights under the order to charge and collect tolls and—

  (a) the authority fail to do so;

  (b) such an assignation is terminated within the toll period; or

  (c) the authority wish to charge and collect tolls beyond the toll period,

  a further order (an "extension toll order") may be made to authorise the authority to charge and collect tolls for a new toll period.
  (2) An extension toll order shall not authorise the special road authority to assign their rights under it to charge and collect tolls.
  (3) An extension toll order relating to a special road for which the Secretary of State is roads authority shall be made by the Secretary of State; and an extension toll order relating to a road for which the roads authority is a local authority shall be made by that authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State.
  (4) Where an assignation under section 25(1) terminates by effluxion of time, an extension toll order must be made before, and shall have effect from, the end of that period.
  (5) The following provisions of this Act apply in relation to an extension toll order as in relation to a toll order under section 24(1)—
  section 26(1) and (2) (the toll period)
  section 27 (amount of tolls chargeable by special road authority),
  section 29 (application of enactments relating to monopolies, etc.),
  section 30 (variation and revocation of order), and
  sections 32 to 36 (further provisions with respect to tolls).
  (6) The power of the Secretary of State to make or confirm an extension toll order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and the provisions of Schedules 1 and 2 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (procedure in connection with orders) shall not apply to an order under this section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Amount of tolls chargeable by concessionaire]:
  Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert:

  383
  ("(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, require a toll order authorising the charging of tolls by a concessionaire to specify the maximum tolls which may be charged.
  (1A) The Secretary of State shall make an order under this section where—

  (a) the road to which the toll order relates consists of or includes a major crossing to which there is no reasonably convenient alternative; or

  (b) he considers that there is no reasonably convenient alternative route of a similar standard to that provided by the road to which the toll order relates.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the question of charging tolls in monopoly situations. Noble Lords who were not present during the Committee stage will not be aware that I moved, with great persuasiveness, a change to the Bill. I pointed out that the Bill only allows for maximum tolls to be imposed by the Secretary of State by order in one circumstance; namely, estuarial crossings with certain defined limits. I pressed the Minister to accept that there were circumstances in which there could be monopoly or near monopoly situations that were not confined to estuarial crossings.
  The Minister refused to accept that argument. However, what he said seemed to be somewhat contradictory. For instance, he said that:
  "Clause 8 was intended to protect consumers from excessive tolls in monopoly situations such as estuarial crossings". [Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 158.]
  I have no problem at all with that statement. I am all for protecting the customer from monopoly situations, whether they be public monopolies or private monopolies (for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter). However, Clause 8 applies not to monopoly situations such as estuarial crossings: it applies to monopoly situations only in the case of estuarial crossings. The noble Lord went on to say:
  "Of course difficult situations may arise that one cannot foresee. That is why we have made provision for the estuarial crossings". [Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 159.]
  In fact the Bill provides for only one relatively straightforward situation, which has been foreseen, and there is no scope in the Bill to deal with situations that have not been foreseen. If the Minister wishes to protect customers from monopoly situations and wants to provide for difficult situations that one cannot foresee, I trust that the principles underlying this amendment will be acceptable to the Government.
  I make no pretence that the wording of the amendment is perfect. I merely want to get into the Government's mind the fact that the provisions that they have made to protect customers from monopolies are not sufficiently flexible to deal with situations which in my opinion could arise. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment and indeed returning to this subject. As I admitted at Committee stage, it was a little difficult in the case of estuarial crossings to find a definition.
  I find a number of difficulties with this amendment. The first difficulty which it would cause lies in the procedures proposed. Subsection (1) would in effect require the making of an order which would require the toll order, a quite separate order, to specify a
  384
  maximum toll, where the toll road was a monopoly. That would mean two orders for each scheme. The advantage of the current provision is that, whatever regulations the Secretary of State makes under Clause 8(3) regarding major crossings, the definition, which in the present version is clear, will apply in all cases. If the likely competitive environment had to be decided case by case, there would be room for interminable discussions at public inquiry, which might in any case not lead to a satisfactory conclusion. I could not agree with an extra layer of uncertainty and delay if it did not serve any valid purpose.
  Why, I would ask, is there a need for an order to be made in each separate case of a scheme which is a major crossing without alternatives, when a simple, general provision like Clause 8(3) has the same effect but without the obstacle of a superfluous order?
  I turn now to the proposed requirement in subsection (1A). It provides that a convenient alternative should be restricted to routes of a similar standard. That is very unsatisfactory. First there are the difficulties in defining what is meant by "similar standard" and establishing whether two roads are of it. But even if the provision were workable, it could well encourage promoters to come forward with new schemes which offered less capacity and were therefore less beneficial because of the attraction of being able to charge market tolls rather than regulated tolls. I do not think that your Lordships desire such a perverse result. Our clear intention with the monopoly provisions of this Bill is to establish a clear framework for the private sector to operate in, not to distort the market in such a way as to make toll roads unviable.
  For all those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not know what is wrong with me but I do not seem to be able to get across to the Government a simple proposition. The Government do not believe in monopolies. They have put into this Bill a provision to stop people exploiting monopoly situations in the case of estuarial crossings. I am trying to say that that may not be the only case where a monopoly exists.
  I do not care whether the wording of this amendment is right or wrong or whether there is some better way to deal with the matter so that there are not two sets of orders. All that I am trying to get across is the simple principle, which the Minister seems to be trying to avoid, that there may be monopoly situations which are not catered for in the Bill and which ought to be catered for in the Bill. Try as I may, I do not seem to be able to put it across to the Minister.
  I hope that he will think again about this matter before the Bill comes to another stage in this House or moves on to the other place. Clearly I shall not make any more progress at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
  Clause 27 [Amount of tolls chargeable]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 23:

  385
  Page 16, line 31, leave from ("unless") to end of line 33 and insert ("an extension toll order is made in respect of that road.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Variation or revocation of toll order]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 7, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
  ("(1) A toll order may be varied or revoked—

  (a) by an order made by the Secretary of State if he is the highway authority for the road, and

  (b) by an order made by the highway authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State in any other case.

  (1A) The Secretary of State may confirm an order made by another authority either without modifications or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31.
  These amendments concern toll roads for which a local authority is the highway authority, whether or not the road is subject to a concession. Under Clause 6 a toll order for a local road is to be made by the local highway authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State, but under Clause 11 as drafted only the Secretary of State has the power to vary or revoke a local authority order.
  On reflection, there is no point in making that distinction and in practice I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to vary or revoke over the head of the local highway authority an order affecting a local road. These amendments will place the local highway authority in the same position with regard to variation and revocation orders as they are in with regard to the original toll order. It is for the authority to make the order, but the Secretary of State must confirm it before it can come into effect. The confirming instrument will be subject to negative resolution, as will a variation or revocation order made by the Secretary of State in relation to a toll road for which he is the highway authority.
  There are two sets of amendments: one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. The effect is the same in each case. I am sure that local highway authorities will welcome this change and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have no great quarrel with the Minister about this. I am sure that he will be glad to know that. I should like to raise two issues which relate to the second part of his proposed amendment. As I understand it, there is no requirement imposed on the Secretary of State to consult the local highway authority before any question arises of modifying an order made by that authority. That is a matter that needs to be examined, or is at least something to which the Minister should respond.
  386
  What this amendment also does is to stress the considerable differences between Clause 6 and Clause 11. Clause 11 implements Schedule 2 which sets out a detailed procedure for making and confirming a toll order. But these requirements are not imposed in relation to the variation as distinct from the making and confirmation of a toll order, although I think the Minister will have to concede that the variation could be just as significant as the making of an order itself. But there is a requirement that variation or revocation orders should be subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister be kind enough to deal with those points? I shall certainly not challenge the amendment, but I should like those further particulars.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that at this stage I can go much further than I have already gone. Of course, I hope that I can do so. The Secretary of State will certainly consult in such a case, but this amendment should be welcomed by local highway authorities because it puts them on the same footing as the Secretary of State, as they are under Clause 6. I hope that that will be most welcome.
  I meant to imply that I shall look at the questions which the noble Lord has just raised. If I can expand on them further, which I am sure I shall be able to do, I shall write to the noble Lord before the next stage.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments No. 25 and 26:
  Page 7, line 7, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("highway authority").
  Page 7, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
  ("(4) An order under this section made by the Secretary of State, and an instrument made by the Secretary of State confirming an order under this section made by another authority, shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  The provisions of Schedule 2 (procedure in connection with toll orders) do not apply.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 with the last amendment. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 27:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

  Extension toll orders
  (".—(l) An order authorising the charging of tolls by the highway authority (an "extension toll order") may be made in relation to a road which is or has been subject to a concession.
  (2) An extension toll order relating to a special road for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority shall be made by the Secretary of State; and an extension toll order relating to a road for which the highway authority is a local highway authority shall be made by that authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State.
  (3) Where the concession agreement terminates by effluxion of time, an extension toll order must be made before, and shall have effect from, the end of that period.
  (4) Where the concession agreement is terminated before the end of that period, an extension toll order must be made so as to come into force not later than two years after the termination of the agreement.
  (5) The following provisions of this Act apply in relation to an extension toll order as in relation to a toll order under section 6(1)—
  section 7(1) and (2) (the toll period),
  section 9 (amount of tolls chargeable by highway authority),
  section 10 (application of enactments relating to monopolies, &c.),
  section 11 (variation or revocation of order), and
  sections 12 to 16 (further provisions with respect to tolls).
  (6) An extension toll order made by the Secretary of State, and an instrument made by the Secretary of State confirming an extension toll order made by a local highway authority, shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  The provisions of Schedule 2 (procedure in connection with toll orders) do not apply.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Variation or revocation of toll order]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 31:
  Page 18, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert:
  ("(1) A toll order may be varied or revoked—

  (a) by an order made by the Secretary of State if he made the toll order; and

  (b) by an order made by the local roads authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State in any other case.

  (1A) The Secretary of State may confirm an order made by a local roads authority either without modifications or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.").
  Page 18, line 13, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("roads authority making the order").
  Page 18, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("by") and insert ("The power conferred on the Secretary of State by this section to vary, revoke or confirm an order is exercisable").
  Page 18, line 19, leave out ("such an order") and insert ("an order under this section").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 inclusive with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move these four amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Transfer or termination of assignation]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 18, line 21, leave out ("not") and insert (", with the consent of the special road authority,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 18, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  ("(2) Where an assignation granted by the special road authority under section 25(1) is terminated before the end of the toll period, the authority shall take reasonable steps to grant a fresh assignation to a new concessionaire and the authority may charge and collect tolls in the same way as a
  388
  concessionaire within the period of two years beginning with that termination but, within that period, only until the earliest, if any, of the following events—

  (a) the granting of a fresh assignation;

  (b) the expiry of the toll period;

  (c) the commencement of an extension toll order.

  (2A) References in this Part (including this section) to an assignation granted under section 25(1) shall include references to a fresh assignation granted by virtue of subsection (2) above.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Further provisions as to charging of tolls]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 7, line 14, after ("order") insert ("shall contain provision exempting from liability for tolls, any vehicle lawfully displaying a badge issued to a disabled person under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34 with which are grouped Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. We went into this matter of the exemption of tolls for disabled people in some detail at Committee stage, so I shall not weary your Lordships with a long dissertation this evening. My noble friend the Minister has gone some way to satisfying what we want, but I shall be grateful if he will clarify one important point.
  Are the amendments of himself and of his noble friend Lord Strathclyde solely giving exemption to those with a vehicle that is exempted from duty where the toll road is an estuarial crossing? If that is the case it is not satisfactory and we may have to come back to it at a later stage.
  I agree that not all disabled people need necessarily be exempt from tolls, but those who are so disabled as to be exempt from the vehicle excise licence should, in my view, be exempt from all tolls, part of the reason being that they are debarred because of their disabilities from using alternative forms of transport. They are not able to get on buses; they are not even able to use trains. Even though buses may have to pay the toll, the individual passengers are probably paying only a small proportion of it. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I have little to add to what he has said today and to what was said in the earlier debate, save that the solution that he is seeking, and which I endorse, is not without precedent. The Dartford Tunnel and the Tyne Tunnel exempt disabled people from tolls if they are in receipt of the exemption that he is seeking; namely, if they receive an exemption from vehicle excise duty.
  It is perfectly legitimate for the noble Lord to put the point to the Minister, because if the Minister were to respond that the exemption that he has in mind is so constrained, then it would hardly be worth having and I should hope that the House would then seek to challenge the Minister on that matter.
  However, the right course is to hear what the Minister has to say. Certainly he has not so far gone

  389
  anything like far enough, but we hope that he will be prepared to enter into a much greater commitment so far as the future passage of this Bill is concerned.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord is indeed hard to please. I am, however, grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. He is certainly right to come back to the question, although I have put down a separate amendment which, as he said, proposes a rather different solution. I can also tell noble Lords that I have been in correspondence with RADAR, the Spinal Injuries Association and the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People, in response to letters from them, explaining our thinking.
  There are two differences between the two amendments before us. The first is that my amendment takes as the basis for exemption from tolls not the orange badge scheme, but the arrangements for exemption from vehicle excise duty under the Vehicle Excise Act 1971. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this follows the precedent in the Dartford Thurrock Crossing Act. We believe it is the fairest way of targeting help at those who need it; it ties in logically with the purpose of the vehicle excise duty exemption, and the payment of mobility allowance, which go hand-in-hand. These exemptions are rightly designed to give financial assistance to disabled people in respect of their travel needs, as indeed would an exemption from tolls.
  As I explained at Committee stage, the purpose of the Orange Badge scheme is to allow disabled people who have considerable walking difficulties to park as near as possible to places they wish to visit. Unlike the VED exemption, its aim is not to assist disabled people financially with their travel requirements. There are well over a million orange badge holders in the country and the Government know what difficulties are caused for both issuing and enforcement authorities by the potential abuse which the existing scheme offers.
  As my noble friend will be aware, proposals will shortly be brought forward to cope with these problems.
  I turn now to the second difference in my amendment from that proposed by my noble friend. The difference is that it applies only to cases where the toll is limited, either because the toll collector is the highway authority, or because the road is an estuarial crossing and there is no convenient free alternative.
  My noble friend suggested that we should be willing to go further in offering assistance to disabled people. I first stress that we are looking for private financing of these roads. The successful bidder in a competition for a road will invest a great deal of money, at considerable risk, into a commercial project. These roads will be in genuine competition with other roads which will have the great advantage of being free at the point of use, and road users including disabled people will have the option of using them. In these circumstances we believe it is right that a decision to exempt disabled people from tolls should be for the concessionaire's judgment. Under Clause 12 of the Bill as currently drafted he will be able to do so and he may
  390
  well decide that the cost of doing it is well worth the good will generated. I can also see why it would be in the interests of his business to offer a reduced toll which people with disabilities would be more than willing to pay in respect of the benefits the road has to offer.
  However, we recognise the strength of the argument that for many disabled people their car is their only means of transport; that the imposition of a toll on a route where there is no convenient free alternative would unduly restrict their mobility; and that the loss of revenue in a case where the highway authority is the toll collector would be justifiable. That is why we have come forward with this amendment following the debate at Committee stage and representations we have received.
  I thank my noble friend for his contribution to the debate and hope that my proposed amendment will meet the anxieties expressed.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I am not sure that the amendments go far enough totally to satisfy me and my advisers. I shall read what my noble friend has said and consider it seriously. I shall reserve my right to come back on Third Reading with another amendment to improve the position. Many disabled people who qualify for an orange badge may be in a position to invest in companies which take such concessions and, therefore, earn an income. However, most of those who are exempt from the vehicle excise licence have little earning power and a small income and, therefore, are unlikely to be able to invest in such companies. We must take care to look after them properly. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 7, line 17, at end insert:
  ("( ) A toll order which specifies maximum tolls shall contain provision exempting from liability to pay any toll which is subject to a maximum—

  (a) a vehicle exempted from duty under section 4(1) (g) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 if it is being used for the purposes of an invalid, and

  (b) a vehicle so exempted under section 7(2) of that Act if it is being used by or for the purposes of a person suffering from a physical defect or disability.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Further provision as to charging of tolls]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 18, line 44, at end insert:
  ( ) A toll order which specifies maximum tolls shall contain provision exempting from liability to pay any toll which is subject to a maximum—

  (a) a vehicle exempted from duty under section 4(1) (g) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 if it is being used for the purposes of an invalid, and

  (b) a vehicle so exempted under section 7(2) of that Act if it is being used by or for the purposes of a person suffering from a physical defect or disability.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Facilities for collection of tolls]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 9, line 5, at end insert:

  391
  ("(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in any case where facilities for the collection of tolls are replaced or modified or in any case where new facilities are provided after the commencement of the toll period.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are seeking to limit the exemption from planning permission provided by Clause 15(2) to toll collection facilities which are constructed at the same time as the road. As presently drafted subsection (2) gives a blanket exemption from planning permission to all toll collection facilities which may be associated with a concession road. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, opposed an amendment that we then tabled intended to delete that subsection. In doing so he said:
  "The reasoning behind the subsection is by no means as sinister as the noble Lord makes out".
  The word "sinister" was putting the matter a little high but sometimes the Minister reacts in that way to anything that I say. He introduces words such as "sinister", "excited" and so forth but it does not matter. The Minister continued:
  "It is simply that, having gone through a complicated and exhaustive procedure to authorise a road scheme and the power to toll, it seems superfluous to expect the concessionaire to engage in a quite separate procedure to obtain planning permission for toll booths and their essential facilities such as rest rooms for toll collectors".
  He later added:
  "I understand also the concern about the breadth of the expression 'facilities for the collection of tolls'. It may be that we have not yet got the right balance. I shall look into the matter further … I shall table an appropriate amendment at Report stage if we can come up with a better solution".— [Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 169.]
  The Minister has not done so. Therefore, one assumes that he has not been particularly exhaustive in attempts to find a better solution. That is why we now return to the subject.
  In our debate in Committee I sought to anticipate the argument against the necessity for a concessionaire to apply for permission to have toll collection facilities after obtaining approval for the road scheme as a whole. I argued then, and I repeat the argument today because it is still true, that technological advances will be made. It is almost certain that the type of facilities that are most appropriate for efficient and effective toll collection will alter during the life of the toll order and concession agreement. Therefore, it is as important that any new facilities are subject to the same degree of scrutiny as the initial proposals.
  That is the purpose behind the amendment that I have tabled today. We retain the general exemption from planning permission for toll collection facilities but remove that exemption in the case of alterations to facilities and the provision of new facilities following the start of the toll period. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right to remind me that in response to a similar amendment tabled in Committee I promised to look into the matter further. However, I was careful not to commit myself to an amendment at Report stage. This matter is being discussed with colleagues in the Department of the Environment but
  392
  we are not yet in a position to put down an amendment, nor, I fear, to give any clearer indication as to our conclusions.
  The compromise proposed by the noble Lord is interesting and I shall study it carefully. Unlike the amendment put down in Committee it would not delay the construction of new toll roads by complicating the authorisation procedure. But it raises another problem in the way that it deals with the replacement of facilities in the same way as modifications and additions. There are other matters that we need to consider and I must beg your Lordships' indulgence a little longer as discussions proceed. I hope that meanwhile I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that was a positive reply; the first positive reply that we have received. No, that comment is unfair because the Minister was reasonably positive the last time round.
  I thank the Minister for his comments about my amendment; that it is interesting and worthy of consideration by the two departments and that discussions are taking place. That is helpful but he did not indicate when the discussions are likely to be concluded. Perhaps before I sit down he could give the House such an indication.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot give a more clear indication. The Bill must go through another place and there is still a long time before it completes the process. I shall try to obtain a conclusion on the subject before the Bill leaves this House, but I cannot give an absolute undertaking.
  The noble Lord stated that I have been more considerate in relation to this amendment. I have brought at least three or four amendments before your Lordships' House this afternoon which are specifically in response to points raised by the noble Lord at the last stage of the Bill. That is quite a good record.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not complaining about what the noble Lord has done in response on a previous occasion. I am complaining about the reaction to some of the amendments that we have put down tonight, which have not been so successful. I am very grateful for the concessions that the noble Lord has made in relation to previous debates.
  I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in being able to provide any kind of timetable. The Bill has a long way to go, but it is good to know that matters are being further considered by the two departments.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 [Restriction of access to toll roads]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments No. 38:
  Page 9, line 22, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 applies to England and Wales and Amendment No. 39—to which I shall also speak—applies to Scotland. They do not apply any change of policy with regard to the requirement under Clause 16(1) and Clause 36(1) that the consent of the highway authority, and, in the

  393
  case of a privately financed road, the concessionaire must be obtained before a road giving access to a toll road is constructed. Nor have we changed the policy that a planning authority should give the concessionaire notice of any proposal to build such an access road, which was the purpose of subsection (2). We have decided that requirements of the kind involved in Clause 16(2) and (3) are more appropriately placed in a general development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 than in separate regulations under the Bill. The general development order contains other, similar requirements and it is obviously beneficial for those in the planning world if such requirements are brought together in one document.
  With that explanation of our intention, I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to seek clarification in relation to one or two small points. I thank the Minister for the amendment, having stated what he has about it.
  In the Notes on Clauses which the noble Lord was kind enough to provide earlier, it is stated that subsection (2) was needed to prevent the granting of permission without the knowledge of the highway authority and concessionaire, which could make it difficult in practice to refuse a means of access. Would the noble Lord be good enough to confirm that the deletion of subsections (2) and (3) will not
  "make it difficult in practice for a highway authority to refuse its consent for the creation of a new access for a toll road"?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no change in our policy in relation to any of the points raised by the noble Lord. We propose to bring in the same provision under the general development order under the Town and Country Planning Act. I can assure the noble Lord that the effect will be exactly the same.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Restriction of access to toll roads]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 21, leave out lines 6 to 13.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
  Clause 23 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 14, line 12, column 2, leave out ("section 1(1)") and insert ("sections 1(1) and 5(1)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 14, line 12, at end insert:

  ("extension toll order

  section (Extension toll orders) (1)")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 41 [The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the interpretation of Part II]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 22, line 34, at end insert:
  394
  (" "extension toll order" means a toll order made under section (Extension toll orders)(1) authorising the charging of tolls for a new toll period;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 23, line 17, leave out ("25") and insert ("25(1)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a technical one. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Streets, street works and undertakers]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara
  Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments No. 45:
  Page 24, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
  ("(5) References in this Part to the undertaker in relation to apparatus in a street are to the person entitled, by virtue of a statutory right or a street works licence, to carry out in relation to the apparatus such works as are mentioned in subsection (3); and references to an undertaker having apparatus in the street, or to the undertaker to whom apparatus belongs, shall be construed accordingly.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 45 is necessary in order to provide a better definition of the term "undertaker" where it is used in relation to apparatus in this part of the Bill. An undertaker is defined in Clause 42 as the person for whose purposes the apparatus is to be or has been placed in the street. However, that definition would lead to uncertainty in cases where apparatus placed by one person is subsequently used for one or more others, for example where telecommunications cables that are used by several operators are placed in a disused gas or water pipe.
  By defining the undertaker as the person entitled to carry out street works on the apparatus in question, any doubt as to who is the undertaker for the purposes of the Bill is avoided. I beg to move.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I was under the impression that it was the intention of the Government to take Amendments Nos. 70, 72, 74, 77 and 79 with Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that those amendments are being taken with the next two Amendments, Nos. 47, 48, and also 80 and 82.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 99 [Roads, road works and undertakers]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 55, line 26, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
  ("(5) References in this Part to the undertaker in relation to apparatus in a road are to the person entitled, by virtue of a statutory right or a permission granted under section 101, to carry out in relation to the apparatus such works as are mentioned in subsection (3); and references to an undertaker having apparatus in the road, or to the undertaker to whom apparatus belongs, shall be construed accordingly.")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 6.58 to 8 p.m.]

  New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
  Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  Clause 43 [The street authority and other relevant authorities]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 24, line 24, after ("53") insert ("and (General duty of undertakers to co-operate)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 70, 72, 77, 79, 80 and 82.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, are we not also taking Amendment No. 74 in this group?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not believe that we are taking Amendment No. 74.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, according to my Marshalled List the amendments in this group are Amendments Nos. 48, 70, 72, 74, 77, 79, 80 and 82. Amendment No. 74 forms part of this group.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, very well. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70, 72, 74, 77 and 79 in the names of noble Lords opposite. Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 80 and 82 provide for a number of important changes to the provisions regarding the co-ordination of works. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are consequential on the new clause to be inserted after Clause 53. They make clear that the new duty on undertakers to co-operate with the street authority shall apply to a local highway authority in place of the Secretary of State where the authority is the Secretary of State's agent in relation to trunk roads.
  Amendments Nos. 80 and 82 will add a new clause which places a general duty on undertakers to co-operate both with the street authority and each other in a co-ordinating the execution of works. Of course, I have considered carefully the points raised in Committee in favour of such a provision and, following discussion with the utilities and highways authorities, I have concluded that a general duty of this nature is desirable if street works are to be co-ordinated efficiently and effectively. The amendment is drafted in general terms similar to Clause 53 which outlines the street authority's duty to co-ordinate works.
  Codes of practice which the Secretary of State may issue or approve under subsection (2) will set out the objectives and give detailed guidance in the exercise of undertakers' duties under this clause. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that anxiety is effectively met by the new clause which we propose after Clause 53, and that they will feel able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 73 and 79.
  Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 seek to add economy, efficiency and effectiveness to the list of objectives for which a street authority is to be required to co-ordinate works. Although the whole thrust of this part of the Bill is towards greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness for street works activity, we do not consider that there is anything to be gained by attaching that objective to the duty of the street authority in the context of this clause. Each utility will have a powerful financial interest in carrying out
  396
  works effectively and efficiently, particularly in the light of the penalties which will be suffered if they fail to do so. It could even be seen as diluting the responsibility of the undertaker to place a duty on the street authority to maximise the economy of street works.
  Greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness will be ways in which the street authority can secure the objectives set out in Clause 53 of minimising inconvenience to persons using the street. That will be fully reflected in the various standards and codes of practice to be applied throughout this part of the Bill.
  As regards Amendment No. 74, it is not necessary to express the provision on issuing a code of practice about co-ordination of works as a duty on the Secretary of State. The street authority's duty to co-ordinate works is a crucial element of the street works provision. The agreement of a code of practice capable of being approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 53 will be a priority when it comes to implementing this part of the Bill. The Department of Transport is working closely with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee on the drafting of such a code. It is the Government's firm intention to have such a code approved in time for the introduction of this new duty on the street authorities.
  I hope that noble Lords will approve the Government's proposed amendments and, when the time comes, will feel able to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should first apologise to the Minister and to the House. Amendment No. 74 was included in my copy of the Marshalled List but I have now seen the revised list on which it was not included with this group. That explains why Amendment No. 74 is not in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whereas Amendments Nos. 70, 72, 77 and 79 are in the names of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
  This group of amendments together insert a new objective of co-ordination maximising the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of street and road works. Utilities are required to have regard to the proposed co-ordination codes of practice and the Secretary of State will be able to pursue utilities which are not co-operating with street authorities. The amendments require rather than permit the Secretary of State to issue a co-ordination code of practice.
  The Minister has stressed that the issue of co-ordination is very important. As regards the highways authorities, co-ordination is one of the most difficult and crucial areas. The credibility and effectiveness of the Bill will, to a great extent, hang on the co-ordination function being deployed satisfactorily.
  In Committee an amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis which would have imposed a duty upon utilities to co-operate with street authorities in the pursuance of their co-ordination duties. In response to that amendment the Minister

  397
  listed a series of provisions in the Bill which are designed to assist street authorities in co-ordinating street and road works. The Minister went on to say:
  "However, we accept that the street authorities' duty of co-ordination can be discharged effectively only if the undertakers concerned co-operate by participating in liaison meetings, giving adequate advance notice of their plans and so on. The code of practice to be issued or approved under subsection (3) may be used to give practical guidance to all interested parties on how co-ordination is to work in practice. We do not believe that further statutory obligations are necessary to achieve that".—[Official Report, 6/12/90; col. 313.]
  The Government have clearly reconsidered their position. This amendment represents an acknowledgment of the point raised by my noble friend in Committee. The Government amendments are broadly acceptable as far as they go. One unfortunate aspect of them is that they imply the existence of two co-ordination codes of practice: one issued under the provisions of Clause 53; and the second under the provisions of the Government's new clause. When the Minister replies, will he kindly confirm that the Government envisage producing a single code of practice on co-ordination fulfilling the requirements of both clauses?
  One aspect of the group of amendments which is not addressed in the Government's amendment is the inclusion of a new objective for co-ordination. The amendment would add a fourth point to the factors listed in subsection 53(1) namely:
  "to maximise the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which street works and works for road purposes are undertaken".
  To ensure consistency this would have to be mirrored by the insertion of the same point in subsection (1) of the Government's new clause.
  The aim of this group of amendments is to pursue the key issue raised by my noble friend at Committee stage. It may be recalled that he asked the Minister a series of questions. These included:
  "If it appears to a street authority that in the interests of co-ordination a particular authority's work should be delayed or advanced, can the Minister say what powers may be introduced to enable that objective to be fulfilled?"—[Official Report, 6/12/90; col. 314]
  He also asked:
  "If there are a number of utilities having works planned in a particular street which might be programmed for resurfacing, what powers will be available to the street authority to ensure that works are timed to coincide with the resurfacing programme?"
  My noble friend also asked:
  "In such circumstances would the highway authority be able to ensure that the utilities reinstate to an interim level prior to resurfacing? Does the Minister believe that there is scope either for the utility or for the street authority to request, for example, resurfacing or reinstatement, to be done by the other party on a rechargeable basis?"
  A further question put by my noble friend was:
  "Might it not be advantageous for the highway authority to do the reinstatement, or other civil engineering work, for the utility while the authority is carrying out other works in the street? Alternatively, the highway authority may wish the utility to carry out some minor repair work adjacent to the reinstatement".
  At the Committee stage the Minister agreed to write to my noble friend on this matter. He has done so, and I think it would be useful to quote the Minister's reply. He states in his letter:
  398
  "Although Clause 52 will give the street authority the power to prevent undertakers from breaking up a highway within 12 months of the completion of resurfacing work etc, in practice the arrangements for advance notification and regular liaison meetings between highway authorities and undertakers should allow a process of dialogue to begin a year or more in advance, when a highway authority first reveals its proposed resurfacing work. Utilities may well at that stage agree to phase their own works in a co-ordinating fashion without the threat of the Clause 52 prohibition following the completion of resurfacing. The sort of joint working with the highway authority on the works themselves which you postulated will be perfectly possible under the Bill, and it may well be in the financial interest of both parties to work in that way. We do not believe that additional powers of compulsion for the street authority will be necessary or appropriate in those circumstances."
  I have quoted from the Minister's letter because we regard that response as being helpful, but it is also clear that the achievement of the sort of co-ordination referred to by my noble friend at Committee stage depends very much on the voluntary co-operation of the utilities. The local authority associations consider that the inclusion in subsection 53(1) of the objective such as that set out in the amendment, combined with the new duties imposed on the utilities in the Government's amendment, would strengthen the street authority's arm in securing co-operation and co-ordination of the type which all want to see.
  There is an important issue in relation to consultation which was not raised at the Committee stage. In a circumstance where two undertakers wish to carry out works at the same time it is understood that the street authority will be able to direct in the interests of safety which undertaker should undertake works first.
  Another important point which needs to be considered, however, is the question of liability. It may be that the second undertaker's work is delayed but it is given a start date by the street authority on the basis of information received from the first undertaker. The second undertaker, on the basis of that information, enters into an agreement with a contractor. The question which may arise is, who is liable if the completion date of the first undertaker is delayed and as a result there is litigation between the second undertaker and his contractor?
  The present subsection 53(3) states that the Secretary of State may issue or approve codes of practice on co-ordination. We must emphasis the view of the local authorities associations that Clause 53 is central to the Bill as a whole. Advice on the implementation of the co-ordination duty must be available to the highway authorities as soon as any parts of the Bill are implemented. Many members of this House have emphasised the importance of this new co-ordination duty. If it is to be effective it will impose a considerable extra burden on the highway authorities, and the extent of that burden will be determined by factors outside the authorities' direct control, primarily the extent of each of the utilities' work programmes. A unusually heavy burden could be imposed as a result of extensive mains renewals in a particular authority's area, for example. The local authority associations are naturally concerned about

  399
  this potential burden and would welcome an indication from the Minister as to how he envisages adequate resources being made available.
  I am sorry to have spoken at some length on this but we agree with the Minister that this question of co-ordination is a vital one and is central to the whole process of the street works part of the Bill.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting the principle of the amendments that I have moved and I shall endeavour to try to meet the points which he raised in his amendments.
  First, codes of practice under Clause 53 and the new clause proposed after Clause 53 are likely to be in a single document. Obviously, having heard what the noble Lord has said, we shall do our best to make sure that they are indeed done that way.
  The noble Lord quoted from the letter I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on these points on Clause 53. I do not think that I can go any further at this stage than I did in that letter. As the noble Lord said, co-ordination is very important indeed. It is a critical part of the Bill, but it is a two-way process. The Horne Report came down against giving street authorities overriding powers to direct undertakers. Both sides will be required to comply with the code of practice on co-ordination. If they do so fully, there will be no need for additional powers of direction for street authorities.
  As noble Lords have said on many occasions during the proceedings on this Bill, this Bill has been carefully constructed to balance the needs of both the highway authorities and the statutory undertakers. As we proceed this evening we must be very careful to make sure that we do not upset that balance too greatly because it is the result of many years of careful consultation which is still continuing.
  The noble Lord asked whether local authorities will have adequate resources for this. We intend that the package as a whole should bring savings to local authorities, for example through the computerised register. The benefits will be very great for local authorities, and I am sure they would feel that any resources they needed to put into this matter would be money well spent.
  I shall certainly read most carefully what the noble Lord has said this evening. Obviously, I cannot answer at this stage all the points he made. If anything needs to be picked up by me I shall certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord, but, with that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to agree to the Government's amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 100 [The road works authority and other relevant' authorities]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 55, line 38, after ("110") insert ("and (General duty of undertakers to co-operate)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Street works licences]:
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 93, line 40, at end insert ("and shall give him like notice of any notification given by the licensee under paragraph 6."). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment but it covers an important practical point. Apparatus installed in the street by persons requiring a street works licence may cease to be used or may change hands. Paragraph 6 of the schedule imposes an obligation on licensees to notify the street authority if that happens. As undertakers will have obligations under the Bill to give notice to persons having apparatus on the street in certain circumstances (a notice under Clause 49 is one example) it is important that they are aware of apparatus changing hands or being abandoned.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the street authorities pass on the information they receive under paragraph 6 of the schedule to the relevant authorities. As I said, this is an important practical point. In the absence of a satisfactory assurance from my noble friend we may have to press the matter again at a later stage. I beg to move.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has already said, we now move into an area of delicate balance. It is so delicate that it is possible that I have put my name to amendments which are contradictory in that I find myself in some cases in agreement with people on either side of the argument. I support this amendment very much as a probing amendment. There is the possibility of a serious gap in communications if we do not get it right. I dare say that the local authorities are not desperately wild about this amendment. It may be in the wrong place. I believe that they also accept that the principle lying behind the amendment is a sensible one. The question is whether we have the balance right. It is a very useful way of drawing to the attention of the Minister the problems that can appear if this communication link is not preserved.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, this amendment would add a further notice requirement to the procedures for street works licences. Where there is a proposed change of ownership or abandonment of apparatus placed under a street works licence it is necessary for the licensee to inform the street authority which issued the licence. It is less clear why the licensee should be required to notify all other undertakers with apparatus in the street. That would be rather bureaucratic. If an undertaker is in any doubt it would he a relatively simple matter to check the current use or ownership of apparatus with the street authority. I will, of course, consider what my noble friend said and see if there is any need to improve the Bill in this way. At the moment I am reasonably happy with the way in which the Bill is drafted.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall read very carefully what he said and perhaps we can then discuss the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 52:
  Page 93, line 42, leave out ("sum") and insert ("fee").

  401
  Page 93, line 44, leave out ("charge") and insert ("fee").
  Page 93, line 45, leave out ("sum") and insert (fee").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, 124, 125, 134, 135, 150 and 151. These are technical amendments. They make clearer provision for the determination of disputes by arbitration. The main amendment to Clause 89 sets out which matters of dispute under this part of the Bill may be determined by arbitration. Disputes arising under the provisions which involve the recovery of costs or expenses incurred may be settled by arbitration if the parties concerned are unable to agree.
  However, determination by arbitration will not apply to disputes over the charging of prescribed fees, rights to compensation or claims for contributions to the cost of making good long-term damage to the street under Clause 71. The amendments to Clauses 54, 70 and 78 and to Schedule 3 are in consequence of this amendment and substitute the reference to fees where appropriate. That point was raised in Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 101 [Permission to execute road works]:
  Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 56, line 27, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment appears on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and is a probing amendment. Clause 101 was introduced into Part IV of the Bill at Committee stage following consultations between the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The Scottish highway authorities are now broadly content that the clause is sufficiently closely aligned to Clause 44 in Part III of the Bill to provide for uniform application across the United Kingdom. However, they are unclear as to what kind of work and area the Government envisage prescribing under subsections (1), (2) (b) and (c). For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have the Bill by them, paragraph (b) refers to,
  "persons carrying out works of a prescribed class".
  Paragraph (c) refers to,
  "persons carrying out works in a prescribed area".
  It is on those particular factors which I understand the Scottish highways authorities are anxious to have the views of the Government. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely accept that the noble Lord is seeking to probe the Government's mind in this amendment. I shall try to provide him with an answer which is acceptable. It is our intention to bring within the framework of Part IV of the Bill the great majority of cases where apparatus has been placed in the road. We take the view that it is increasingly likely that cases will arise where persons, companies or other private bodies seek to install apparatus in circumstances very similar to those of the statutory undertakers. It would therefore make good sense to have these operations controlled by the
  402
  legislation we are now considering and to have the operators and their works subject to the duties and conditions set out in Part IV of the Bill.
  It is our intention to consult the road authorities on the classes of persons, works and the areas to be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the proposed clause before this power is exercised. Additionally, we wish to ensure that, where necessary, there is uniformity of treatment of operators and their works across Britain to ensure a high standard and less disruption to the public, as is envisaged in this Bill.
  For those reasons the classes of work to be prescribed might include all installations and telecommunications lines put in by private bodies or organisations for their own dedicated use or the works of cable television companies which would not be classed as statutory undertakers. Similarly, prescribed areas might include all roads designated as traffic-sensitive roads or roads subject to a restriction on works following substantial works for road purposes as in Clause 109.
  Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied that these provisions are sensible. We will consult the local authorities before making regulations. Therefore, I hope that he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It proves that the probing was well worthwhile. I am very pleased to know, and I am certain that the highway authorities will also be pleased to know, that there will be effective consultation before any steps are taken and that there is also a desire to achieve uniformity. I thank the Minister again for his observations and help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 47 [The street works register]:
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 26, line 23, leave out from ("inspection") to end of line 24 and insert (", at all reasonable hours and free of charge—

  (a) so far as it relates to restricted information, by any person having authority to execute works of any description in the street, or otherwise appearing to the authority to have a sufficient interest, and

  (b) so far as it relates to information which is not restricted, by any person.

  The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the information which is restricted for the purposes of this subsection.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 56. These amendments are necessary in order to provide for certain cases where access to information contained on a street works register will need to be restricted on grounds of national security or in order to protect certain technical details. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the types of information which are to be treated as restricted. It would allow information of this nature to be made available only to other undertakers or to persons with a sufficient interest in the works. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for explaining, albeit briefly, the thoughts underlying the amendment. Can he indicate why it is difficult for him to explain on the face of the Bill with a little greater precision his reason for introducing this proposal relating to restricted information? To do so would not cause too much difficulty but it would then be apparent to those interested why restricted information is to be defined by the regulations.
  Can he give an undertaking that he will consult with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee, and most particularly with the local authority associations, before any regulations are prescribed under these provisions? Can he confirm that, in dealing with restricted information, the general public is not to be denied access to information about which utility has undertaken or has plans for street works in any street; that the public will have a contact name to whom representations might be made or from whom further information might be obtained and that details of the expected start date and the scope and duration that is likely in respect of any planned work may also be made available in that way?
  One has to have regard to the underlying purpose which the Minister has indicated, but perhaps a little greater openness would not come amiss. There is concern about this matter. It is concern which might be allayed not simply by reading the Minister's words in Harsard but by having something more drafted into the Bill which could help in this regard.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are dealing here with restricted information. I am not certain that I can go along entirely with what the noble Lord has said. He asked what type of apparatus might be involved. It could, for example, be telecommunications apparatus. The noble Lord asked whether we will consult with the highway authorities and utilities on this matter. We shall consult. Members of the public will receive all the information that is necessary to them as road users. I can go no further than that. I do not think there is a case for including anything more on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is a difference between information which needs to be restricted for the protection of the realm and information which goes to commercial confidentiality, a doctrine which sometimes—all too often I fear—is abused in this country and indeed elsewhere. Commercial confidentiality can hide a multitude of sins. Can the Minister at least indicate that on issues of alleged commercial confidentiality—such issues are not entirely within his domain whereas matters dealing with the protection of the realm certainly are—the Government will be scrupulous?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give that undertaking. If the amendment is agreed to, the power will be in the hands of the Secretary of State. I can give an assurance that he will act most properly in exercising that power.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 55:
  404
  Page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
  ("(5) A street authority shall participate in any arrangements made under subsection (4) above").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the cost of the computerised street works register. There would appear to be a divergence of views between the Government, the highway authorities and the joint utilities group. Those concerns are unnecessary because everyone is generally in agreement on what should take place. I hope that in explaining the amendment that viewpoint will be accepted.
  The effect of the amendment is to delete from the Bill the specific reference to street authorities paying towards the cost of a computerised street works register. The local authority associations are concerned that, although the Bill contains in Clause 47(5) a specific reference to street authorities paying towards the cost of a central street register, there is no parallel reference to the utilities making a contribution. Because of these concerns an amendment was proposed in Committee to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which among other things would set out arrangements for fees to be charged for the use of the register. However, the Government have refused to accept the case for removing the specific reference in Clause 47(5) to street authority contributions.
  When opposing an amendment to delete that reference in Committee, the Minister said:
  "Amendment No. 67 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require street authorities to make contributions towards the cost of any arrangements which may be made for the keeping of a central street works register. We cannot accept that local highway authorities … should not contribute towards its cost".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 300.]
  It must be stressed that the local authority associations do not deny that street authorities should contribute towards the cost of the register. As the Minister explained:
  "The government amendments make it clear that undertakers and other users of the register may be required to contribute towards the cost. We propose therefore that the cost should be shared between the users of the facility, whether they be the highway authority or whether they be the utilities".—[Official Report, 4/12/90; col. 301.]
  The local authority associations fully support that approach and agree with the Minister that his amendment, which is now Clause 47(6), provides for exactly that. The problem, however, is why, in addition to that new subsection, the Minister feels that he needs a separate reference to highway authorities' contributions in the preceding subsection. The Minister agreed in Committee to look at the matter further and gave an undertaking to that effect at col. 302 of the Official Report. As we all seem to be in agreement—the utilities group, the highway authorities and the Government —I hope the Minister will see why there should not be this specific reference to the highway authorities, bearing in mind that the noble Lord and the Government actually agree that both the utilities and highway authorities should have responsibility in meeting the cost.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, this is another case where we seem to be entering the delicate balance situation.

  405
  I see this as a probing amendment designed to test the Government's mind as regards their interpretation of the clause as it stands. I agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in that there is some doubt on the matter. However, on the other hand, the National Joint Utilities Group says that it does not like the amendment, although it accepts that there should be a proper balance as regards costs. The group feels that, if the amendment goes through, its members will be left carrying the can for the whole cost. My reading of it indicates to me that that is not true. Nevertheless, we are seeking reassurance from the Minister. Perhaps he can tell us exactly where the balance lies in the Bill as drafted.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can give that assurance. The balance is there. When we debated the matter in Committee, I explained that we take the view that local highway authorities, which will enjoy a new management tool in the form of a computerised register, should make an appropriate contribution towards its costs. We are all agreed on that aspect of the matter.
  If the preferred option is for a system with some centralised features, the Secretary of State may need to be able to require local highway authorities not only to participate in the arrangements by acquiring the appropriate equipment and so forth, but also to contribute to the costs of setting up and running the central part of the system. These costs, split between a large number of individual users, would not be large. In fact, a consultant's feasibility study estimated in 1988 that the average contribution towards the central cost per user—that would include street authorities —would be about £13,000 initially, with annual running costs of about £1,100. I do not think that anyone would quibble too much about those figures.
  However, the difference between the undertakers and the highway authorities is that, unlike undertakers, who may be required to contribute to the full cost of the system by means of notice fees, local highway authorities will need to be expressly required to make any contributions. The difference lies in the fact that undertakers will be required to meet ongoing costs basically every time they serve a notice. We have said that the potential users of the register will be consulted throughout its development. I can reaffirm that undertaking. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I hope that I do not appear to be rather dull and obtuse but, in the light of what the Minister has just said, I do not understand why he cannot accept this amendment. There is general agreement that the street authorities should contribute towards the cost of the register. There is also agreement that the utilities group should contribute. Therefore, by accepting our amendment, the Government would ensure that that is the position. It seems to me that the Bill as drafted puts the emphasis on the street authority.
  I am sure that if further discussions were allowed to take place between the utilities group and the highway
  406
  authorities, it would be possible to thresh out a form of words which would convey exactly what the Government have in mind. In effect, there is no difference between us, but if the amendment is not carried there will be; there will be a difference of emphasis. Nevertheless, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and I shall seek consultation with the highway authorities and the utilities group. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, we all want to achieve a balance in the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 104 [The road works register]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 58, line 9, leave out from ("inspection") to end of line 10 and insert (", at all reasonable hours and free of charge—

  (a) so far as it relates to restricted information, by any person having authority to execute works of any description in the road, or otherwise appearing to the authority to have a sufficient interest, and

  (b) so far as it relates to information which is not restricted, by any person.

  The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the information which is restricted for the purposes of this subsection.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  8.45 p.m.
  Clause 48 [Advance notice of certain works]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 27, line 11, at end insert:
  ("( ) Requirements under this section shall prescribe that, advance information, including information on the start date, expected duration and safety measures taken for disabled persons is made available to local organisations of and for disabled people.").
  The noble Lord said, My Lords, this amendment, which is based on a recommendation in the Home Report, would impose a duty to give advance notice of street works to local disability organisations so that their members can be informed. If noble Lords will look at subsection (1) of this clause, they will see that there is already a duty to give advance notice of prescribed works to the street authority. I should have thought that such notice could have been copied to organisations of and for disabled people. In my view it would not be too difficult.
  The Horne Report, upon which the Bill is based, specifically recommended that the utilities and the highway authorities should assist local organisations of blind and disabled people to provide advance information to their members about street works. The new computerised street works information register should make it straightforward for authorities to fulfil that obligation.
  In their response to the report in 1986, Her Majesty's Government accepted that recommendation. It is, therefore, both surprising and disappointing to note that this provision has not been written into the Bill. A similar amendment was moved in Committee. The present amendment has been slightly altered so as to take account of a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. When we discussed the matter in Committee my noble friend replied:

  407
  "What matters most is that information on the starting date and likely duration of those works most likely to affect disabled people reaches them at the right time".—[Official Report, 6/12/90; col. 304.]
  He then went on to state that that would be covered by suitable guidance to local authorities on their duty to co-ordinate works. However, guidance is not legally binding. There is likely to be a patchy result in practice, with some authorities providing advance notice and others simply not bothering. It is important that standards are consistent nationally and that the information that disabled people receive does not depend upon where they live or on the approach which their authority chooses to adopt. Chapter 17 of the Horne Report states:
  "Our most substantial evidence in this field came from associations concerned with the blind and the disabled. We have received both written and oral evidence that the standards which the utilities lay down are not always observed in practice. There is no doubt that in a few cases the practice on site falls a long way short of the proper standards".
  As I live in the country, I notice that this kind of situation frequently occurs. For example, one can go round a corner and suddenly find oneself confronted with roadworks with no prior warning; indeed, the initial warning is a sign placed on the first heap of earth which has been excavated. Such an example underlines the need for clear legislative duties rather than guidelines which can be ignored. In addition, my noble friend gave the impression in Committee that the onus was on the local groups to find out what street works were taking place rather than on the authority. Street works pose a serious hazard for people with various kinds of disability, especially those who are blind and those who are in wheelchairs. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. There are one or two points which I should like to underline. He quite rightly said that guidance is not legally enforceable. There appears to be no good reason why it should not be enforceable in this particular instance. Therefore, the matter needs to be addressed on the face of the Bill. It is true to say that that is a view which is not taken by some, or any, of the local authority associations. To do them justice, they agreed that the relevant HAUC working parties will address the question of provision of information to groups representing people with disabilities. But that is to look at the matter on a national basis. We are dealing here with matters that are essentially local. It will not be easy for national groups dealing with people with disability to come to grips with matters of this kind. I am not in any way questioning the good faith of the local authority side of HAUC or indeed anybody connected with it; but I express anxieties which have already been eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
  The noble Lord also referred to the inconsistency of approach. There is little doubt that that will arise if the matter is to be dealt with only by guidance. The reason may be that local authorities, swamped as they are with additional responsibilities—for example, under these provisions, under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and a whole host of
  408
  other matters—may not have had available to them compensating resources to ensure that they are able to carry out those functions properly. Almost certainly the net result will be that some local authorities will discharge their responsibilities to the full and others may backslide. It happens over and over again, not necessarily because they want to but because they are strapped for resources. That is my anxiety. When dealing with matters concerning people with disability the issues need to be specifically addressed.
  I hope the Minister will feel that the plea made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is something to which he can respond positively. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting what was said by the noble Lord opposite.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, my name is also appended to the amendment and I support it. In addition to the points made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, it provides another checklist with which people can remind themselves of their obligation to the disabled, which does not always enter one's mind at the right moment.
  Perhaps I may revert to a topic raised at the Committee stage of the Bill regarding the piece of textured pavement outside St. Stephen's Entrance at what is now a pelican crossing. I feel that we should not have had to protest so loudly and so long if the obligation had been on the undertaker to inform disability groups of the work. They would immediately have said, "Before you tear up that pavement let us speak to the ministry or the local authority". I thank the Minister and his department for their intervention on the question of that piece of textured pavement. I am delighted to say that, although it has not yet been replaced, I understand from a letter the Minister was kind enough to send to me that the local authority has agreed to replace it and to review its attitude towards textured and tactile pavements in the whole of the Westminster area. That is a big step forward.
  As I say, had the obligation been laid upon the undertakers in the beginning, it is possible that the mistake of tearing up that piece of pavement would not have been made. That is an additional reason why disabled groups should be informed. I understand the Minister may have difficulty with some of the wording in the amendment. What constitutes,
  "local organisations of or for disabled people",
  may be a broad spectrum in various parts of the country. However, I hope the Minister will accept that there should be a certain amount of positive discrimination in such cases.
  The friend who drew my attention to that piece of pavement outside St. Stephen's Entrance later told me that on the day she came to the House for a meeting the fact that the pavement had been torn up totally disoriented her. She had no idea where she was. That can be a severe imposition on people who are normally mobile but suddenly find these props missing. They mean nothing to us, but to a blind or otherwise disabled person they may make the difference between being able to get out and about and lead a normal life or being confined either to an institution or their own homes. I support the amendment.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. At that time I explained that a statutory requirement on undertakers of street works to supply advance notice of their many thousands of works to particular local organisations was not considered to be an effective method of getting information to the blind and disabled people who need it. What mattered most was that information on the starting date and likely duration of the particular works most likely to affect vulnerable road-users reaches those people at the right time.
  I am pleased to say that the Highways Authorities and Utilities Committee has taken up the suggestion made at that time that there should be discussions with groups representing blind and disabled people of the most effective way of involving local groups in the advance planning of works. By the inclusion of suitable guidance to undertakers and local highway authorities in the code of practice on co-ordination of works and by the effective use of the computerised street works register we believe it will be possible more effectively to improve the provision of advance information on works for blind and disabled people.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that some local authorities may be under pressure on resources. But one of the purposes of the Bill should be to save local authority resources. My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to the Home Report. That recommended providing information to disabled groups. On the other hand, it did not impose a statutory requirement to copy notices of all works to such groups. I point out to my noble friend that there are many thousands of such groups.
  Our discriminatory approach will be agreed by the authorities and the utilities and will work in practice. Compliance with the code of practice on coordination will be taken to demonstrate that an authority or undertaker has complied with its general duty. Failure to comply with that duty will be a criminal offence.
  I believe we have achieved the right approach. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and am glad that the right result was achieved with regard to the textured pavement outside the Palace. I should point out that that particular roadwork will not be covered by the Bill, as the noble Lord is aware, but we shall come later to an amendment regarding roadworks where street undertakers are concerned. I believe that the approach is right and I hope my noble friend will agree.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for copying to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the letter he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, regarding the paving outside the Palace. I appreciate that. I am somewhat disappointed with the reply of my noble friend, particularly as at Committee stage he said that what mattered most was that information of the starting date and the likely duration of the works reached blind and disabled people. In one voice he is saying that they should be told and in another that they should not. I have some difficulty understanding that.
  410
  At this late hour I do not wish to embarrass my noble friend by dividing the House and possibly having the amendment counted out. I shall read carefully what he has said and reserve my right to come back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9 p.m.
  Clause 105 [Advance notice of certain works]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 60:
  Page 58, line 30, leave out ("proposed").
  Page 58, line 34, leave out ("the") and insert ("under this section an").
  Page 58, line 35, leave out second ("as may be").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these minor amendments bring the provisions into line with the parallel provisions in Part III relating to England and Wales. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 49 [Notice of starting date of works]:
  Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 27, line 23, at end insert ("or in which notice is required only in respect of works on a traffic sensitive street.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The effect is to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe cases in which notice of street works is required only on traffic sensitive streets. I understand that the view of the National Joint Utilities Group is that if the amendment permits some classes of work to be undertaken without notice except on traffic sensitive routes, it would not oppose the amendment but would support it. I believe that the amendment has that effect.
  This is a probing amendment designed to explore the links between Clause 49(2) and Clause 57. At the Committee stage, an amendment was tabled which would remove the power available to the Secretary of State to prescribe cases in which no notice is required before street works can be undertaken. It may be recalled that, responding to that amendment, the Minister quoted one example of circumstances in which notice would not be required: lifting a manhole cover. The local authority associations accept that on most roads notice could not reasonably be required for lifting a manhole cover. However, this type of operation could cause significant disruption if it were undertaken at a peak time on a traffic sensitive route.
  The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe cases such as lifting a manhole cover in which notice would be required only on a traffic sensitive route. It would be helpful if, when the Minister replies, he gives confirmation of the Government's intentions on the matter; and further, whether he can give an answer which is still required to the question posed at Committee stage. The question concerned the type of street works for which

  411
  notice would never be required so far as the Government are concerned. I believe the utilities group welcome the amendment. The highways authorities have asked us to put it forward and I am certain that the Government will see the common sense in it. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will find my explanation satisfactory. If general exemptions from notice requirements are to be prescribed in respect of certain very minor street works, we accept that it may be necessary to preserve the requirement to give notice of such works where they take place in streets designated as traffic sensitive. Perhaps the example that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave is one of those.
  Since there is already provision under Clause 57 for regulations on notice requirements to make special provision in the case of works in traffic sensitive streets, the noble Lord's amendment is not necessary to allow this to be done. I hope that that answer will satisfy him.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister's reply seems quite reasonable, but naturally I am certain that he will Agree that we would wish to read what he says to see what effect it will have on the clause to which he referred and whether or not it will be satisfactory to the utility group and the local authority associations. On that basis, subject to the proviso that we may wish to come back on Third Reading if we are not satisfied, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 50 [Power to give directions as to timing of street works]:
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 28, line 1, at end insert ("in relation to any street designated by them as traffic sensitive").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also to do with traffic sensitive streets. Under the terms of the draft code of practice jointly prepared by the utilities and highway authorities, the powers of the street authority to give directions to undertakers as to the timing of street works are only intended to apply to traffic sensitive streets.
  The purpose of this amendment is to obtain confirmation from my noble friend that the Government intend in their regulations to restrict the power on streets designated as traffic sensitive. I beg to move.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I regret to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, that the amendment, is not acceptable to the local authority associations. While we do not necessarily reflect everything that the local authority associations desire, they are an important unit in connection with street works.
  The aim of the amendment is to confine the issuing of directions under Clause 50 to traffic sensitive streets. Clause 57 establishes a notice regime in relation to streets specifically designated as being traffic sensitive. It is likely that these will cover about
  412
  12 per cent. of the highway network and will be streets such as main commuter routes where utility works at particular times would cause severe disruption.
  Clause 50 provides a street authority with the power to give directions on the times at which street works should be carried out if those works are likely to lead to serious disruption. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the procedure for issuing such a direction will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. It is understood that such regulations will also set out the circumstances in which a direction could be issued.
  The local authority associations see this clause as providing a useful means of dealing with one-off cases where works not on the traffic sensitive route network could result in serious disruption. However, the utilities are concerned that the highway authorities will abuse the power, using it by default to impose similar restrictions to those enforced on a traffic sensitive route network elsewhere on the highway network.
  The local authority associations are confident that abuse of this type will not occur, but in any case the regulations to be made under subsection (2) could and should prevent any such abuse. This appears to be one of those cases where before we rush into making such an amendment there should be further discussions with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee to see whether there can be some agreement on it. There appears to be a view acceptable to the local authority associations, (provided that the utilities group do not carry through their view) that there would be abuse if the provision were carried through.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe we are close to reaching a point of balance on this matter. The National Joint Utilities Group seeks some firm reassurance from the Government that the Government see no possibility of the powers contained in the clause being abused. If such abuse were to occur, it would be a serious matter for the utilities group. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, accepts that. The local authority associations say they are confident about the issue, but clearly the National Joint Utilities Group is not confident. Reassurance is needed here. Local authorities have suggested that regulations could be made under subsection (2). Some indication of whether or not that is the case would be welcomed by all concerned.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on this amendment I find myself on the whole in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, rather than with my noble friend. As has been said, this amendment would limit to works on streets designated as traffic sensitive the power of a street authority to direct times of working. We believe that would be unnecessarily restrictive. There will inevitably be cases where street works on roads which have not been designated as traffic sensitive will cause serious disruption to traffic. An example would be works located close to a junction with a busy traffic-sensitive road where the works are not themselves situated on the designated road. Another example could be works planned to take place on a road to be used for a special event on

  413
  a particular day which is not traffic sensitive at other times and has not been so designated. The power to direct times of working may only be used where to do so would avoid or reduce serious disruption to traffic. Further restrictions on its use are not considered necessary or desirable. For that reason I cannot commend the amendment.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I also take note of what the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 51 [Notice of emergency works]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 28, line 19, after ("hours") insert ("(or such other period as may be prescribed)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 97, 98, 99 and 100. These amendments will allow the notice requirements for emergency works better to reflect practical constraints on undertakers. As presently drafted, Clause 51 requires undertakers "in any event" to notify the relevant authorities within two hours of commencing any emergency works. However, in some instances this requirement would pose an unnecessary and onerous burden on undertakers and would serve little practical purpose, particularly where works are carried out on roads not designated as traffic sensitive.
  The amendment to Clause 51 therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing cases, for example to cover emergencies which occur at night or on public holidays, where the two-hour limit would be relaxed.
  The two amendments to Clause 57 are necessary in consequence of this amendment. The first provides that any regulations made under Clause 51 may make special provision for works in traffic-sensitive streets. This could, for example, require all emergency works in such streets to be notified within two hours of works being begun. The second of these amendments replaces the words "proposed to be executed" in Clause 57 by a reference to street works. This is necessary as the works in question may be emergency works and may therefore already have been begun. The straightforward reference to street works is therefore more appropriate. I beg to move.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, as drafted, Clause 51 requires a utility to inform the street authority within two hours of the start of emergency works. The government amendment would allow a different and possibly longer deadline for notification to be prescribed in the regulations. It is difficult to argue against the case for flexibility in cases such as this. However, it is important that the Minister should explain the reason for the amendment. Does the Minister expect to prescribe an alternative period? What are the circumstances in which the Minister would envisage taking advantage of the flexibility allowed by the amendment?
  414
  The Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee working party on notice periods has agreed to the two-hour deadline. As noble Lords will know, this is a joint committee of the highway authorities and the utilities. The local authority associations would resist any move to lengthen the period available to the utilities to give notice at the start of emergency works. This is particularly important in relation to traffic- and pedestrian-sensitive streets.
  This again is one of those cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has referred time and time again, of maintaining a balance. As the working party has agreed with the deadline, I hope the Government will give some satisfactory explanation of their amendment.
  The local authority associations would be prepared to accept a longer notice period in circumstances where an emergency has occurred outside normal working hours and the authority in whose area the incident has occurred does not have arrangements for handling the receipt of notices outside normal office hours. In those cases the deadline for receipt of notification should be the start of the next working day. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister could deal with those points.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads the speech that I made when moving the amendment he will find that I dealt with some of the points he raised. I envisaged night time and public holidays, for example, as instances in which the two-hour limit could be relaxed for roads which were not traffic sensitive. We would extend the length of the period beyond two hours only where necessary and practicable.
  As I indicated, we shall consult the HAUC further before making the regulations which I described and which are necessary under this provision. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will be able to accept the amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 108 [Notice of emergency works]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 60, line 6, after ("hours") insert ("(or such other period as may be prescribed)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  9.15 p.m.
  Clause 52 [Restriction on works following substantial road works]:
  Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 28, line 38, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the ban on work in newly resurfaced streets. The effect of the amendment would be to extend the ban on utility works in newly resurfaced streets from one year to two years.
  Clause 52 prevents a utility from digging up a street which has been subject to substantial road works provided that the highway authority gives the utilities adequate notice of its plans. As drafted, the prohibition lasts for 12 months and the clause

  415
  provides for a utility to undertake emergency works and other works executed with the consent of the highway authority.
  There is a requirement on the highway authority not to withhold consent for such work unreasonably. The clause also provides for appropriate exemptions from the 12 months restriction on works to be prescribed in regulations. It is important to appreciate that the clause simply re-enacts and rephrases Section 156 of the Highways Act 1980, which includes the 12 months period.
  The local authority associations consider that that is within the spirit of the improved co-ordination and advanced planning which the Bill is intended to bring about to increase the length of the prohibition from one to two years. There will be general agreement that there is nothing more aggravating to the public and nothing which better exemplifies the lack of co-ordination and planning under the present system than the instance of a recently resurfaced road being dug up. Noble Lords would no doubt be able to recount experiences of their own.
  It is therefore important that the Bill clearly addresses the issue and that the highway authorities are given the necessary powers of co-ordination and direction to enable them to reduce such instances to an absolute minimum. The Bill will make both highway authorities and the utilities plan and programme their works further in advance than has previously been the case.
  The past few years have seen a dramatic improvement in medium and long-term planning by highway authorities of their structural maintenance work. Many authorities are now working to three-year rolling programmes for structural maintenance. That is fully in line with the local authority association's highway maintenance code of good practice, the adoption of which has been strongly commended to all local authorities by transport Ministers.
  It should be stressed that highway authorities share the utilities' concern that emergency works and service connections which genuinely could not have been planned before the road works were undertaken should not be caught by the prohibition on street works. The associations are satisfied that the duty on the highway authorities not to withhold their consent unreasonably for such works, together with the regulation-making powers, will enable the utilities' concerns to be met. The issue of what categories of work should be exempt from the ban is to be considered shortly by the HAUC notices working party.
  The authorities take the view that it is only right that the public should benefit from the better planning and programming of works which will result from the Bill. Provided that special cases such as emergency works and service connections are properly covered in regulations, the extension of the prohibition to two years should contribute to achieving that objective without undermining the ability of utilities to provide an efficient and effective service to their customers.
  I am certain that this is another case in which there could be agreement between the street authorities and the utility groups. I beg to move.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps I may say briefly that the utilities are against this amendment because they are having further discussions with the highway authority and hope to bring forward proposals that will be jointly acceptable to both. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to make a few brief comments on two points. I recognise that the utilities are opposed to this amendment as it stands. First, if one did go to two years, one would probably have to extend the notice period from three months to six months, which might be a quid pro quo. I welcome the fact that the utilities and the local authorities intend to get together again to thresh out this matter a little further. We should encourage that. Clearly it would not be our intention to press this amendment tonight.
  In my view, however, underlying this discussion is the need for Parliament to give comfort to the general public, who above all want to see the digging up of roads and pavements reduced to an absolute minimum and have available the longest possible time which is consistent with both the needs of the highway authority and the utilities, in order that the citizens can go about their daily round without having to negotiate road works. If together they can come to some amicable agreement on the longest possible time for that, it will be in everybody's interest.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is indeed a central purpose of these parts of the Bill to improve the planning and co-ordination of all kinds of street works. It will have failed in that purpose if roads which have been resurfaced or had substantial road works on them are dug up soon afterwards by the utilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there is little more irritating to the general public than finding that happen. In fact, I think that he spoke words that I myself used earlier in our discussion on the Bill, and I am delighted that he should choose to do so. In many cases there will be no good reason to dig up such a road for several years.
  Clause 52 simply provides a mechanism for the highway authority, by giving formal notice of its intended road works, to impose a general restriction on street works for the 12 months following the completion of its works. That is considered a reasonable period which allows undertakers contemplating works in the street either to bring forward their plans or put them back for at least a year. To allow a two-year restriction to be imposed by the highway authority would place a considerable burden on utilities' forward planning of works. It would increase the scope for disputes over which works were allowed to be executed during the period of the restriction with the consent of the highway authority.
  We do not therefore consider this amendment to be either desirable or necessary. It is intended nevertheless that the code of practice on co-ordination

  417
  of works will emphasise the importance of early exchange of information on planned works and agreement on the phasing of street works and works for road purposes. In practice the period between major works on a particular street should be as great as reasonably practicable.
  I hope that, if the utilities and the highway authorities can get together on this matter, we can go to two years or even longer. I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux that I would rather not see it on the face of the Bill at this stage.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, the problem is that on the face of the Bill it will show 12 months. I wonder whether the Minister, with the leave of the House, could deal with a possible compromise which has been suggested to me. At present the Bill requires authorities to give three months' notice of substantial road works in order to benefit from the one-year ban. A compromise, which I understand has been proposed by the highway authorities, is to amend the Bill to provide for a one-year ban where three months' notice is given and a two-year ban where six months' notice is given. It may be that reference to such a compromise could be dealt with at the next stage of the Bill. Unless there is a compromise of that kind at Third Reading the 12-month provision will be written into the Bill. That is one of the problems of not accepting my amendment.
  I should be grateful if the Minister is able to deal with the point that I raised. He may like to consider it further before he makes a decision.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly consider the point made by the noble Lord. However, it will not be up to me. If the noble Lord can persuade the utilities that that would be a suitable compromise, and if the highways authorities and utilities can agree to it, I should find no objection to putting it into the Bill. Whether it can be put in before Third Reading, I rather doubt. This Bill must go through another place. I cannot go further than that myself.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that contribution, which will be helpful. It may well be that we cannot do it before our Third Reading, but what the Minister has said may be very helpful when the Bill proceeds to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 66:
  Leave out Clause 52.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendment No. 66 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 69. These amendments substitute a clearer version of the present Clause 52 which provides for a 12-month restriction on works where substantial road works are carried out. The new provision is centred around a power for the street authority to publish a public notice where it is proposed to carry out substantial road works. It is this notice which, in effect, imposes the 12-month restriction on street works.
  The revised clause extends the power to impose restrictions to all street authorities so as to include street managers as well as highway authorities. It is still confined to highways which consist of or include a carriageway. It empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe the manner in which the notice shall be published and states that it must specify the nature and location of the proposed works and the extent of the restriction. Unlike the clause as drafted, this will enable the street authority to specify the part of the road to which the restriction applies; for example, there may be circumstances where a restriction would be limited to the carriageway following resurfacing of the road.
  The amendment also states that a copy of the notice should be sent to persons known to be likely to be particularly concerned in particular cases but provides that failure to do so shall not affect the validity of any restriction it imposes. I think that it is better than the original clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am pleased indeed that the Minister has introduced this amendment because it goes some way towards clarifying the original Clause 52, and certainly he succeeded in at least some measure in that regard. But may I ask him to clarify a couple of points which I hope he will be able to do tonight?
  In subsection (1) (b) there is the word "resurfacing". The local authority associations have assumed that this word is meant to include treatments such as surface dressing. Perhaps the Minister can let us have some indication as to whether he agrees with that.
  Secondly, although the definition of "substantial road works" is given in terms of carriageway works, the assumption has been made by the local authority associations that the restriction applies to work in the footway as well as in the carriageway. Again, therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the position in so far as that is concerned.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, similarly the joint utilities group has some questions about this matter. Again they welcome the change in the clause; and the question of footways has been raised by them as well. They also make the point that they do not see any good reason why failure by street authorities to supply undertakers or other authorities with a copy of the notice should not affect the validity of the restriction. Otherwise, they say, what is the point of requiring copies of the notice to be served. This is quite important for undertakers and it is right that every step should be taken to ensure that they receive a notice.
  While notices will have to be published in newspapers no doubt, it is not customary for statutes which require notices to be served to go on to say that it does not matter if they are not served. It would also be somewhat foolish if the restrictions precluded undertakers from lifting manhole covers, emptying gulleys or inspecting water meters. But on the face of it that is the effect of subsection (6), which refers to opening as well as breaking up. I shall be glad if we can have some reassurance on that point.

  419
  The undertakers claim that they must be able to respond to unforeseen applications from new customers for services in respect of which it is unreasonable to wait for 12 months. I know that the Minister is sympathetic towards that and I believe that the matter is to be discussed by the HAUC. I hope that the Government will be prepared to come forward at a later stage with appropriate amendments in order to give effect to any recommendations coming from that source.
  Section 156 of the Highways Act 1980, on which the clause is based, provides for arbitration if the highway authority's consent is unreasonably withheld. Is it the Government's intention to introduce a similar clause at a later stage, particularly in view of the offence provisions of the clause?
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps in response my noble friend will explain the prescribed manner of publishing the notices, because that may be of assistance to disabled people.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have asked questions about the new clause. I am able to answer some of them now but I must reflect on others and write to noble Lords. The word "resurfacing" has its normal meaning and will depend on the extent of the surface dressing. I am not a road engineer nor, I suspect, is the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but no doubt those who are will understand the meaning.
  The noble Lord also asked about the definition of the carriageway and how it will affect the pavement. As far as I am aware, the carriageway affects the whole road, including the pavement. If I am wrong I shall correct that statement. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the utilities' anxieties in respect of new customers. We have discussed that matter at considerable length and the new clause is no different from the clause it replaces. I hope that we now have a satisfactory understanding. Opening a manhole cover could be one of the cases to be prescribed under subsection (5) (b) to be exempt from restrictions. I hope that that will be of encouragement to the utilities.
  My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked how the notification will be published. Regulations for such notifications include a requirement to publish details of the proposed restriction in the London Gazette and local newspapers in order to alert anyone contemplating works in the street concerned. Therefore, the notifications might be of benefit to the disabled.
  I shall read Hansard to ensure that I have answered all the points raised by noble Lords. If I have not, I shall reply by letter. I hope that in the meantime the amendments can be accepted.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 67:
  After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
  Restriction on works following substantial road works
  (".—(1) Where it is proposed to carry out substantial road works in a highway which consists of or includes a
  420
  carriageway, the street authority may by notice in accordance with this section restrict the execution of street works during the twelve months following the completion of those works.
  For this purpose substantial road works means—

  (a) works for road purposes, or such works together with other works, resulting in—

  (i) the use by vehicles of the carriageway being prohibited, or

  (ii) the width of the carriageway available for vehicular traffic being reduced to less than two-thirds of its width, or

  (b) re-surfacing extending to one-third or more of the width of the carriageway.

  (2) The notice shall be published in the prescribed manner and shall specify the nature and location of the proposed works, the date (not being less than three months after the notice is published, or first published) on which it is proposed to begin the works, and the extent of the restriction.
  (3) A copy of the notice shall be given to each of the following—

  (a) where there is a public sewer in the part of the highway to which the restriction relates, to the sewer authority,

  (b) where the part of the highway to which the restriction relates is carried or crossed by a bridge vested in a transport authority, or crosses or is crossed by any other property held or used for the purposes of a transport authority, to that authority,

  (c) where in any other case the part of the highway to which the restriction relates is carried or crossed by a bridge, to the bridge authority, and

  (d) to any person having apparatus in the part of the highway to which the restriction relates;

  but a failure to do so does not affect the validity of the restriction imposed by the notice.
  (4) A notice ceases to be effective if the works to which it relates are not substantially begun—

  (a) on or within one month from the date specified in the notice, or

  (b) where street works are in progress on that date in the part of the highway to which the restriction relates, within one month from the completion of those works,

  or, in either case, within such further period as may be agreed between the street authority and the person to whom the notice is given.
  (5) An undertaker shall not in contravention of a restriction imposed by a notice under this section break up or open the part of the highway to which the restriction relates, except—

  (a) to execute emergency works,

  (b) with the consent of the street authority (which shall not be unreasonably withheld), or

  (c) in such other cases as may be prescribed.

  (6) If he does—

  (a) he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and

  (b) he is liable to reimburse the street authority any costs reasonably incurred by them in reinstating the highway.

  (7) An undertaker shall be taken not to have failed to fulfil any statutory duty to afford a supply or service if, or to the extent that, his failure is attributable to a restriction imposed by a notice under this section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 109 [Restriction on works following substantial works carried out for roads purposes]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 68:
  Leave out Clause 109.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69:
  After Clause 109, insert the following new clause:
  Restriction on works following substantial works carried out for road purposes
  (".—(1) Where it is proposed to carry out substantial works in a road which consists of or includes a carriageway, the road works authority may by notice in accordance with this section restrict the execution of road works during the twelve months following the completion of those works.
  For this purpose substantial works means—

  (a) works for road purposes, or such works together with other works, resulting in—

  (i) the use by vehicles of the carriageway being prohibited, or

  (ii) the width of the carriageway available for vehicular traffic being reduced to less than two-thirds of its width, or

  (b) re-surfacing extending to one-third or more of the width of the carriageway.

  (2) The notice shall be published in the prescribed manner and shall specify the nature and location of the proposed works, the date (not being less than three months after the notice is published, or first published) on which it is proposed to begin the works, and the extent of the restriction.
  (3) A copy of the notice shall be given to each of the following—

  (a) where there is a sewer vested in a local authority in the part of the road to which the restriction relates, to that authority;

  (b) where the part of the road to which the restriction relates is carried or crossed by a bridge vested in a transport authority, or crosses or is crossed by any other property held or used for the purposes of a transport authority, to that authority,

  (c) where in any other case the part of the road to which the restriction relates is carried or crossed by a bridge, to the bridge authority, and

  (d) to any person having apparatus in the part of the road to which the restriction relates;

  but a failure to do so does not affect the validity of the restriction imposed by the notice.
  (4) A notice ceases to be effective if the works to which it relates are not substantially begun—

  (a) on or within one month from the date specified in the notice, or

  (b) where road works are in progress in the part of the road to which the restriction relates on that date, within one month from the completion of those works,

  or, in either case, within such further period as may be agreed between the road works authority and the person to whom the notice is given.
  (5) An undertaker shall not in contravention of a restriction imposed by a notice under this section break up or open the part of the road to which the restriction relates, except—

  (a) to execute emergency works,

  (b) with the consent of the road works authority (which shall not be unreasonably withheld), or

  (c) in such other cases as may be prescribed.

  (6) If he does—

  (a) he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and

  (b) he is liable to reimburse the road works authority any costs reasonably incurred by them in reinstating the road.

  (7) An undertaker shall be taken not to have failed to fulfil any statutory duty to afford a supply or service if, or to the extent that, his failure is attributable to a restriction imposed by a notice under this section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 53 [General duty of street authority to co-ordinate works]:
  [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 71:
  Page 29, line 43, at end insert:
  ("(d) to have regard to the obligations of undertakers under any enactment with respect to their service to their customers").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. The purpose of Amendment No. 71 is to ensure that in discharging its co-ordinating functions the street authority gives due weight to the importance of undertakers being able to satisfy their statutory service obligations, including in the case of gas, water and electricity companies the stringent standards laid down in their appointments.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 is to make it clear that the provisions of the code of practice will apply equally to Clauses 48 to 53 inclusive and not to Clause 53 alone as the present wording implies. Both amendments are designed to extract a clear statement of the intentions underlying Clause 53. The amendments would help the utilities. I should, therefore, like to consider the Government's response before deciding on further action. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, undertakers have various service obligations under enactments which need to be taken into account in the planning of street works. It is not, however, considered appropriate to place a statutory requirement on the street authority to have regard to such obligations when exercising its duty to co-ordinate works in its streets. The code of practice under Clause 53 may contain general guidance on undertaker service obligations, but that is not to be an overriding factor in deciding how best to co-ordinate works.
  The last two of my noble friend's amendments would require the code of practice issued for the purpose of Clause 53 also to give general guidance on matters covered in Clauses 48 to 52. However, whereas the very general duty to co-ordinate works in Clause 53 requires a code of practice to give it content, the provisions in the preceding clauses include rules as to the giving of notices and directions which have appropriate legal consequences. It would unnecessarily complicate those legal duties to supplement the provisions with codes of practice approved under the Bill.
  For those reasons we do not consider the amendments to be necessary. The code of practice to be issued under Clause 53 is, nevertheless, a very important feature of this part of the Bill. I hope that discussions with highway authorities and utilities about its content will meet the concerns behind the amendments and that that reply will satisfy my noble friend.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 72 to 79 not moved.]
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 80:
  After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:

  General duty of undertakers to co-operate
  (".—(1) An undertaker shall as regards the execution of street works use his best endeavours to co-operate with the street authority and with other undertakers—

  (a) in the interests of safety,

  (b) to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street (having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability), and

  (c) to protect the structure of the street and the integrity of apparatus in it.

  (2) The Secretary of State may issue or approve for the purposes of this section codes of practice giving practical guidance as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1); and—

  (a) so far as an undertaker complies with such a code of practice he shall be taken to comply with his duty under that subsection, and

  (b) a failure in any respect to comply with any such code is evidence of failure in that respect to comply with that duty.

  (3) An undertaker who fails to comply with his duty under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Lord Armstrong of Ilminster moved Amendment No. 81:
  After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:

  Duty of undertakers to facilitate the tracing of nonmetallic pipes, etc
  .—(1) The provisions of this section apply to the laying underground of any cable, tube, pipe or other apparatus for the conveyance of—

  (a) hydrocarbons or other liquid or gaseous substances, or

  (b) telecommunications signals,

  which has, no continuous metallic content in its composition ("a non-metallic conveyor").
  (2) Where an undertaker carries out or causes to be carried out any of the works mentioned in subsection (1) above, he shall ensure that either—

  (a) a metallic wire or strip is laid directly along or underneath the whole length of the non-metallic conveyor; or

  (b) that a metallic alloy or other substance with a metallic content is incorporated in the non-metallic conveyor.

  so as to enable the course of the non-metallic conveyor to be located and traced from the surface by means of a conventional alternating magnetic field locator of a type used for locating and tracing metallic cables, pipes and tubes underground.
  (3) After installation the undertaker shall ensure that the conductor wire or strip, or the metallic component of the non-metallic conveyor, is at all times maintained in a condition in which location and tracing as described in subsection (2) above can effectively be carried out.
  (4) An undertaker who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard sale.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the new clause which stands in my name is simple and, as it seems to me, beneficial.
  Almost anyone who is digging in or near a street or highway needs to be able to detect and avoid buried cables and pipes. Damage to a buried cable or pipe in the course of digging can have one or more of several undesirable consequences. It can be dangerous to the people digging and to road users. It can cause serious and often prolonged traffic disruption: your Lordships will have heard radio warnings of traffic diversions, delays and hazards on account of burst gas or water mains. It can cause inconvenience, as I know to my cost, and even danger to users of the service in question if they suffer unexpected interruptions of supply. It can cause unnecessary extra expense for the utilities, and therefore for the consumers, to repair the damage.
  Therefore, if you are proposing for whatever purpose to dig a hole in the road it is necessary to obtain the best possible information about the cables and pipes that are or may be under the ground where you propose to dig. In many cases the utilities which laid the cables or pipes have maps or other documentary records of where they are buried. Even where such records exist and are readily available they are not always sufficiently accurate for the purpose: it can be a little like relying on old Silvestra's map for finding the way to King Solomon's Mines. The records are not always available to those who need to dig; particularly if the dig is an emergency one. Therefore, a great many of the people who have to deal with this problem—utilities, contractors and so on—make use of and are very familiar with electro-magnetic locators which enable them to locate and trace from above ground the course of cables and pipes buried underground.
  This technique is not, I gather, perfect or without possibility of failure. The locators have some shortcomings, particularly where there is a closely knit complex of pipe or cables underground, and to use them to best advantage requires a certain skill or aptitude. Nonetheless, the technique demonstrably offers substantial advantages for utilities and contractors that need to dig holes in the road. Many thousands of such locators are in use in this country and a wide cross-section of people have become sufficiently expert in using them.
  However, this technique and these locators depend on the cables or pipes to be located being made of metal. They cannot detect non-metallic pipes. Utilities and contractors are increasingly using non-metallic pipes and cables: plastic pipes to carry gases or liquids, sometimes under considerable pressure; optical fibres carrying often very large volumes of telecommunication traffic which will be disrupted if the cable is broken or damaged. I am told that one optical fibre telecommunications cable was accidentally damaged in northern New York, and as a result phones and faxes in much of Manhattan and New York City were out for the best part of a day. So there is increasing need for a technique to enable those who have to dig holes in roads to locate and trace non-metallic cables and pipes underground.
  I am advised that various possible techniques for doing this are being investigated, such as ground-probing radar, infra-red imaging and seismic reflection. A radar technique is available on the market, but it is extremely expensive and uncertain in use; and neither of the others is commercially available today; or likely to be so available in the foreseeable future.
  If it is not possible to devise a satisfactory new technique for detecting non-metallic pipes and cables underground, then the alternative course is to find a way of making such cables and pipes locateable by means of the existing technique and type of equipment. That means attaching or adding to the cable or pipe something to make it locateable with existing electro-magnetic locators. This can be done by adding a well insulated single core tracer wire or strip to the pipe, or burying it below the cable or pipe, in the trench when it is laid. This technique, for which subsection (2)(a) of my new clause provides, is not new or experimental. It is already widely used in many other developed countries and is in some countries mandatory. My new clause would make it mandatory here. It offers a simple, low cost and reasonably effective solution to the problem.
  I am advised that research is going on into an alternative technology to achieve the same result: that of incorporating in the material of which the non-metallic cable or pipe is made an amorphous metallic alloy which would make the material concerned conductive. I am not aware that much progress is being made in developing this technology. I would hazard a guess that there is no guarantee that it could be any more effective than the presently available technique; and it could well prove to be considerably more expensive. But I do not wish to exclude the possibility that this technique may turn out to be just what the doctor ordered; so subsection (2)(b) of my new clause allows for it by providing for a metallic alloy or other substance incorporated in the non-metallic conveyor as an alternative to a metallic wire or strip.
  I do not claim perfection for the techniques which my new clause describes. But the technique of electro-magnetic location is a proven technique, and this new clause, by requiring contractors and utilities when laying non-metallic pipes and cables to do what is necessary to make it possible to use such a technique, would in effect put non-metallic cables and pipes on an equal footing with metallic ones as regards location and tracing. I believe that to do this offers prospects of clear benefits to health, safety, continuity of supply and economy of costs. I believe that it is reasonable to ask the contractors and utilities which lay such pipes and cables to incur the relatively small additional capital cost that would be involved for the sake of ensuring that these benefits are available on a lasting and consistent basis. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I understood absolutely every word of that, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on sitting through the
  426
  prior debates in order to provide us with this extremely interesting proposition. I am sure that he will not wish to deprive himself of the pleasure of listening to the subsequent debates once we have dealt with this matter. I can assure him it is all going to be tremendously fascinating.
  Having listened to all that the noble Lord has said, I suppose that he has made out a case worthy of answer, but my understanding is that there is some support on the part of the highway authorities because they feel that it would greatly assist the location and identification of underground apparatus; but clearly there are different views.
  As has been said repeatedly during the course of this debate, a very fine balance has been established, and one must not interfere with that. All that I wish to do is to express on behalf of the highway authorities their interest in the proposition. They are by no means totally committed to it at this stage, and they would wish to look at the position afresh in the light of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and the debate that follows, particularly having regard to the comments that were made by the Minister.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is worthy of serious consideration. As he said, it can be extremely dangerous not to know where pipes go. In his speech he may have answered one of my queries, which is whether the word "telecommunications" includes optic fibres through which messages are now passed by means of light. I do not know the answer to that. Perhaps the Minister can help us.
  In subsection (2) of the amendment we read:
  "traced from the surface by means of a conventional alternating magnetic field locator".
  The amendment does not appear to make any provision for advances in science so that we can locate pipes by new methods that are developed. One should allow for that in view of the rate at which science is moving today. My knowledge of science at school was appalling; but in order for something to register magnetically does it not have to have some ferrous material in it? The noble Lord's amendment just says "metallic content". I think one needs to be a little more specific than that because if it were to have a lead content I do not think a magnetic device would register. It might be possible to do it with copper by passing a current through it, but if it were a pipe with an explosive gas going through it that would be highly dangerous. I wonder whether this matter needs a little further thought.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, has raised an important point here and has defined the problem. I am not sure that he has defined the answer. There are difficulties in putting metal traces along polyethylene piping because there is a danger of discontinuity at the joint between two pipes; there is danger of damage to the pipes, causing discontinuity and disturbing the ability to trace any circuit through the metal foil, for example. Furthermore, there is a danger of a thin strip of the sort that he describes being very much disguised by other metal objects under the ground, whether they

  427
  be there by accident or by design. So although the noble Lord has probably put his finger on an important problem there may be other ways of killing the cat than choking it with strips of metal.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on this subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, for calling attention to the important subject of avoidance of damage to buried apparatus and the safe location of non-metallic apparatus, which is being used increasingly by the utilities. We believe that the proposed new duties on undertakers in Clauses 72 and 73 to record in a prescribed form all items of apparatus placed or found during works will result in a great improvement in the availability and reliability of records of the location of apparatus.
  However, it would be premature and inappropriate to impose a general statutory requirement on undertakers to include metal traces in their buried apparatus. I am advised that there are considerable technical difficulties with devising a reliable metal tracer system. Noble Lords have pointed to one or two of those. However, the utilities are exploring the use of a number of alternative techniques, including ground -probing radar and amorphous magnetic alloys, which could be included in pipe or cable walls. The noble Lord referred to those. Once this technical debate has been resolved the Government will consider imposing appropriate requirements on undertakers, but it is not necessary to provide for that in the p resent Bill. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw this amendment.
  Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, perhaps I may deal briefly with the points raised during this very interesting debate. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, I thought that optical fibre was covered by the reference to telecommunications signals. If that were not so I would wish to find some other definition. The purpose of the clause is modest. It is not to look ahead to scientific developments which I for one am unable to foresee but to provide for the present situation and leave to our successors how to provide for future situations.
  The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that "metallic" was not a tight enough description and that the clause should have referred to "ferrous" or some such expression. The qualification in subsection (2),
  "so as to enable the course of the non-metallic conveyor to be located and traced from the surface by means of a conventional alternating magnetic field locator",
  covers that point.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the danger of discontinuity. I understand that weakness. My representation would be that there can occasionally be problems of this kind but that does not detract from the general merit of having some provision of this sort. Although there may be a few cases where that happens, there will be many where it does not and where the provision of such a metallic strip would be beneficial.
  I have referred to the technical difficulties. I am not wholly convinced by the points which have been made on this matter. Research is being done into the
  428
  possibility of using amorphous metallic alloys in the composition of the walls of such pipes, but my understanding is that the research into this is still at a fairly early stage. It will be some way off before one can see whether this research will provide a solution to the problem. My new clause was intended to provide for the present situation rather than to peer forward into a murky future where all these marvellous technological developments will occur.
  I shall be grateful if the Government will look at this matter again in consultation with the highway authorities and utilities because I believe that this is a problem which should be addressed. Subject to those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 82:
  After Clause 110, insert the following new clause:
  General duty of undertakers to co-operate
  (".—(1) An undertaker shall as regards the execution of road works use his best endeavours to co-operate with the road works authority and with other undertakers

  (a) in the interests of safety,

  (b) to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the road (having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability), and

  (c) to protect the structure of the road and the integrity of apparatus in it.

  (2) The Secretary of State may issue or approve for the purposes of this section codes of practice giving practical guidance as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1); and—

  (a) so far as an undertaker complies with such a code of practice he shall be taken to comply with his duty under that subsection, and

  (b) a failure in any respect to comply with any such code is evidence of failure in that respect to comply with that duty.

  (3) An undertaker who fails to comply with his duty under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 47.I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Protected streets]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83:
  Page 30, line 28, leave out ("or part of a street").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90. These are drafting amendments which will remove an unnecessary reference to "part of a street". Clause 42 of the Bill already makes clear that reference to a street includes any part of it. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 84:
  Page 30, line 30, at end insert ("and works required for or incidental to such renewal, including, in particular, breaking up or opening the street or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or tunnelling or boring under the street").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. The purpose of Amendment No. 84 is to make it clear that prohibition, without the street authority's

  429
  consent, of street works in a protected street (which under subsection (1) will not apply to renewal of existing apparatus) does not apply to incidental works associated with the works of renewal. The utilities consider this to be necessary in view of the reference to incidental works in Clause 42(3). Their omission in Clause 54 may imply that the utility is not empowered to do them, which would be nonsense.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 88. It is understood that the object of the tailpiece to subsection (2) is to recognise that in certain cases a street authority may be in a position to require wayleave payments for apparatus laid in land alongside highways; for example, in grass verges or banks associated with motorways. However, as drafted, the subsection, by referring to,
  "the right of the authority",
  may be taken as implying that in every case where a highway authority has bought land to build a road on it, or for road widening or improvement purposes, it may charge a utility for placing apparatus in it. That is not the position in law, where the general rule is that the right of utilities to lay their apparatus in a street, and repair, maintain and replace it, is not subject to any right of the owner of the soil to require payment, whether that owner is the highway authority or anyone else. The amendment will clarify the position without in any way derogating from any legitimate rights that may exist.
  I now turn to Amendment No. 89. This subsection already covers the case of apparatus crossing a protected street, where there must be special reasons for not allowing the utility to proceed. The amendment is intended to cater for the case where, with the best will in the world, the utility is unable to find a practicable alternative route, other than a protected street or part of it, for his apparatus. In such a case, the balance of interests between the street authority and the utility may be more than usually fine. This, therefore, is another case where, in the absence of special reasons, the consent of the street authority should be given.
  These are important amendments. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's comments. I beg to move.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to refer briefly to two of the amendments. It would appear that Amendment No. 84 is designed to expand on the reference in subsection (1) to the renewal of existing apparatus. I await the Minister's reply to the amendment. I shall examine it carefully with a view to seeing what may be done at a later stage.
  I am not entirely happy about Amendment No. 89. It would significantly limit the value of protected streets by requiring highway authorities not to withhold their consent for placing apparatus in a protected street where there is no reasonably practicable alternative location for the apparatus. The whole concept of protected streets is designed to ensure that roads such as motorways are not obstructed as a result of utilities requiring access to any apparatus placed under them. The number of
  430
  protected streets is, and will remain, extremely limited, but it is essential that where they exist the general principle is that no utility apparatus should be located beneath them.
  As drafted, subsection (3) provides for utilities to place apparatus across a protected street. That is acceptable because it would affect only a relatively short stretch of street and is almost certain to be essential in terms of securing utility supplies to a particular area of town.
  Amendment No. 89 would significantly weaken the protection given by the Act to protected streets. I am certain that the highway authorities will be prepared to look at each case on its merits. However, a general decision on the lines set out in Amendment No. 89 is one to which we would not be happy to give support.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these amendments would loosen the present controls on the execution of street works and protected streets. Clause 54 as drafted replaces a similar provision in Section 20 of the Highways Act 1980. Together with Clause 55, it establishes categories of streets which are to be subject to special controls and it sets out the procedure for giving consent to the placing of apparatus in streets designated as protected.
  My noble friend's first amendment seeks to widen the circumstances in which consent of the street authority is not required for works carried out in a protected street. It would include works incidental to the renewal of existing apparatus. However, this amendment is unnecessary since the requirement to obtain consent applies only to placing apparatus and there is no requirement to seek consent for other works which fall within the definition of street works under this part of the Bill.
  The second amendment would replace the provision enabling the street authority to charge a wayleave for the placing of apparatus where it also owns the land in question. The provision as drafted is similar to that contained in Section 181 of the Highways Act 1980 and does not confer any additional right on the street authority. Therefore, the amendment adds nothing to the present position.
  Amendment No. 89 would in effect require the street authority to consent to the placing of apparatus in a protected street where there was no reasonably practical alternative location for the apparatus. However, that would widen unnecessarily the restrictions on the placing of apparatus in such streets. The question of the availability of an alternative route for apparatus should properly be addressed at the time of designation and the criteria for designation to be prescribed under Clause 55 will allow for that. Once the street has been designated as protected, it will be important to restrict activity on it to the minimum necessary. In the light of those explanations, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having clarified the

  431
  position. I shall read very carefully what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 87:
  Page 30 line 34, leave out ("sum") and insert ("fee"). Page 30, line 37, leave out ("charge") and insert ("fee").
  Page 30, line 39, leave out ("sum") and insert (fee").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
  Clause 111 [Protected roads]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 93:
  Page 62, line 17, leave out ("or part of a road").
  Page 62, line 23, leave out ("sum") and insert ("fee").
  Page 62, line 26, leave out ("charge") and insert ("fee").
  Page 62, line 28, leave out ("sum") and insert (fee").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 55 [Supplementary provisions as to the designation of protected streets]:
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 94:
  Page 31, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert:
  ("(1) A street authority may designate as a protected street any trunk road or principal road as to which they are satisfied that volumes of traffic flows are such throughout the day that severe disruption of traffic due to street works cannot be avoided by the imposition of restrictions under section 50 (power to give directions as to timing of street works)
  (1A) The Secretary of State may prescribe—
  (a) the procedure for making or withdrawing a designation of a street as protected, and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 95. The criteria agreed with the utilities and the highway authorities and described in the draft code of practice are quite specific. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect those agreed criteria on the face of the Bill.
  The second amendment would make the street authorities liable to compensation for any of the undertakers' contractual costs incurred as well as diversionary costs. It is possible that an undertaker may already have entered into a contractual agreement to carry out installation of all maintenance works or his own prior to the designation being made known and any costs for cancelling the contract being incurred. These are probing amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 94. The effect of the amendment would be to define on the face of the Bill the criteria for designating a protected street. The definition set out in the amendment is a trunk or principal road on which the,
  "volumes of traffic flows are such throughout the day that severe disruption of traffic due to street works cannot be avoided by the imposition of restrictions under section 50 (power to give directions as to timing of street works)".
  One key factor in deciding whether or not to designate a street as protected is undoubtedly the volume of
  432
  traffic. However, the agreed definition of protected streets as set out in the HAUC Notice Periods Working Party's consultation document is streets which,
  "serve a specific, major traffic need".
  The consultation paper continues to state that,
  "Only streets serving a specific, strategic major traffic need may be so designated.
  It is the strategic nature of the traffic as much as the volumes of traffic which warrant protected status.
  Clause 55(1) (a) provides for the criteria for designation to be set out in regulations. Given that the criteria are not straightforward and may need to be amended over time, the local authority associations recommend that regulations rather than the Bill provide the best vehicle for such criteria to be set out.
  Having passed on those remarks I shall be interested to hear the Government's comments.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble friend described, these amendments seek to limit the terms on which a street authority will be empowered to designate a street as protected.
  The Government made clear in response to the Home Report that various safeguards for undertakers would need to be built into the procedures for designating protected streets but that the power should not be confined to trunk and principal roads. The amendment would confine the power still further by imposing a test as to whether traffic disruption due to street works could not be avoided by other means. That would be an unwelcome limitation.
  The Horne Report gave as an example of a road which might be protected, a newly built inner relief road in an urban area which did not provide sole access to any properties. Such a road could well be neither a trunk nor a principal road; nor will traffic disruption be the only determining factor in deciding which street should be designated as protected. Those criteria will clearly be prescribed in the regulations to be made under Clause 55. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
  The last amendment would extend the liability of the street authority to indemnify undertakers for the costs of moving apparatus as a result of designation of a street as protected to cover any apparatus proposed to be placed at a time when the street was not so designated. That would open up a wide area of dispute as to how advanced a plan to place apparatus had been, and what costs could be attributed to changing the plan so as to locate apparatus elsewhere.
  In contrast, it is relatively simple to attribute the costs of moving or changing the position of apparatus which has actually been placed. We propose to deal with the question of giving undertakers adequate notice of proposed designation in the procedure to be prescribed under the clause. An extended indemnity provision for abortive costs as proposed would not be practical and is not considered necessary.
  With that explanation, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
  Clause 56 [Streets with special engineering difficulties]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 32, line 17, at end insert:
  ("(5) A street authority shall have no liability in relation to a structure for which they are not responsible where such structure causes the street to meet the criteria for designation as a street with special engineering difficulties and the structure has not been drawn to their attention.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 96 is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It deals with special engineering difficulties. Perhaps I can briefly cover its effect. It is designed to make clear that a street authority could not be held liable in circumstances where a street had not been designated as being of special engineering difficulty if the authority had no knowledge of the structure which caused the street to meet the criteria for designation.
  At Committee stage we debated an amendment intended to highlight the problems arising where a structure which could warrant a street being designated under Clause 56 was owned by someone other than the street authority or a transport undertaking. The example given was a private cellar. In response to the amendment the Minister acknowledged that there could be cases where privately owned structures could warrant designation. At col. 318 of Hansard on 6th December—which is my birthday, noble Lords will kindly note for future reference—he said:
  "A responsible highway authority would of course investigate any engineering features of this kind that were brought to its attention from whatever source. It is appropriate, however, that the final decision on whether to designate the street … should in these cases rest with the highway authority".
  Then he was asked whether the issue was to be discussed by the appropriate HAUC working party. The Minister confirmed that this would be the case. My understanding is that discussions will certainly take place on the subject in the HAUC.
  Nevertheless, two matters arise from the debate at the Committee stage which prompt further parliamentary discussion. First, an interpretation has been placed on the Minister's approach at Committee stage by the local authority associations that highway authorities will adopt a proactive role in going out and identifying structures of this kind. Given the current level of resources, that is extremely improbable.
  The second matter which has given rise to some discussion is that the associations accept that, once a feature has been identified, it is the highway authority's responsibility to assess whether it warrants the street concerned being designated as of special engineering difficulty. However, in his reply at Committee stage the Minister did not address the problems which could arise where the structure concerned had not been drawn to the authority's
  434
  attention. As a result, no thought was given to designation, which has given rise to anxiety on the part of the associations.
  The amendment which I introduced will have the effect of absolving the street authority from responsibility. The Minister may say that that is a somewhat negative approach. I hope that it is not intended in that spirit; it is meant to probe the Minister's thinking about these matters, particularly in the light of the situation which emerged at Committee stage which has given rise to further discussion on the part of the authorities. They hope that the Minister may be able to shed further light on the position in the course of this debate. I beg to move.

  VICTIMS OF CRIME, NORTHERN IRELAND: CHARTER
  VICTIMS OF CRIME, NORTHERN IRELAND: CHARTER
  HILL LIVESTOCK COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES
  HILL LIVESTOCK COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES
  MINISTERS: ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  MINISTERS: ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  RECYCLING GRANTS
  RECYCLING GRANTS
  LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM: JUDGMENT
  LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM: JUDGMENT